Misplaced Pages

Mamenchisaurus Temporal range: Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous (Oxfordian to Aptian), 161–114.4 Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N Possible record during the Albian
Mounted skeleton of M. sinocanadorum, Japan
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Clade:	Dinosauria
Clade:	Saurischia
Clade:	†Sauropodomorpha
Clade:	†Sauropoda
Family:	†Mamenchisauridae
Genus:	†Mamenchisaurus Young, 1954
Type species
†Mamenchisaurus constructus Young, 1954
Other species
†M. hochuanensis Young & Zhao, 1972 †M. sinocanadorum Russell & Zheng, 1993 †M. youngi Pi, Ouyang & Ye, 1996 †M. anyuensis He et al., 1996 †"M. guangyuanensis" Li & Cai, 1997 (nomen nudum) †M. jingyanensis Zhang, Li & Zeng, 1998 †M. yunnanensis Fang et al., 2004

Mamenchisaurus (/məˌmʌntʃiˈsɔːrəs/ mə-MUN-chee-SOR-əs, Dinosauria Translation and Pronunciation Guide M or spelling pronunciation /məˌmɛntʃɪˈsɔːrəs/) is a genus of sauropod dinosaur known for their remarkably long necks which made up nearly half the total body length. Numerous species have been assigned to the genus; however, the validity of these assignments has been questioned. Fossils have been found in the Sichuan Basin and Yunnan Province in China. Several species from the Upper Shaximiao Formation, whose geologic age is uncertain, have been described. However, evidence suggests this formation to be no earlier than the Oxfordian stage of the Late Jurassic. M. sinocanadorum dates to the Oxfordian stage (158.7 to 161.2 mya), and M. anyuensis to the Aptian stage of the Early Cretaceous (around 114.4 mya). Most species were medium-large to large sauropods, measuring roughly 15 to 26 meters (49 to 85 ft) in length—possibly up to 35 meters (115 ft), based on two undescribed vertebrae.

History and species

Mamenchisaurus was first discovered in 1952 on the construction site of the Yitang Highway in Sichuan Province of China. The fossil site belonged to the Upper Shaximiao Formation, dating to at least the Late Jurassic. The partial skeleton fossil was later studied and named Mamenchisaurus constructus in 1954 by the renowned Chinese paleontologist Professor C. C. Young.

The type specimen (IVPP V. 790) was fragmentary, disordered, and not excavated in a technical way. Material included five dorsal vertebrae, 30 caudal vertebrae, rib fragments, dorsal neural spines, and chevrons. Fourteen neck vertebrae were preserved, but none were complete. Young noted that some neck vertebrae might have been missing. Limb material included; two pieces of a femur, a complete tibia, fibula, astragalus, metatarsals, phalanges, and claws. The skull, forelimbs, and pelvic girdle were missing.

Mamenchisaurus means 'Mamenchi lizard', from the Chinese Pinyin mǎ (马 'horse') and mén (门 'gate'), while chi is an alternative transliteration of xī (溪 'stream' or 'brook'), combined with the suffix -saurus (from Greek sauros meaning 'lizard'). The intention was to name the genus after the place where its fossil was first found. However, due to an accentual mix-up by Young, the location name Mǎmíngxī (马鸣溪 'horse-neighing brook') was mistaken as Mǎménxī (马门溪 'horse-gate brook'). The fact that the first Mamenchisaurus fossil was found due to construction work led to Young's naming the type species as Mamenchisaurus constructus.

In 1958, Young described additional sauropod remains collected from Gansu Province. The remains consisted of various partial specimens (IVPP V. 945, V. 946, V. 947, V. 948) most of which were assigned to M. constructus. In 1972, one of these specimens was reassigned to M. hochuanensis.

Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis

In 1972, Young and Xijin Zhao described a second species, Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis. The fossils were found near a village in Hechuan, north of Chongqing (originally part of the Sichuan Province), China; 200 meters (660 ft) above the Fu River on the slope of a mountain. The M. hochuanensis fossil site also belonged to the Upper Shaximiao Formation, very close to the M. constructus type specimen's location, dating to at least the Late Jurassic. Locals first discovered the remains sometime before the Chinese Revolution. However, the remains were ultimately abandoned and left to weather in situ. Excavation did not begin on the site until 1957.

