Hi. I often hear or read fans saying that Sludge's alternate mode doesnt exist...

I know that his design was based on a term in paleonthology that is obsolete now, but that doesnt mean the dinosaur he disguises as didnt exist.

Sludge in G1 was supposed to be a Brontosaurus, right? Well, the term is obsolete now as i said, but the dinosaur got a new name, and it is the Apatosaurus. And although Sludge's alt mode is not completely accurate to the dinosaur, as he resembles more those dinosaurs in The Flinstones xD, well, he certainly resembles what he supposedly is.

So I guess fans are just a bit confused. Its simply that the dinosaur is no longer called Brontosaurus, but it is still part of the known species, with other name. Its not that it was discovered the Brontosaurus didnt exist as an species, it just needed some updating in terminology, anatomy and the like. Its like what happened to that tiny dinosaur previously known as Hesperosuchas. It got a name change or sumthin because its like it never existed now...

Maybe in future appearances of the character, the designers should investigate a bit to update his alt mode, although the resulting changes surely wouldnt be really drastic.

Just a thought.

 

I don't think Hasbro really cares about Sludge mainly cause his form, brontosaurus or apatosaurus, isn't as popular as a T-Rex, Triceratops or Pteradon.

 

The funny thing is, Grimlock is supposed to be a T-Rex, but his alt-mode is not accurate to one. So even if Sludge's alt mode may not be 'real', neither is Grimlocks..so should we really care?

You are right that we can just assume it is 'a' dinosaur that existed, but we don't know the name (names we humans make up, anyway), and that it will be a bit different from the real deal, like Grimlock.

Besides, it was obvious from the start, since Sludge's alt mode has carnivorous teeth, but his dinosaur is a herbivore.

 

Yes you are right, he was supposed to be a herbivorous dinosaur...but he had fangs xD...

Also, Animated Grimlock does look like a Tyrannosaurus Rex...he got the update Sludge is needing i guess...G1 Grimlock kinda looked like one, but he looked more like Godzilla xD...but he is very cute.

 

Yeah..Animated Grimlock has a funny overbite but he is definitely more like a T-Rex..the G1 one has a more cute, long head and 3 fingered claws..it's like the T-Rex's cute cousin!

 

people can just rename the Brontosaurus?... ok well that seems a little odd.

 

I never realized that.

 

It was done by paleonthologists, not by common people...They have the authority to do it if there are any scientific backup or need to do it. After all, theyre the ones who come up with the names

 

I assumed it was on a "you find it you name it" basis?

 

main difference with brontosaurus and apatosaurus was the head, right? they had the wrong head on the thing, and when they figured it out, they changed it?

sludge has a pretty un-defined and generic dino head though. so he can be an apatosaurus too.

as for grimlock, thats what people thought T-rexes looked like back when he was designed.

his classics version though, i dont know what the hell that thing is supposed to be. head looks like a dog.

 

Remember, these are the same scientists (*ahem* not just "common people") who "discovered" Pluto isn't really a planet. What really happened was they changed the definition of the world planet, then, rather belatedly, realized not all the planets fit their new definition. Instead of admiting the stupidity of their action and changing it back, they forced us all to buy new science text books.

Same applies here, instead of just saying, "hey, made a mistake here, this is what it looked like" they blamed past scientists for getting things wrong and "corrected" them...and made everyone buy another new science text book. Jerks.  

 

Yeah, scientific needs to change something translates to "Hell...what were we thinking?"...and then change all when they notice it was all wrong.

Happens all the time...xD

 

Brontosaurus never existed. And it wasn't simple because it was already named when it was discovered. "Brontosaurus" was an Apatosaurus specimen that somehow had a Camarasaurus skull. Wasn't a naming error, it was an example of getting a few bones mixed up.

 

No.

The deal is, the skull of the original, nearly complete, full-body reconstruction was from an entirely different species. This was in Yale's Peabody Museum of Natural History in 1905.

What was sitting in a museum for decades was the body of an apatosaurus with a composite skull built of samples from no less than three different fossil beds, mostly from camarasaurus skulls.

