Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
In the following pages the writer has endeavoured to consider this skeleton in a common-sense way, and to arrange the limbs with reference to ordinary mechanical principles, and also by comparison of the bones with those of different mammalian and reptilian types. A good many years ago, Von Meyer was so struck by the colossal and rather straight hind-limb bones of the Dinosauria and their superficial resemblance to those of elephants, that he proposed the term Elephantopoda; but at that time the group had not been classified by Marsh and others into distinct sub-orders, with very different limbs.
page 356 note 1 Holland, W. J., Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, vol. ii, No. 6, The Osteology of Diplodocus, MarshGoogle Scholar.
page 356 note 2 “A Review of some recent criticisms of the restorations of Sauropod Dinosaurs existing in the Museums of the United States, with special reference to that of Diplodocus Carnegiei in the Carnegie Museum”: American Naturalist, vol. xliv, 5, 1910.Google Scholar
page 356 note 3 Dr. J. B. Hatcher. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, vols. i and ii.
page 364 note 1 Compare with foot of Elephas.