The holotype specimen (CCG V 20401) consisted of an almost complete and articulated vertebral column; including 19 elongated cervical vertebrae, which were almost entirely preserved, 12 dorsal vertebrae, four sacral vertebrae, and 35 caudal vertebrae with only the last several missing. Also missing from the skeleton was the majority of the forelimbs and skull. When M. hochuanensis was first described, it was the largest sauropod known from China.

In 1958, Young described a mamenchisaur specimen (IVPP V. 946) from the Haishiwan region of Yongdeng, Gansu Province. This specimen was initially assigned to M. constructus. However, in 1972 it was reassigned to M. hochuanensis as a paratype. This specimen was slightly smaller than the holotype and consisted of less material overall. However, it contained some anatomical details missing in the type specimen.

In 2001, another specimen (ZDM0126) was described and referred to M. hochuanensis. It was found in 1995 at a construction site in Huidong New District, Zigong City, Sichuan Province. This specimen was nearly complete and mostly articulated, preserving features missing from the holotype, such as the skull, pectoral girdle and forelimb material. However, a 2020 phylogenetic analysis by Moore and colleagues cast doubt on the referral of this specimen to M. hochuanensis.

Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum

In August 1987, a cervical rib was seen projecting out of a cliff by Z-M. Dong on an expedition by the China-Canada Dinosaur Project. The fossil site was located in the Junggar Basin, Xinjiang; from the upper part of the Shishugou Formation, making it one of the few mamenchisaurs known from outside the Sichuan basin; the locality is thought to date to around 162.2 million years ago. The location of the quarry the specimen was found in was originally reported as being 22 kilometres (14 miles) north of an abandoned town, Jiangjunmiao. However, the original authors reported incorrect coordinates for the quarry that were later corrected by a subsequent study. The coarse and weak sandstone the specimen was preserved in, alongside the large and fragile nature of the bones, impeded excavation, leading to only the most anterior vertebrae being recovered despite more neck material being present. The specimen was named as a new species of Mamenchisaurus, coined M. sinocanadorum, in 1993 by Dale Russell and Zhong Zheng. The specific name refers to the China-Canada Dinosaur Project.

Overall, the specimen, IVPP V10603, consists of a complete left mandible, a right dentary, a vomer, a right pterygoid, a possible ectopterygoid, a right quadrate, portions of the second through fourth cervical vertebrae, and an intact left cervical rib. The neural arches of the vertebrae were well fused to the centra suggesting that the animal was mature. The authors noted that the teeth are fully erupted but unworn, possibly suggesting the animal starved. Due to the limited amount of bone at the cliff base, the authors proposed that the cervical vertebrae broke away before full decomposition. The head and part of the neck then drifted downstream until they came to rest in shallow water on a point bar and eventually buried. In 2023, M. sinocanadorum was redescribed by Andrew Moore and colleagues. The authors could not locate the vomer, right pterygoid, the possible ectopterygoid, the right quadrate, and the right dentary for restudy. A phylogenetic analysis performed by the authors found it to be outside the clade of other Mamenchisaurus species, closely allied to Xinjiangtitan, but refrained from taxonomic action until the type species M. constructus received re-evaluation.

Two large cervical vertebrae found from the same formation as M. sinocanadorum were informally referred to the species by Gregory S. Paul in 2019 based on their large sizes and origin. However, these vertebrae have yet to be formally described. Paul has suggested these may represent one of the largest dinosaurs known. Moore and colleagues could not support the referral of these vertebrae to M. sinocanadorum in their redescription of the species because the vertebrae lack anatomical overlap with the known material of the type specimen, and so cannot be compared for diagnosis. They also noted an undescribed specimen on display at the China University of the Geosciences in Beijing labelled as belonging to the species which has not been evaluated firsthand or mentioned in the scientific literature. Accordingly, they consider the referral to the species premature.

