[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Details on Qinlingosaurus, etc.



This will be a quickie compared to Shanyangosaurus because the remains are
much more sparse.

Qinlingosaurus Xue, Zhang and Bi 1996
Q. luonanensis Xue, Zhang and Bi 1996
etymology- "Qinling lizard from Luonan", Luonan being the region of Shaanxi
it was found in and Qinling being a mountain range.
Hongtuling Formation, Shaanxi, China
Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous
holotype- (NWUV 1112) caudal(?) vertebra, two other vertebrae, ilium, distal
ischium
diagnosis- very large pointed preacetabular process extending anteriorly
past pubic
peduncle for about 25% of the ilium's length (measured in a horizontal axis
with "horizontal" being parallel to a line drawn connecting the ventral tips
of both peduncles)
main measurements-
    sacral vertebra          168 mm
    ilium                            770 mm
description-
This is fairly close in size to Phuwiangosaurus, for instance with an ilium
of 860 mm and therefore of normal sauropod size of 15-20 meters long,
depending on what family of sauropods it belongs to.  Like Shanyangosaurus,
this species has just a small diagnosis/description, but is represented
partially in a plate.
Three vertebrae are reported, but only one is shown.  I'm no sauropod
expert, but it appears to be a proximal caudal vertebra, although there is a
large circular process on the right that I'm itching to call a sacral rib.
It's shown in lateral and ventral(?) view.  The  neural spine expands
distally to form a wedge in lateral view and the centrum's not extremely
procoelous, so if it is a caudal vertebra, this isn't a titanosaur, but I'm
not trusting my identification at this point.  .
The ilium is typically sauropod, but is shown with different outlines in
medial and lateral views.  One photo lacks the dorsal region of the ilial
blade, so I'll depend on the other photo for my description of the outline.
The ilium appears typically sauropod, with a reduced ischial peduncle,
anteriorly projecting preacetabular process and semicircular dorsal outline.
The preacetabular process projects anteriorly more than most other
sauropods, about 23-27% of the ilium's total length past the pubic peduncle
(measured along an x-axis, which is a line touching the ventral border of
the ilial peduncles).  The preacetabular process is deep and pointed and the
posterodorsal margin of the ilial blade is slightly concave, though this may
be due to erosion or perspective.  The ischial peduncle is very small, so
that the postacetabular process projects beneath the x-axis described above.
The text indicates the preacetabular and postacetabular processes "curve
largely outward".
A ischial fragment is mentioned in the materals list and a "distal part of
pelvic" in the stratigraphical section, so I'm concluding the ischial
fragment is from the distal portion.  It is unfortunate this is not
described or figured, as it could aid greatly in identifying this species.
Relationships-
This is very difficult, as the ilium is the only bone that's figured well
enough for me to trust it.  It's obviously more advanced than Kotasaurus,
based on the semicircular dorsal outline, which is to be expected.  If you
trust the author's statement of the preacetabular process "curving largely
outward", that could mean that it is a neosauropod.  The reduced ischial
peduncle is also supposed to be a neosauropod synapomorphy (Upchurch
1998).The preacetabular process is pointed, so it's not a titanosauriform
(although Haplocanthosaurus also seems to have a rounded preacetabular
process). On the other hand, the preacetabular process's elongation is
matched only in Haplocanthosaurus and titanosaurs.  So an elongate pointed
preacetabular process is an apomorphy for this species (which is good,
because it seems to lack others and none are listed in the diagnosis).  I
recommend this species be kept as Neosauropoda incertae sedis until an
actual sauropod expert can examine the figures (or even better, the
material, but what are the chances of that ;-) ).
If any sauropod experts out there (or anyone else for that matter) want to
see the figures for themselves, contact me offlist and I'll e-mail them to
you.  And if after examining the figures, someone has a better idea of what
type of sauropod this is than I do, I'd love to know.

But that's not all.  The paper that Shanyangosaurus and Qinlingosaurus are
described in also contains a bit more dinosaur-related stuff.

Tyrannosauridae indet.
material- (NWUV 1110) broken tooth (107 mm long)
Shanyang Formation or Hongtuling Formation, Shaanxi, China
Maastrichtian, LC
Description-
This is a fragmented tooth that does indeed resemble a tyrannosaurids tooth.
Perhaps it's from Tyrannosaurus (or Jenghizkhan if you're George) bataar,
which is common in Maastrichtian Asian strata.

Sauropoda indet.
material- (NWUV 1113) anterior cervical vertebra, other vertebra(?)
Shanyang Formation or Hongtuling Formation, Shaanxi, China
Maastrichtian, LC
Description-
This sauropod isn't mentioned in the actual article, but rather labeled in
the plates as "Sauropoda fam. gen. et. sp. indet".  It's represented by two
bones.
There is an anterior cervical figured in anterior, posterior, dorsal and
ventral views.  It reminds me of Phuwiangosaurus, because the opisthocoelous
centrum is dorsoventrally compressed, although it is shorter.  The neural
spine looks very reduced, but it could just be broken off.
The only reason I could tell the other bone was a vertebra is because the
Chinese symbols on the label were the same as the above bone.  If this
really is a cervical vertebra, it's extremely odd.  The neural spine must be
divided, but extends upward over four times the centrum height in a C-shape.
The centrum is still very low.  I'm confused as to how the other view
relates to the anterior view.  Is it lateral, dorsal, ventral?  I really
don't know.  If someone gets scans of this from me and understands this
particular plate (labeled 2a and 2b), I'd be very grateful if they informed
me as to what it is.
I don't see why the authors described and named Qinlingosaurus instead of
this creature, it would seem to be much more diagnostic and interesting.

Shantungosaurus cf. giganteus
material- (NWUV 1114) two teeth, caudal centrum, humerus (900 mm),
incomplete ulna, partial radius, manual phalanx, partial pubis(?), femur
(1.536 m), distal metatarsal(?), unidentified flat bone (scapula?)
Shanyang Formation or Hongtuling Formation, Shaanxi, China
Maastrichtian, LC
Description- This is mentioned as being similar to the type species, but a
bit smaller.  It is actually always referred to in the article as
"Shandongosaurus cf. giganteus Hu 1974", but looks hadrosaurian and
Shantungosaurus was described by Hu in 1973, so I'm betting it's a
misspelling.

And that's that.  The figures of Qinlingosaurus, the tyrannosaurid tooth and
the mysterious sauropod are on the same page.  I have not scanned the
Shantungosaurus plates (two pages).  If anyone wants the Qinlingosaurus
page, just contact me offline and I hope someone can identify that bone!  If
anyone has any requests for a "Details on..." post, feel free to ask me.
Next up, Nanyangosaurus.

Mickey Mortimer