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

Paper on Chinese sauropods

Once upon a while, or two or three, a big paper was reported onlist
(www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1999Dec/msg00160.html); because it's in French,
nobody told the list what it contains (even though there's an English
abstract). Now I've read it.

Valérie Martin-Rolland: Les sauropodes chinois, Revue de Paléobiologie
18(1), 287 -- 315 (1999)

[The] Chinese Sauropods.- In China, the first discovery of sauropod
dinosaurs occurred in 1913. Since that time, many outcrops have yielded
large amounts of sauropod bones belonging to more than 16 species. This
study reviews the Chinese sauropods and brings numerous clues to clarify the
taxonomic situation for some of them. *Zigongosaurus* can be considered as a
valid genus, *Tienshanosaurus* and *Euhelopus* appears to be the same genus
and *Omeisaurus changshouensis* is taken as being synonymous with
*Omeisaurus junghsiensis*. All the Chinese sauropods are attributed to a
single family, the Euhelopodidae, which was endemic to 'Asia' during the

Some more interesting features --

Diagnoses for all species.
Some redatings. *Euhelopus* (priority over *Tienshanosaurus*) is LJ, not EK.
*Bellusaurus* is far from Titanosauridae, it's close to *Shunosaurus*.
*Omeisaurus junghsiensis* is named after a place spelt Rongxian in Pinyin.
*Omeisaurus fuxiensis* and *Zigongosaurus fuxiensis* are different and both
valid, despite quite some confusion about referred specimens.
It's *Lancanjiangosaurus cashuensis*, not *L. cachuensis* as recently spelt
onlist (still a nomen nudum anyway).


Euhelopodidae Romer, 1956
Shunosaurinae McIntosh, 1990
*Shunosaurus lii* Dong et al., 1983
*Bellusaurus sui* Dong, 1990
*Datousaurus bashanensis* Dong & Tang, 1984
*Zizhongosaurus chuanchensis* Dong et al., 1983
Euhelopodinae Romer, 1956
*Euhelopus zdanskyi* (Wiman, 1929) (*Tienshanosaurus chitaiensis* "Young"
[Yang], 1937)
*Mamenchisaurus constructus* "Young" [Yang], 1954
*Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis* "Young & Chao" [Yang & Zhao], 1972
*Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum* Russell & Zheng, 1993
*Omeisaurus junghsiensis* "Young" [Yang], 1939 (*Omeisaurus changshouensis*
"Young" [Yang], 1958)
*Omeisaurus fuxiensis* Dong et al., 1983
*Omeisaurus tianfuensis* He et al., 1984
*Omeisaurus luoquanensis* Li, 1988
*Zigongosaurus fuxiensis* Hou et al., 1976

Shunosaurinae looks somehow paraphyletic... There's nothing like a
phylogenetic analysis or a cladogram anywhere.

Places and ages:
*Datousaurus*: Sichuan, Lower Shaximiao Fm, end-MJ
*Shunosaurus*: Sichuan, Lower Shaximiao Fm, end-MJ
*Bellusaurus*: Xinjiang, Wucaiwan Fm, MJ
*O. junghsiensis*: Sichuan, upper part of Lower Shaximiao Fm, end-MJ;
Sichuan, upper part of Guangyuan Series, EJ; Gansu, ??, ??; Sichuan, Upper
Shaximiao Fm, start-LJ (cool time range if all the dates and identifications
are correct...)
*O. tianfuensis*: Sichuan, Lower ( = Xia-)Shaximiao Fm, end-MJ
*O. fuxiensis*: Sichuan, Upper ( = Shang-)Shaximiao Fm, start-LJ
*O. luoquanensis*: Sichuan, Lower Shaximiao Fm, end-MJ
*Zigongosaurus*: Sichuan, Upper Shaximiao Fm, start-LJ
*Euhelopus*: Shandong, Mengyin Fm, LJ; Xinjiang, Shishugou Fm, LJ; Xinjiang,
no fm given, place = Wucaiwan but apparently not Wucaiwan Fm, LJ
*M. constructus*: Sichuan, Upper Shaximiao Fm, start-LJ; Gansu, Xiangtang
Fm, start-LJ
*M. hochuanensis*: Sichuan, Upper Shaximiao Fm (above *M. constructus*),
*M. sinocanadorum*: Xinjiang, upper part of Shishugou Fm, LJ
*Protognathosaurus*: Sichuan, Lower Shaximiao Fm, end-MJ; "Comments: After
this diagnosis ZHANG (1988) points out that this dentary, massive and solid,
can be classified as pertaining to a primitive sauropod. This dentary is
therefore provisorically attributed to the family Cetiosauridae." :-(
*Nurosaurus qaganensis* Dong, 1992, nomen nudum, description Dong & Li, in
prep. (forgot if it's published meanwhile): Nei Menggu (Inner Mongolia),
Qagannur Fm, EK
        Qagannur is meant to be Mongolian, not Chinese. Doesn't stop the
confusion: while in Mongolia a version of the Cyrillic script is used,
without a letter that could be transcribed as q (unlike what has been
officially transcribed to q in Qazaq), in Inner Mongolia in China the
traditional script is still used by the probably few literate people, and
the orthography is reported to be as... logical as that of English.
*Lancanjiangosaurus cashuensis* Zhao, 1986, nomen nudum: Xizang (Tibet),
Dabuka Fm, MJ
*Kunmingosaurus wudingensis* Zhao, 1985, ?nomen nudum: ??, ??, ??
*Sanpasaurus yaoi* "Young" [Yang], 1944: Sichuan, Ma'ashan Member of
Ziliujing Fm, EJ; "The material of *Sanpasaurus* seems therefore to comprise
remains of an ornithopod and a young sauropod. The study and the complete
description of these fossils are necessary [...]"
*Zizhongosaurus* (misspelt *Zhizhongosaurus* most of the time): Sichuan,
Da'anzhai Member of Ziliujing Fm, EJ
Sauropoda indet., not Euhelopodidae: Shandong, Wangshi Fm, LK; Shandong,
Qingshan Fm, EK
tooth genera *Chiayusaurus*, *Asiatosaurus*, *Mongolosaurus* deliberately

Any more questions? There's a lot of information in that paper; hardly any
new one, but new means not contained in the Chinese original papers...

Ceterum censeo brontosaurum esse delendum (et deletum).