Mamenchisaurus anyuensis

M. anyuensis was described in 1996 by Xinlu He and colleagues. The remains were discovered in 1987 from two locations near the town of Longchiaoxiang in the Sichuan Basin. At one quarry, at least five to six individuals were found. At a second quarry, four individuals were found. One of these became the holotype, AL001, representing two-thirds of an articulated skeleton. Other specimens were also reported, AL002, AL003, and AL101-106, which provide more skeletal information. The species name references Anyue County where it was discovered. M. anyuensis is known from both the top of the Suining Formation and the bottom of the Penglaizhen Formation. Uranium–lead dating places M. anyuensis in the Suining Formation at 114.4 Ma in age; as this would make it roughly 30 million years younger than the other Mamenchisaurus species, it is unlikely that M. anyuensis is actually a member of the genus.

The holotype specimen preserved eight posterior cervical vertebrae, twelve dorsal vertebrae, five sacral vertebrae, several caudal vertebrae, and a complete pelvis. Another specimen (AL102) preserved five articulated cervical vertebrae from the middle of the neck. Except for the digit bones, the forelimb is completely known and represented by multiple individuals.

Mamenchisaurus youngi

Also described in 1996 was Mamenchisaurus youngi from the Upper Shaximiao Formation. A local quarrying stone near a village in Zigong, Sichuan Province, found the remains in 1987. The species was named in honour of C. C. Young.

The holotype specimen (ZDM 0083) was very complete and mostly articulated, preserving all the vertebrae from the head down to the 8th tail vertebra. Also preserved were the pectoral girdle, pelvic girdle, and material from all four limbs. This specimen also preserved a nearly complete skull.

Mamenchisaurus jingyanensis

M. jingyanensis was described in 1998 by Yihong Zhang, Kui Li, and Qinghua Zeng. The type specimen (CV00734) was located 200 meters (660 ft) away from the administrative headquarters of the town of Meiwang, Jingyan county. Another specimen (JV002) was found in the village of Sanjiang approximately 10 kilometers (6 mi) from Meiwang and became the paratype. A third specimen (CV00219) found near the village of Dujia, about 10 kilometers from Sanjiang. The fossils were located in the Sichuan basin, from the Upper Shaximiao Formation. The species name refers to Jingyan County from which the majority of specimens were excavated.

The type specimen includes a partial scapula and complete coracoid, forelimb material, a complete ischium, a relatively complete skull, and a hyoid bone. The paratype specimen included three anterior cervical vertebrae, several weathered dorsal vertebrae, various caudal vertebrae including a nearly articulated column, relatively complete hind and forelimbs, and isolated teeth. The third specimen preserved a column of cervical vertebrae with articulated ribs, four fused sacral vertebrae, several caudal vertebrae, a complete scapulocoracoid, various limb bones, and isolated teeth.

Other Mamenchisaurus species and material

Other species of Mamenchisaurus have been named over the years. In some cases, species from other genera have been transferred to Mamenchisaurus, but there is disagreement with the referral's validity. Some of these species are based on fragmentary remains and have been considered undiagnostic. Others are considered as invalid or as nomina nuda.

In 1976, Hou, Chao and Chu named a new genus, Zigongosaurus fuxiensis. Known from at least four specimens from the Upper Shaximiao Formation. The type specimen (CV 02501) included skull material; maxilla, dentary, and basioccipital. Additional material includes dorsal vertebrae, pubis, and ischium. Since Zigongosaurus was described, other researchers have disagreed on whether the genus is valid. In 1983, Dong, Zhou and Zhang assigned some of the remains to the similarly named Omeisaurus fuxiensis, and the rest to Omeisaurus junghsiensis. Zhang and Chen assigned the remains to Mamenchisaurus as M. fuxiensis in 1996. Li and Cai considered it a nomen nudum in 1997. In 1999, Valérie Martin-Rolland considered Zigongosaurus a valid genus. Wang and colleagues considered it undiagnostic in 2019.

