Eusauropoda
So, I'm trying to represent these things as
best I can, but despite being extinct, they aren't letting themselves be pinned
down very well. Especially Euhelopus. Have you ever tried to
pin down Euhelopus? You'd think it would be easy, but it's a
slippery beast.
Anyway, I had to do something before the Sauropoda
page got too large, and this is the result.
<--Eusauropoda
|--Shunosaurus
`--+--Baraposaurus
|--Cetiosaurus
|--Patagosaurus
`--+--"Mamenchisaurus"
hochuanensis
|--"Omeisaurus" tianfuensis
|--Tehuelchesaurus
`--+--Turiasauria
| |--Galveosaurus
| `--+--Losillasaurus
| `--Turiasaurus
`--Neosauropoda
|-->Macronaria
`-->Diplodocoidea
Eusauropoda: The eusauropods are a step up from the vulcanodontids and their
ilk. They have begun to develop very extensive lightening efforts on their
verts. Several of the better-known forms (Cetiosaurus, Barapasaurus,
Patagosaurus, and Mamenchisaurus) could form a family on their own.
| Taxon or Taxa: | Time\Place: | Comments: | |
| Shunosaurus lii Dong, Zhou, and Zhang, 1983 | Bathonian-Callovian (MJ) of China | Shunosaurus is one of the best represented sauropods. Remains pertaining to over twenty individuals have been found, with several skulls. Shunosaurus is a very primitive sauropod, but has one very unique characteristic, a spiky club on the end of its tail. It was once known under the unofficial name "Shuosaurus". The snout widened and rounded with age, from a more prosauropod-like start, and the tooth enamel is apparently less derived than that of Omeisaurus. | |
| Barapasaurus tagorei Jain, Kutty, Roy-Chowdhury, and Chatterjee, 1975 | Pliensbachian-Toarcian (EJ) of India | Barapasaurus is known from the most material of any EJ sauropod, including the partial remains of several individuals (all missing head, hands, and feet). | |
| Cetiosaurus oxoniensis Phillips, 1871 (genus named in Owen, 1841) | Bathonian (MJ) of England | C. oxoniensis is much better known than the type. Most representations of Cetiosaurus are drawn from this taxon. | |
| Patagosaurus fariasi Bonaparte, 1979 | Callovian (MJ) of Argentina | Known from specimens from a dozen individuals, Patagosaurus is one of the better known basal eusauropods. However, some of the referred material apparently belongs to a different type of sauropod. | |
| "Mamenchisaurus": | "M." hochuanensis Yang and Zhao, 1972 (?including M. sinocanadorum Russell and Zheng, 1993) | Oxfordian (LJ) of China | This is the long-necked animal often illustrated for Mamenchisaurus proper. It is better known than the type, and appears to include M. sinocanadorum Russell and Zheng, 1993, which showed that this sort of animal had a short, camarasaurid-like skull, instead of a diplodocid-like skull considered before, to go with the extensive development of diplodocid-like skid-like chevrons in this species. A sort of trough is also present on top of the neural spines, as well as in Euhelopus and possibly Tienshanosaurus. |
| "M." youngi Pi, Ou, and Ye, 1996 | "M." youngi, based on material including a skull and most of a skeleton, may well turn out to belong to "M." hochuanensis, so I'm including it here. It has bifurcated neural spines on some cervicals and dorsals, in the Euhelopus "low trough" mode, and the presacrals are opisthocoelous, while the caudals go from procoelous to amphiplatyan; unfortunately, the chevrons are not described. The skull bears an uncanny resemblance to some specimens of Camarasaurus. Interestingly, the distal caudals are fused and expanded, like a "cockscomb," or the tail implements of things like Shunosaurus. | ||
| "Omeisaurus" tianfuensis He, Li, Cai, and Gao, 1984 | Bathonian-Callovian (MJ) of China | This is the dinosaur often used for illustrations of Omeisaurus, which is incorrect. Just comparing the skulls of this and the type species of Omeisaurus shows how much this is wrong (either that, or an artist was in the wrong field). This appears to be a very long-necked animal. | |
| Tehuelchesaurus benitezii Rich, Vickers-Rich, Gimenez, Cuneo, Puerta, and Vacca, 1999 | Kimmeridgian-Tithonian (LJ) of Argentina | This
recently-named sauropod may be related to Omeisaurus (or "Omeisaurus").
