Re: Paper on Chinese sauropods

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> It's *Lancanjiangosaurus cashuensis*, not *L. cachuensis* as recently
spelt
> onlist (still a nomen nudum anyway).

Any information on this taxon?

> *Zizhongosaurus chuanchensis* Dong et al., 1983

Any reasons it's a "shunosaurine euhelopodid" as opposed to a more basal
"vulcanodontid"?

> *Mamenchisaurus constructus* "Young" [Yang], 1954
> *Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis* "Young & Chao" [Yang & Zhao], 1972
> *Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum* Russell & Zheng, 1993

No mention of M. anyuensis, M. youngi, M. jingyanensis, M. "guangyuanensis"
or M. "yaochinensis".

> *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

And no mention of O. "zigongensis" or O. "gongjianensis".

> *Kunmingosaurus wudingensis* Zhao, 1985, ?nomen nudum: ??, ??, ??

Hettangian-Pliensbachian, EJ
Lower Lufeng Formation, Yunnan, China

> 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...

Why are Euhelopus and Tienshanosaurus synonymized?  McIntosh (1990) says the
former has opisthocoelous dorsals, and the latter amphicoelous.
Zhang and Chen (1996) refer Zigongosaurus fuxiensis to Mamenchisaurus.  Any
comments on why Martin-Rolland disagrees?
The above paper also says that Omeisaurus changshouensis may be referrable
to Mamenchisaurus, unlike the type species O. junghsiensis.  Any explanation
for why the species are synonymized by Martin-Rolland?

Mickey Mortimer