Another species, "Mamenchisaurus guangyuanensis", has not been formally described, making it a nomen nudum. It is known from the remains of several individuals, ranging from juvenile to adult, from the Upper Shaximiao Formation. The largest individuals were estimated to have a length of 16 metres (52 ft) It was originally described by Zhang Suping in her 1981 thesis as "Omeisaurus guangyuanensis", but in 1997, Li and Cai listed it as a species of Mamenchisaurus. Like Mamenchisaurus, but unlike Omeisaurus, it shows bifurcated neural spines and procoelous caudal vertebrae. It was considered non-diagnostic by Wang and colleagues in 2019.

M. yunnanensis was described by Fang and colleagues in 2004, from the Anning Formation in the Sichuan Basin, Yunnan. The type specimen consisted of disarticulated forelimb, hindlimb, and pelvic material. Wang and colleagues questioned the assignment to Mamenchisaurus in 2019.

In 1988, He and colleagues considered Omeisaurus changshouensis to be closer to Mamenchisaurus based on features of the caudal vertebrae. In 2019, Tan and colleagues agreed with this assessment. In 1996, Zhang and Chen considered Omeisaurus changshouensis and Omeisaurus gongjianensis as referrable to Mamenchisaurus. However, in 2004, Upchurch considered O. changshouensis undiagnosable.

In 1978, an incomplete sauropod humerus (NSM PV17656) found in a layer of the Early Cretaceous-aged Miyako Group of Japan was considered to probably belong to Mamenchisaurus. In 1991, it was referred to ?Mamenchisaurus sp. by Hasegawa and colleagues. However, the humerus was reassessed by Azuma & Tomida in 1998, and Barrett and colleagues in 2002. These authors could not find any distinguishing features that could place the humerus into a specific sauropod group. They regarded it as an indeterminate sauropod. The remains were given an informal name "Moshi-ryu"; "Moshi" being the local name for the location it was discovered, and "ryu" being Japanese for dragon—also referred to as "Moshisaurus".

Description

There is uncertainty that all the species assigned to Mamenchisaurus should belong to the genus. Some Mamenchisaurus species are almost completely known, and others are fragmentary. The species differ in overall size and specific features of the skull and skeleton but share typical sauropod traits, like quadrupedalism, large bodies, small heads, and long tails. The most distinctive feature of mamenchisaurids is their exceptionally long necks which approach half their total length. The type specimens of M. youngi and M. hochuanensis preserve complete necks, which consist of 18 and 19 vertebrae, respectively. Mamenchisaurus cervical vertebrae are elongated, lightly constructed and highly pneumatic. The neural spines on their posterior cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae are bifurcated. Their shoulders were somewhat higher than the hips.

The type species, M. constructus, is not particularly well preserved but has been estimated to be around 13 to 15 meters (43 to 49 ft) in length with a mass of around 5 tonnes (5.5 short tons). The neck of the type specimen was not completely preserved, but Young estimated the whole neck at 4.67 meters (15.3 ft).

The overall length of the M. hochuanensis type specimen is around 21 to 22 meters (69 to 72 ft) with a neck 9.3 meters (31 ft) long. Young and Zhao estimated the mass of M. hochuanensis at 45 tonnes (50 short tons). However, later volumetric mass estimates are lower at 14 to 18.2 tonnes (15.4 to 20.1 short tons). In 1972, Young and Chao described M. hochuanensis as having 19 cervical and 12 dorsal vertebrae. However, Paul Upchurch and colleagues suggested this vertebral count may be incorrect. The authors noted that the vertebra that is usually referred to as the second dorsal possessed a hyposphene, a feature not usually seen until the third or fourth dorsal in sauropods. They provisionally proposed that the actual vertebral count might be 18 cervicals and 13 dorsals in M. hochuanensis.