It is known from a scapulacoracoid, forelimb minus hand, femora, most of a hip, 10
dorsals, 2 sacrals, a caudal, ribs, and skin
impressions showing flat, non-overlapping hexagonal scales. Originally described as from the Callovian, new reports indicate that it is actually from a younger formation. |
|
Eusauropoda i.s.:
| Taxon or Taxa: | Time\Place: | Comments: |
| Amygdalodon patagonicus Cabrera, 1947 | ?Toarcian-Bajocian (?EJ-MJ) of Argentina | Amygdalodon is based on partial remains of at least three individuals. These remains are "cetiosaurid", but not particularly enlightening about further classification. |
| Aragosaurus ischiaticus Sanz, Buscalioni, Casanovas, and Santafe, 1987 | early Barremian (EK) of Spain | Aragosaurus, although poorly known, seems to have been like Camarasaurus. It is known from a forelimb, scapula, partial tail, and partial hip, and also was the first dinosaur named from Spain that had not been found and named from somewhere else earlier. |
| Bellusaurus sui Dong, 1990 | Oxfordian (LJ) of China | This sauropod is based upon the remains of 17 juveniles, and likely is the juvenile of an already-known sauropod. It could be a basal macronarian, related to the brachiosaurids. |
| Cetiosauriscus stewarti Huene, 1927
(species after Charig, 1980) |
mid-late Callovian (MJ) of England | Named from remains once assigned to Cetiosaurus, this animal may instead be a basal diplodocoid, or, alternately, a much more basal sauropod. Among other things, it has the characteristic chevrons. |
| Chebsaurus algeriensis Mahammed, Läng, Mami, Mekahl, Benhamou, Bouterfa, Kacemi, Chérief, Chaouati, and Taquet, 2005 | MJ of Algeria | This basal eusauropod is based on a partial skeleton and skull of a partially-grown, 8-9 meter long individual (the name is actually from an informal Arab word for "teenager"). It is important because of the generally poor remains of dinosaurs in the EJ and MJ, just when they were undergoing some interesting evolution. Remains include a partial braincase and lower jaw, eight partial cervicals, six partial dorsals, a sacral, three caudals, a scapula, most of a forelimb, a partial ilium, a pubis, a partial fibula, and most of a hind foot. |
| Daanosaurus zhangi Ye, Gao, and Jiang, 2005 | LJ of China | Apparently close to Bellusaurus (not surprisingly, it seems that both are based on juvenile remains), this animal is based on skull and postcranial material including vertebrae and limb elements. |
| Dashanpusaurus dongi Peng, Ye, Gao, Shu, and Jiang, 2005 | Bathonian-Callovian (MJ) of China | This sauropod has been identified as a camarasaurid,
but since that family is a little defunct at the moment, I'm leaving it as
Eusauropoda i.s., possibly a basal macronarian.
