[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur mass table online
Zach Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
> Except, of course, when _M. sinocanadorum_ was published,
> mamenchisaurs were thought to be closely related with
> diplodocoids and now, they aren't, but are thought to be
> basal eusauropods (the _M. sinocanadorum_ paper was
> published 1993, whereas a non-diplodocoid, data-set-based
> classification was first given by P. Upchurch in 1995, as
> far as I know).
Actually, the original description of _M. sinocanadorum_ included a
phylogenetic analysis. This found that _Mamenchisaurus_ was *not* a
diplodocoid, but formed a clade with _Omeisaurus_. OK, so it wasn't the best
analysis (only 9 taxa, 21 characters); but it's enough to show that Russell and
Zhang (1993) were not influenced by presumed diplodocoid affinities.
The main reason why Russell and Zhang (1993) thought _Mamenchisaurus_ was a
rather slender sauropod was "because so much of its length consisted of an
extremely long and light neck".