M. sinocanadorum is known from fragmentary remains, but these suggest that it was a large species. The cervical vertebrae are on average 1.19 times longer than those of M. hochuanensis; based on this, Russel and Zheng estimated the type specimen at 26 meters (85 ft) in length. Taylor and Wedel estimated the neck around 12 meters (39 ft) in length based on comparison to M. hochuanensis. However, the 2023 redescription gave a longer estimate between 14.4 meters (47 ft) and 15.1 meters (50 ft) based on comparison to Xinjiangtitan, though the authors stressed the level of uncertainty. The type specimen possessed the longest cervical rib of any described sauropod dinosaur, measuring 4.2 meters (14 ft). For comparison, a Sauroposeidon cervical rib measures 3.42 meters (11.2 ft). Based on CT imaging, Moore and colleagues estimated the cervical vertebrae of M. sinocandorum to be 69–77% air by volume, assuming complete removal of bone marrow. The mandible was 60.3 centimeters (23.7 in) in length and had 19 teeth. In contrast to the more squared-off jaws of diplodocids, the front of the mandibles met at an oblique angle. Two as-yet-undescribed cervical vertebrae possibly suggest one of the largest dinosaurs known. Gregory S. Paul suggested that these might belong to M. sinocanadorum and estimated a length 35 meters (115 ft) and possibly weighing 60 to 80 tonnes (66 to 88 short tons). However, the referral of these vertebrae to M. sinocanadorum has been questioned.

M. anyuensis shares morphological similarities to M. hochuanensis. He and colleagues estimated the length of this species at 21 meters (69 ft). Paul estimated it longer at 25 meters (82 ft) with a mass of 25 tonnes (28 short tons).

M. youngi is one of the smaller species of Mamenchisaurus and known from relatively complete remains. The type specimen was around 16 meters (52 ft) long with a 6.5-meter (21 ft) neck. The mass of M. youngi was estimated at 7.87 tonnes (8.68 short tons) using volumetric techniques. The holotype specimen preserves a nearly complete skull. There were four teeth in the premaxilla, 18 in the maxilla, and 22 to 24 in the dentary. An unusual part of the skeleton is the wedge-shaped sacrum; this causes the sacrum and the base of the tail to pitch up relative to the rest of the vertebral column.

M. jingyanensis was estimated by Zhang and colleagues to be between 20 and 26 meters (66 and 85 ft) in length. Paul estimated it at 20 meters (66 ft) with a mass of 12 tonnes (13 short tons). The skull was restored at 55 centimeters (22 in) in length. There were four teeth in the premaxilla, 14–16 in the maxilla, and 17–19 in the dentary.

Mamenchisaurus have forked chevrons (or sled chevrons) starting around the middle of the tail, similar to those seen in diplodocids; these chevrons curve strongly backwards and add a forward projection. Paul has argued that these types of chevrons are adaptations linked to rearing behaviour. In a tripodal stance, the tail acts as a prop, and the forked chevrons would help distribute the weight evenly. Paul also notes that the pelvises of Mamenchisaurs are retroverted (tilted), which may have allowed slow walking whilst bipedal.

ZDM0126, a specimen possibly referable to M. hochuanensis, possessed four fused caudal vertebrae near the tip of the tail. These vertebrae have expanded neural arches and taller neural spines, possibly representing a tail club. A study by Lida Xing and colleagues performed a finite element analysis on the club. The authors concluded that the club would have a limited ability to perform as a defensive weapon but might have also functioned as a sensory organ. Other Chinese sauropods, Shunosaurus and Omeisaurus, are also known to have had tail clubs, but they differ in shape to that of ZDM0126.

The neck posture and feeding strategies of sauropod dinosaurs is a controversial topic. Andreas Christian and colleagues analysed the neck of M. youngi and found that when articulated in a neutral posture, the neck was almost straight, with a slight upward bend at the base and a slight downward bend towards the head. The base of the neck has comparatively high upward flexibility but limited downward flexibility. The region near the head had better downward flexibility and low upward flexibility. In the mid-region, downward flexibility was high, which led the authors to conclude that M. youngi frequently fed at low levels. Long overlapping cervical ribs may have limited flexibility. The authors also estimated the stress on the intervertebral joint cartilage. Their results suggest the neck was kept mostly straight, with the possible exception of the neck base and near the head.