Interestingly, both of its published specimens lack skulls, whereas
possible basal macronarian Abrosaurus has a poorly-described body
with no mentioned characters that deviate from the Dashanpusaurus
description... Call
that my crazy thought for the page. As mentioned, two specimens have been described, one being a good chunk of the vertebral column with ribs, an ulna, pelvic girdle, and a hindlimb, and the other is composed of 12 dorsals, ribs, left pectoral girdle, and left humerus and radius (neatly filling in the rest of the arm bar the hand, but we can't have everything). Among other characters, the known cervicals are short, and the caudal cervicals and cranial dorsals have slight splitting of the neural spines, like several other MJ\LJ Chinese sauropods. |
| Dystrophaeus viamalae (?N.D.) Cope, 1877 | Callovian-Oxfordian (MJ-LJ) of Utah | Like Amphicoelias, there may be additional material that goes here, in the form of remains seen at what is believed to have been where the type was found. It is historically notable as the first sauropod described from North America. Long believed to have been from low in the Morrison, it actually comes from a somewhat older formation. Usually in the past, it was considered as a "cetiosaurid," then more recently as a possible diplodocoid or diplodocid. |
| Jiutaisaurus xidiensis Wu W., Dong Z., Sun Y., Li C., and Li T., 2006 | K of China | Here's another new sauropod that popped up out of nowhere. I suspect that it will end up in Titanosauria with a middle Cretaceous age, although some of the anatomical details are unusual. It is based on 18 articulated caudals from the anterior part of the tail, with chevrons, and the amphicoelous articulation is unusual for a Cretaceous sauropod (titanosaurs, for example, are mostly procoelous), and the chevrons are simple. Perhaps it was related to animals like Opisthocoelicaudia (?Huabeisaurus). |
| Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis Dantas, Sanz, Silva, Ortega, Dos Santos, and Cachao, 1998 (originally Apatosaurus alenquerensis Lapparent and Zybszewski, 1957) | Kimmeridgian-Tithonian (LJ) of Portugal | First named as a species of Apatosaurus, then as a species of Camarasaurus, this species was a robust sauropod that has not yet been subjected to much study, so its placement is uncertain. It is based on 26 verts, most of both girdles, and fore and hind limbs lacking hands and feet. |
| Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum Dong, 1997 | Tithonian (LJ) of China | This obscure sauropod is apparently very, very large. The vertebrae it is based on show slight signs of bifurcation, suggesting a relationship with Euhelopus, Mamenchisaurus, and "Mamenchisaurus", which also had shallow bifurcation. Some other material, including a forelimb and teeth, was referred to it, but this material was not in association. |
| Tendaguria tanzaniensis Bonaparte, Heinrich, and Wild, 2000 | Kimmeridgian (LJ) of Tanzania | A new Tendaguru
sauropod, Tendaguria
is based on cranial dorsal vertebrae with single
spines. It seems to be related to Camarasaurus. A dorsal centrum from the Hauterivian-Barremian (EK) of Croatia is similar. |
| Volkheimeria chubutensis Bonaparte, 1979 | Callovian (MJ) of Argentina | A member of an important early sauropod fauna, Volkheimeria is a primitive sauropod with some features possibly like those of brachiosaurids. |
| Yuanmousaurus jiangyiensis Lu, Li, Ji Q., Wang G., Zhang J., and Dong, 2006 | ?MJ of China | This eusauropod is based on a partial skeleton, including a partial cervical, 9 dorsals, parts of 3 sacrals, 7 caudals, both scapulae, an ilium, and most of a right arm and leg (except the hands and feet). It seems to be somewhere between Omeisaurus and Euhelopus. Features of the dorsals and scapulae, and other details, suggest a particularly close relationship with Patagosaurus ("no, actually, they're just good friends"), although Patagosaurus could stand a good redescription before we go too crazy. For an MJ sauropod, it got up to a decent size, in the 15-20 m range long. The authors assigned it to the Euhelopodidae, but we all know what I think about that family. |
Turiasauria: This new group of sauropods illustrates an unexpected division in sauropod diversity and clears up problems regarding some of the more poorly-known members, much like Abelisaurus and Carnotaurus did for theropods in the 1980s and 1990s. While only three sauropods are officially members, several other MJ-EK European sauropods are suggested to belong (Cardiodon, Neosodon, Oplosaurus), and more will doubtless be recognized in the coming years.
