Re: Paper on Chinese sauropods

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > *Lancanjiangosaurus cashuensis*
>
> Any information on this taxon?

No.

> > *Zizhongosaurus chuanchensis* Dong et al., 1983
>
> Any reasons it's a "shunosaurine euhelopodid" as opposed to a more basal
> "vulcanodontid"?

No. "Material: IVPP V9067: a neural spine of a dorsal vertebra, a distal end
of a pubis and a fragmentary humerus." That's all. Maybe some diagnostic
characters in there. -- There isn't any study about "Vulcanodontidae", is
there?

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

Nope. The last one is news to me. Probably she just hasn't found the papers
on them. -- "Accepted April 1999".

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

Not either.

> > *Kunmingosaurus wudingensis* Zhao, 1985, ?nomen nudum: ??, ??, ??
>
> Hettangian-Pliensbachian, EJ
> Lower Lufeng Formation, Yunnan, China

thx

> Why are Euhelopus and Tienshanosaurus synonymized? McIntosh (1990) says
the
> former has opisthocoelous dorsals, and the latter amphicoelous.


"Comments [to *Tienshanosaurus chitaiensis*]: YOUNG (1937) shows that
*Tienshanosaurus* is very close to *Euhelopus*, but that it differs by a
more compact vertebral structure; by a scapula that is less contracted after
the proximal end; by a more open angle between the scapular blade and the
proximal fold ["ride"... maybe the expansion next to the coracoid?]; by a
distally more expanded humerus (Fig. 17 [right from the original paper]); by
various characters of the pelvic girdle; and by the weakness of the fourth
dtrochanter. He attributes *Tienshanosaurus* to the subfamily Helopidinae
(sic), family Morosauridae [urgh], and points out that this genus has no
close affinity to *Camarasaurus*, *Diplodocus*, ...
*Tienshanosaurus* therefore seems very close to *Euhelopus*. The dorsal
vertebrae present the same characters in these two genera [no mention of
McIntosh, 1990]. The scapula shows a similar constriction at the base of the
blade, as well as a very similar ventral protuberance. The humeri have the
same proportions. The cervicals of *Tienshanosaurus*, though fragmentary,
show a development of a lamina comparable to *Euhelopus* [no details]. A
reexamination of the material of *Tienshanosaurus* could [ah, _could_) lead
to a reunion of these two specimens in one genus [not species?].
ZHEN et al. likewise mention this great resemblance between these two
genera."

> > Zhang and Chen (1996) refer Zigongosaurus fuxiensis to Mamenchisaurus.
Any
> comments on why Martin-Rolland disagrees?

That paper isn't cited.

> 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?

"Comments [to *O. changshouensis*]: The humerus of *O. changshouensis*
described by YOUNG (1958) is in a very bad condition, and it seems difficult
to approach it to *O. junghsiensis* rather than to other sauropods. For
YOUNG (1958) this specimen is distinct from *O. junghsiensis* by its size
[boo], the flattened bones [hiss] and the ratio tibia to femur [boo]. [...]
individual variation [...] the femur is incomplete at its distal end,
therefore this ratio is approximative.
For DONG et al. (1983) *O. changshouensis* has numerous characters similar
to *O. junghsiensis*, but it differs by its flattened limbs. In the same
article, the site that has yielded *O. changshouensis* is referred to the
Upper Shaximiao Formation. DONG et al. (1983) point out that the
stratigraphic level of *O. changshouensis* is higher than that of the
holotype of *Omeisaurus*, and that according to the field notes [I'm
guessing... documents de terrain], *O. changshouensis* must be closer to the
level of *Mamenchisaurus*.
The resemblances between these two species of *Omeisaurus* are numerous and
the difference in the flattening of the limbs does not seem to justify the
creation of a new species for the material from Shizitan [ = *O.
changshouensis*]. The material of *O. changshouensis* could be attributed to
*O. junghsiensis*. In _Dinosaurian Faunas of China_, DONG (1992, p. 75)
speaks of four species of *Omeisaurus* (*junghsiensis*, *tianfuensis*,
*fuxiensis* and *luoquanensis*). He doesn't mention *O. changshouensis*,
neither does he tell if the material has been referred to another species.
On the other hand, *O. changshouensis* appears in Appendix C of this
publication (p. 171), list of genera of Chinese dinosaurs. Therefore it
seems that *Omeisaurus changshouensis* can be put into synonymy with
*Omeisaurus junghsiensis*."

It simply isn't compared to *Mamenchisaurus*. Martin-Rolland didn't get the
idea, it seems. Apparently it's stratigraphically intermediate between
*Omeisaurus* and *Mamenchisaurus*...