A large ulna (GPIT SGP 2006/10) measuring less than 96 centimeters (38 in) in length, referred to Mamenchisaurus sp. from the Shishugou Formation, was used in a bone histology analysis. By sectioning the bone and counting the growth rings, the age at death was estimated at 43 years.

Classification

Mamenchisaurus is sometimes referred to as a 'wastebasket taxon', with researchers questioning the number of species and fragmentary remains assigned to the genus. The genus is poorly defined with an increasingly confused taxonomy which makes understanding phylogenetic relationships difficult. Several analyses have failed to show Mamenchisaurus as monophyletic, suggesting the need to revise the genus. Additional research on the type species, M. constructus, is required to better understand the genus.

When M. constructus was first described, Young noted that the chevron bones indicated an affinity with Diplodocidae, but was uncertain to its exact position. In 1958, Young assigned Mamenchisaurus to the Titanosauridae. With the description of M. hochuanensis, Young and Zhao created the family Mamenchisauridae in 1972. In 1978, when no Mamenchisaurus skulls were known, Berman and McIntosh assigned the genus to Diplodocidae based on diplodocid-like vertebral features such as the forked chevrons. In 1990, McIntosh assigned Mamenchisaurus to a subfamily Mamenchisaurinae, which was placed inside Diplodocidae.

An analysis by Upchurch in 1995 found Mamenchisaurus in the family Euhelopodidae. Euhelopodidae, being named first, would take priority over Mamenchisauridae. Several later analyses found Euhelopus to be a more distantly related macronarian, with Mamenchisaurus in Mamenchisauridae just outside of Neosauropoda.

Analyses by Sekiya in 2011 and Moore and colleagues in 2020 treated M. constructus, M. hochuanensis, ZDM 0126 (M. hochuanensis referred), M. sinocandadorum, and M. youngi separately. Moore and colleagues analyses found the position of M. constructus to be unstable, probably due to the limited character information in its description. Depending on the dataset used, Euhelopus would either be within Macronaria, as other studies have found or outside Neosauropoda in a more traditional position, grouped with other Mamenchisaurus-like taxa. The latter scenario would make mamenchisaurids members of Euhelopodidae. The analyses of Sekiya (2011) and Moore and colleagues (2020) did not recover ZDM 0126 as a sister taxon to the holotype of M. hochuanensis, questioning its referral to the species.

The cladogram below shows a possible phylogenetic position of the genus within Sauropoda, from Allain and Aquesbi, 2008:

Below, two phylogenetic trees show the internal relationships of Euhelopodidae/Mamenchisauridae in the two analyses Moore and colleagues deemed most favorable, the implied-weights and Bayesian analyses of the Gonzàlez Riga dataset.

Topology A: Implied-weights analysis, Gonzàlez Riga dataset

Topology B: Time-calibrated Bayesian analysis, Gonzàlez Riga dataset

The 2023 redescription of M. sinocanadorum found a consistent sister taxon relationship between it and Xinjiangtitan, with Hudiesaurus and referred material of M. hochuanensis (ZDM 0126) also found to be consistent relatives.

Paleochronology

Mamenchisaurus was originally thought to have ranged from the Middle to Late Jurassic. However, there is not reliable dating for the Upper Shaximiao Formation, where many of the Mamenchisaurus species are found.

A study published in 2018 used uranium–lead dating on the underlying Omeisaurus bearing beds of the Lower Shaximiao Formation, previously thought to belong to the Middle Jurassic. However, the radiometric dating found the Lower Shaximiao Formation dated to the Late Jurassic, Oxfordian Stage, around 159 million years ago (mya). This finding suggests a younger age for the overlying Mamenchisaurus bearing rocks of the Upper Shaximiao; implying them to be no older than the Oxfordian.