| Taxon or Taxa: | Time\Place: | Comments: |
| Galveosaurus herreroi
Sánchez-Hernández, 2005 (technically correct)
or |
Tithonian-Berriasian (LJ-EK) of Spain | Galveosaurus is a new eusauropod
that seems closest to basal eusauropods like Cetiosaurus and Barapasaurus,
although much later than either. It is known from two humeri, a
sternal plate, an ischium, a scapula, a cervical, a caudal dorsal, five
caudals, a chevron, and some rib bits. The name actually cropped
up several years ago in the EuroDino DB Project feature of Dinodata,
when it was probably either a manuscript name or museum name (if you
peek through museum databases, you'll sometimes find early names that
were changed, or names that are unpublished). There is an ongoing controversy here: apparently, Sánchez-Hernández was not the researcher who was working on this taxon, but named it anyway, as Galveosaurus. Meanwhile, members of the research team working on the fossils from this locality, Barco, Canudo, Cuenca-Bescós, and Ruiz-Omeñaca, published Galvesaurus. Sánchez-Hernández has said that her version has priority because it was published on a specific date, and was picked up by the Internet (including this site, which was cited in her appeal) and other publications before Galvesaurus. Galvesaurus was published in a source that claimed July-December 2005 as its issuance, whereas Galveosaurus came out in August. If what has been reported is true, I would prefer Galvesaurus over Galveosaurus; even if it is inappropriate, there is precedence for ignoring a technically correct but disputed name (see Megapnosaurus versus Syntarsus). I would like to hear more about the facts in this case before making a decision, seeing as I've already been cited in the argument. Technically, at this point, Sánchez-Hernández is in the right. |
| Losillasaurus giganteus Casanovas, Santafe, and Sanz, 2001 | Tithonian-Berriasian (LJ-EK) of Spain | Based on a caudal vert, with cranial fragments, numerous vertebrae, a forelimb, pelvis girdle, and sternal plates referred to it, Losillasaurus was initially described as a diplodocoid, then close to Flagellicaudata. It now appears to be a turiasaurian. It comes from a formation near the J-K boundary, thus the uncertain time given. |
| Turiasaurus riodevensis Royo-Torres, Cobos, and Alcalá, 2006 | Tithonian-Berriasian (LJ-EK) of Spain | I keep note of unpublished dinosaurs and
dinosaur research in an offline file, and this one had hung around for a
couple of years as "Riodevasaurus". It's extremely
large, especially for a European sauropod, and reasonably well-represented
across the body. Remains include a partial skull, teeth, a variety
of vertebrae, a sternal plate, a left arm and hand, tibia, fibula, and
foot, and ribs. Unfortunately, it's hard to get to the eye-catching
stats (length, mass) without an idea of the overall proportions. For
example, there's not enough vertebrae to know how long the tail was.
Did this animal have a long, lean diplodocid-like
build, a stocky titanosaur-like build, or a
neck-heavy tall brachiosaur-like build,
or something different? It also gets to found a whole new sauropod lineage, previously unsuspected. |
Neosauropoda i.s.: Haplocanthosaurus, like Euhelopus, is one of those things that nobody agrees on. Sauropod researchers put it all over the place, and even make up new groups for it to belong to; some scientists have suggested a Family Haplocanthosauridae in Macronaria.