So the thing called "Brontosaurus" never actually existed. It would be like taking a tiger skull and sticking it on a lion skeleton. The animal you have "reconstructed" is not any animal that ever actually existed.

There are procedures to have errors such as that officially corrected.

Kryptofred, apatosaurus had already been described by the time the erroneous brontosaurus skeleton was assembled, so it would have been impossible to make the change you suggest. Like my liotiger example. If lions and tigers had already been described you'd have to just say "Whoops! Never existed. Tiger body, lion head." you literally could not "correct" that mistake because then you're renaming an existing animal.

So you are way wrong, I'm afraid.  

- Coeloptera

 

As you may have noted from the location below my avatar, I live one town north of New Haven CT, home of Yale University and the Peabody Museum. I've been there dozens of times and am farmiliar with the story.

You're 100% correct.

However, my point was more about how modern science and scientists are more apt to revent ideas rather than simply correct information. Perhaps this is a necessary "evil" in some cases, but in this case it was a matter of one misplaced bone. The fallout it caused was waaay over the top.

In truth I'm much more aggravated by the whole planet debacel. That's kinda like redefining "ice cream" to not include soft serve, then insisting Dairy Queen change all there advertising based on the new definition. The whole thing is absurd.

BTW, according to Napoleon Dynamite, the animal you refered to is a Liger. "It's pretty much my favorite animal"  

 

And for god sakes (as being one myself) its Paleontology.
And to be honest if you want to make an overly big deal about something so ****** as a childs show 25 years ago, get laid, I mean people complain that there are to many plot holes and things wrong with G1.

This is actually to this day still a debate, This is not a dead issue. Some people in my field argue about the true identity of the Bronto classes. And before people try to point me out for being wrong. Get the hell off wikipedia and do real "research" lol. But in all fairness and in all Reality Who gives a shit.

 

Ligers actually exist. Just search it on google.

First time i saw it was in a magazine years ago. Ligers are bred between a lion and a tiger, and are HUGE, truly huge.

Only thing they need, is a semi-nude pagan barbarian sitting on top of them, xD (can u say He-Man)xD


Theyre that huge...

 

Exactly. The the Sauropods are pretty much the "plain vanilla" dinosaur. Generic, iconic, but not really exciting.

     

Hey, cool... a friend of mine just moved to New Haven for Yale. Look out for a crazy hairy little Indian guy with a maniacal laugh!  

I suspect a big part of the fallout didn't come from the paleontologists, but rather from the media and public whose reaction was "ZOMG!!! NO CAN HAS BRONTOSAURUS????"

Yes they ARE.... Ligers are awesome. AND HUGE. They're a fascinating crossbreed that doesn't occur without human intervention, so they're not exactly wild and fierce monsters... more like sideshow animals. If I'm not mistaken, they're sterile, so they don't constitute a "species". But they DO exist!

Specifically, they are offspring of a male lion and a female tiger. Believe it or not, a female lion and a male tiger gives you a "Tigon" instead, which is very different animal, and much smaller than normal for either species. Strange stuff!

zmog

 

Well, they had to make a sauropod, and they did.
They couldn't make a Diplodocus:

it's all ass and neck.
so why the ruffling of dino-feathers over it?

I think there is still egg on the faces of many a museum and 'tologist about the "godzilla" t-rex exhibits. but they don't linger on it.

the scientific community admitted it was an error, fixed it and actually we should thank them for making something 10x cooler by just pivoting its hips.

And Optimusfiretruck
I have tonnes of respect for Paleontology. it takes an awful lot of time, effort and just plain being subjected to bad climates to search for these things.
i spent time with an Anthropology/Archaeology group from the University of Alabama and know it's not easy.
We actually were digging through a pre-Civil War rubbish heap located behind what was once a plantation home.
knowing grain from chaff was mind boggling to me. i still don't know how they do it.

and trying to find fossil records? don't know how it's done, either. but i respect it out of just awe and wonder, i suppose.