M. sinocanadorum was found from the Middle to Upper Shishugou Formation. Radiometric dating suggests this formation dated to the Oxfordian, ranging from 158.7 to 161.2 mya. M. anyuensis, was found in the Suining Formation, thought initially to be Middle to Late Jurassic. A 2019 study found these rocks belonged to the Early Cretaceous, Aptian Stage, with an average age of around 114.4 mya. This indicates that mamenchisaurids might have existed around 30 million years longer than previously thought.

References

1. ^ Wang, J.; Norell, M. A.; Pei, R.; Ye, Y.; Chang, S.-C (2019). "Surprisingly young age for the mamenchisaurid sauropods in South China". Cretaceous Research. 104: 104176. Bibcode:2019CrRes.10404176W. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2019.07.006. S2CID 199099072.
2. Sues, Hans-Dieter (1997). "Sauropods". In James Orville Farlow; M. K. Brett-Surman (eds.). The Complete Dinosaur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 274. ISBN 0-253-33349-0.
3. Norman, David B. (2004). "Dinosaur Systematics". In Weishampel, D.B.; Dodson, P.; Osmólska, H. (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 318. ISBN 0-520-24209-2.
4. ^ Russell, D.A., Zheng, Z. (1993). "A large mamenchisaurid from the Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, People Republic of China." Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, (30): 2082-2095.
5. ^ Paul, G.S. (2016). The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Princeton University Press.
6. ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2019). "Determining the largest known land animal: A critical comparison of differing methods for restoring the volume and mass of extinct animals" (PDF). Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 85 (4): 335–358. doi:10.2992/007.085.0403. S2CID 210840060.
7. ^ Young, C.C. (1954), On a new sauropod from Yiping, Szechuan, China. sinica, III(4), 481-514.
8. Origin of the Mamenchisaurus name Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine (in Chinese), Beijing Museum of Natural History website
9. ^ Young, C. C. (1958). "New Sauropods from China". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 2 (1).
10. ^ Young, C.C., and Zhao, X.-J. (1972). "Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis sp. nov." Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Monographs, A, 8:1-30.
11. ^ Glut, Donald F. (2000). Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia: Supplement 1. North Carolina: Jefferson: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0786405910.
12. ^ Moore, A.J.; Upchurch, P.; Barrett, P.M.; Clark, J.M.; Xing, X. (2020). "Osteology of Klamelisaurus gobiensis (Dinosauria, Eusauropoda) and the evolutionary history of Middle–Late Jurassic Chinese sauropods" (PDF). Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 18 (16): 1299–1393. Bibcode:2020JSPal..18.1299M. doi:10.1080/14772019.2020.1759706. S2CID 219749618.
13. ^ Moore, Andrew J.; Barrett, Paul M.; Upchurch, Paul; Liao, Chun-Chi; Ye, Yong; Hao, Baoqiao; Xu (2023). "Re-assessment of the Late Jurassic eusauropod Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum Russell and Zheng, 1993, and the evolution of exceptionally long necks in mamenchisaurids". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 21 (1). Bibcode:2023JSPal..2171818M. doi:10.1080/14772019.2023.2171818.
14. Paul, Gregory (2019-12-31). "Determining the Largest Known Land Animal: A Critical Comparison of Differing Methods for Restoring the Volume and Mass of Extinct Animals". Annals of Carnegie Museum. 85 (4): 335. doi:10.2992/007.085.0403. ISSN 0097-4463. S2CID 210840060.
15. ^ He, Xinlu; Yang, Suihua; Cai, Kaiji; Li, kui; Liu, Zongwen (1996). "A new species of sauropod, Mamenchisaurus anyuensis sp. nov." (PDF). Papers on Geosciences Contributed to the 30th Geological Congress: 83–86.