| Taxon or Taxa: | Time\Place: | Comments: | |
| Ferganasaurus verzilini Alifanov and Averianov, 2003 | Callovian (MJ) of Kyrgyzstan | Ferganasaurus is a basal neosauropod known from a partial skeleton consisting of a variety of material from behind the neck. It was first excavated back in 1966, but remained undescribed until recently. Some other material, including a spatulate tooth, may be referable, and all in all this animal appears to be a Jobaria-like creature close to the major splittings of the derived sauropod clades. One unusual character is the possession of two large claws per hand. | |
| Haplocanthosaurus: Hatcher, 1903 (originally Haplocanthus Hatcher, 1903) |
H. priscus (type) (Hatcher, 1903 [originally Haplocanthus priscus]) | Kimmeridgian (LJ) of Colorado and Wyoming | H. priscus is one of the more derived "cetiosaurids", and has features linking it to the camarasaurids, brachiosaurids, and diplodocoids. Haplocanthosaurus is one of the more rare Morrison sauropods, although new remains from the Morrison may belong to a relative. A new postcranial skeleton bodes well to confuse everyone even further. |
| ?H. delfsi McIntosh and Williams, 1988 | Kimmeridgian (LJ) of Colorado | H. delfsi is much larger than the type and may not belong to this genus. It is based on a partial skeleton that went unrecognized as a separate taxon for years. Some researchers have suggested that this species actually belongs somewhere else. | |
| Xenoposeidon proneneukos Taylor and Naish, 2007 | Berriasian-Valanginian (EK) of England | Xenoposeidon is based on a very unusual partial posterior dorsal vert that had sat around for over a century in the collections of the Natural History Museum in London. The preserved portion of the neural spine is sloped forward at 35°, with a base running the entire length of the centrum, and large areas of the sides are strikingly featureless. This animal does not fit into any known group of neosauropods. | |
Historical Note: I used to have a page on Euhelopodidae, also known as the rest home for Jurassic Asian sauropods that people refer to a lot but generally don't know much about. For fun, here's what I had to say, and a phylogeny proposed out of something less than whole cloth.
Euhelopodidae, while not universally
accepted, may be a valid family of sauropods. The reason for doubt of their
situation probably stems from several things: most of these sauropods have been little
mentioned in English-language publications; they have not yet been subjected to the same sort
of rigorous examination other dinosaurs have; and they show a wide variety of convergences
with other sauropods, such as the long arms of Euhelopus and the long arms of macronarians, the skid-like chevrons of Mamenchisaurus
and the skid-like chevrons of diplodocids, and so
on. Cases can be made for aligning the members of this group to just about every
other sauropod group. Taxonomically, I have problems with many assignments
in this family; thus, I typically separate species from genera here. At
this point, euhelopodid taxonomy is at a similar place to where taxonomy of
Morrison sauropods was about a hundred years ago: uncertain, poorly understood,
and cluttered.
Having said that, these sauropods do show many similarities. Long
necks and longish arms are a common characteristic, as are skid-like chevrons. The
skulls are mostly Camarasaurus-like, boxy and
with spoon-like teeth. Some advanced members have shallow troughs on the tops of
some of their cervical and dorsal verts' neural spines, converging with the
better-developed bifid (split) neural spines of camarasaurids and diplodocoids.
Euhelopodids also seem to have done much of their evolution in isolation, in a section of
eastern Asia which was cut off from the rest of the world from most of MJ through early EK
time (although reports of euhelopodid-type teeth have come from Kansas and the
Barremian of Spain). It is not impossible that several distinct lines of sauropods came to China
before it was isolated, and that this is the reason for many unusual body plans. For
example, Euhelopus could be an early offshoot of the titanosaurian line, Mamenchisaurus
an offshoot of the diplodocoid line, and so on. This question has yet to be
resolved. The question of where on the sauropod line a unified Euhelopodidae belongs
is uncertain as well; three favorite places are just below Neosauropoda, somewhere near
the diplodocoids, and twinned with the titanosaurians. I now have them as
eusauropods, which seems most conservative.
<--Euhelopodidae
|--Shunosaurus
`--+--Datousaurus
`--Euhelopodinae
|--Omeisaurus
|--"Omeisaurus" tianfuensis
|--?"O." maoianus
`--+--Tienshanosaurus
|--Euhelopus
|--?"Omeisaurus" changshouensis
|--Mamenchisaurus
`--+--"Mamenchisaurus" hochuanensis
`--"M" youngi
| Navigation | ||
| Home Page | Alphabetical Dinosaur Index | Clado-Index |
| Background Information | Glossary | Faunae |