h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A678954
An entry dealing with a sauropod hatchery in Patagonia, believe it or not. It's also quite a short one, for me.
Frogbit.

Dinosaur eggs! Foive pands a paaand! Get your luverly dinosaur eggs!

Hi, Frogbit!
I like this one - my knowledge of fossils has definitely improved since you started contributing entries! I think this is very well-balanced and well-written.

One small point - I think you should mention the actual government. It is Argentina, isn't it? (As an aside, if things keep getting worse there the outlook for preservation may not be so good.)

A few typos:
First sentence, 'respectfully' should be 'respectively'.
In the second paragraph, the phrase 'not the biggest members of the species' is confusing - I'm not sure if you're talking about actual species here. And shouldn't apatosaurus and diplodocus have capitals?

As usual, they are only minor points and I think the entry overall is very interesting.

Azara

Hi Azara .
Glad you liked it. All of your points are, as usual, valid and correct, but this researcher needs to go to bed. I'll do them in the morning. Thanks for pointing them out and raising the interesting question of politics and fossils.
The outlook for preservation is not, as you pointed out, so good. Fossils are big money. Given the fluctuations in power in Argentina, I wouldn't be surprised to see a rash of egg thieving occuring shortly. But here's the point - who can blame them? People are starving out there, and they can't eat rocks.
A lot of scientific work has been done on the site, and there is a lot more to do.
But I must say, if I was an Argentinian faced with the choice of putting food on the table for my children, or letting them starve because someone wants to know how some extinct beastie looked after *its* young, I know what I'd do.

Frogbit

I read the article - it reads well to me...
What are you planning to change/improve?

<BB<

Excellent entry. I have nothing more to say about the entry.

HELL

(I don't think that hunger or poverty leads a guy to rob fossils, at least not in Argentina. This kind of robbery is more probably connected to someone wanting to make a fast buck.)

BB - The corrections must have been made before you got here - thanks for reading.
HELL - Thanks as well. True, the fast buck is the most likely scenario.
Corrections still need doing - off to do them now...

Right, so you don't have to read it again,

Apatasaur and Diplodocus fixed, RESPECTIVELY. (Thanks for that Azara, I stared at the sentence for a long time, completely unable to spot what was wrong with it).
Also - "Although not the largest Titanosaurs, these sauropods" now replaces "not the biggest members of the species"

Great stuff, Frogbit!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this and learning a little more about an interesting subject.

Just one little question, if you have an easy answer to hand (I had a quick peek on the Web but if you know...) :

Why is it called 'Giganotosaurus'? I am more linguist than paleontologist and I just saw 'gigantic + sauros' as being more likely than 'giganoto- + saurus'. I know it is not a typo, but can you tell me more about why it is called that?

I was also delighted to learn a new word - cladistic - and I will be off to read about that, too, when I get time. Ta.

Great entry, sit back and wait for a scout, I think.

Seeya
Spiff

Everything looks fine now!

Azara

Thanks again guys.
Good point spiff - according to enchanted learning dot com, Giga-noto-saurus means "giant southern reptile". Tch tch, and you a linguist

Further to that (apologies Spiff), I found this in a thread (non-H2G2) dealing with precisely this subject.

"Noto- is derived from "notus" Latin for southern, not
"notos" Greek for the back, as in "notochord". The Romans used this word for the southern wind, and thus derived the meaning of anything brought with that wind as it blew north (like *Giganotosaurus*)."

Although I find it hard to credit that southern wind could bring with it a giganotosaurus - they weighed in at about 8 tonnes and stood 12ft - at the hip!

Frogbit.

Blimey, that'd have to be some wind

Nice article Frogbit, I've this image in my head now of swarms of gigantic creatures making their way to the area to lay their eggs, much as those turtles do on beaches these days.
Can't think of anything to criticise, maybe if I read it again I'll find a typo or something...

MC

The numbers were estimated in their thousands. Must have been quite a sight.
Well this is going rather well so far.
Gnomon?

* Scout reporting for duty *

I read it yesterday, enjoyed it very much and forgot to post, so these typos might have gone in between:

recognized -> recognised (UK spelling)
a lifetimes worth -> lifetime's

I notice that 'respectfully' has been taken care of


Great entry!

Hi Frogbit!

This is an excellent entry. You should mention the country, Argentina - not every reader will know where Patagonia is.

There are few typos and grammar points:

The word "respectively" in the first sentence is unnecessary and incorrect. Just leave it out.

none-the-less --> nonetheless

betweeen 5ft to 10ft --> between 5ft and 10ft

between 15 - 30 eggs --> between 15 and 30 eggs

quadraped --> four-legged

en mass --> en masse

a lifetimes worth --> a lifetime's worth

Giganotosaurus --> Gigantosaurus

overburden - put a footnote to explain this word

recognized --> recognised (you say fossilise and specialise so use -ise everywhere)

That's it. Once again, a great entry!

Sorry, I didn't notice that you've already dealt with Giganotosaurus.

Hi Gnomon - I knew I could count you

Respectively - gone. Good point. They'd hardly mount an expedition in 1999 and then return to the site in 1997. Not without some very special equipment anyway.

None-the-less, nonetheless. They both looked daft, so I used the word 'still' instead. Chamber's 21st cent dic. also has 'none the less', which I almost used, but decided against at the last mintue.

between 5ft to 10 ft apart ---> I don't have a problem with this.

between 15 - 30 eggs --->Again, betwenn 15 *to* 30 eggs sounds more correct. Otherwise 'between 15 and 30 eggs' could be misconstrued as 22.5 eggs.

Quadraped --> Again, I don't see a problem. Does anyone else have a problem with this?

en mass -->en masse

Lifetimes --> lifetime's

Giganotosaurus --> almost everyone reads that incorrectly, so don't feel bad. I've put a footnote in so people don't jump the wrong way.

Overburden -->also footnoted.

Recognize - recognise -->American spellchecker somehow subverting the British one. Must have spelled it wrong, and then hit change without checking.

That's for the mo - cheers for that!

And thanks to Bossel too - all correct now.

OK, change "containing between 15 - 30 eggs" to "containing 15 - 30 eggs". For the other one, say "from 5ft to 10ft apart". You can't use "between" and "to" together.