16. ^ PI, L., OU, Y. and YE, Y. 1996. A new species of sauropod from Zigong, Sichuan, Mamenchisaurus youngi. 87–91. In DEPARTMENT OF SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL ECONOMY (ed.), Publication in Geoscience Contributed to the 30th International Geological Congress. China Economic Publishing House, Beijing.
17. ^ Zhang, Yihong; Li, kui; Zeng, Qinghua (1998). "'A new species of sauropod from the Late Jurassic of the Sichuan Basin (Mamenchisaurus jingyanensis sp. nov.)'". Journal of the Chengdu University of Technology. 25 (1): 61–68.
18. ^ Xing, L; Ye, Y; Shu, C; Peng, G; You, H (2009). "Structure, orientation and finite element analysis of the tail club of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis". Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition). 83 (6): 1031–1040. Bibcode:2009AcGlS..83.1031L. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6724.2009.00134.x. S2CID 129309522.
19. Hou, Lianhai; Zhou, Shiwu; Cao, Youshu (1976). "New discovery of sauropod dinosaurs from Sichuan" (PDF). Vertebrata PalAsiatica (in Chinese and English). 14 (3): 160–165.
20. Peng, G.Z.; Ye, Y.; Gao, Y.H.; Shu, C.K.; Jiang, S. (2005). "Jurassic dinosaur faunas in Zigong". Zigong Dinosaur Museum, Zigong.
21. ^ Zhang, Y.; W. Chen (1996). "Preliminary research on the classification of sauropods from Sichuan Basin, China". In Morales, M. (ed.). The Continental Jurassic. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, 60. Museum of Northern Arizona. pp. 97–107.
22. ^ Upchurch, Paul; Barrett, Paul M.; Dodson, Peter (2004). "Sauropoda". The Dinosauria. Weishampel, David B., Dodson, Peter., Osmólska, Halszka. (2nd ed.). Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-94143-4. OCLC 801843269.
23. ^ Li, Kui; Cai, Kaiji (1997). "Classification and evolution of Mamenchisaurus". Journal of Chengdu University of Technology. 24: 102–107.
24. ^ Ouyang, H. and Ye, Y. 2002. The First Mamenchisaurian Skeleton with Complete Skull: Mamenchisaurus youngi (in Chinese with English summary). 111 pp + 20 plates. Sichuan Science and Technology Press, Chengdu.
25. FANG, Xiaosi; ZHAO, Xijin; LU, Liwu; CHENG, Zhengwu (2004). "Discovery of Late Jurassic Mamenchisaurus in Yunnan, southwestern China". Regional Geology of China Z. 23.
26. Tan, Chao; Dai, Hui; He, Jian-Jun; Zhang, Feng; Hu, Xu-Feng; Yu, Hai-Dong; Li, Ning; Wei, Guang-Biao; Peng, Guang-Zhao; Ye, Yong; Zhang, Qian-Nan; Ren, Xin-Xin; You, Hai-Lu (2019). "Discovery of Omeisaurus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) in the Middle Jurassic Shaximiao Formation of Yunyang, Chongqing, China". Vertebrata PalAsiatica: 105–116.
27. ^ HASEGAWA, Y.; MANABE, M.; HANAI, T.; KASE, T.; OJI, T. (1991). "A diplodocid dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous Miyako group of Japan". Bulletin of the National Science Museum. Series C. 17 (1).
28. ^ Glut, Donald F. (1997). Dinosaurs, the encyclopedia. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co. ISBN 0-89950-917-7. OCLC 33665881.
29. Azuma Y, Tomida Y. 1998. Japanese dinosaurs. In: Curie PJ, Padian K, eds. Encyclopaedia of dinosaurs. San Diego: Academic Press, 375–379.
30. Barrett, P.M.; Hasegawa, Y.; Manabe, M.; Isaji, S.; Matsuoka, H. (2002). "Barrett, Paul M., et al. "Sauropod dinosaurs from the Lower Cretaceous of eastern Asia: taxonomic and biogeographical implications". Palaeontology. 45 (6). doi:10.1111/1475-4983.00282.
31. ^ Xing, Lida; Miyashita, Tetsuto; Zhang, Jianping; Li, Daqing; Ye, Yong; Sekiya, Toru; Wang, Fengping; Currie, Philip J. (2015-01-02). "A new sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of China and the diversity, distribution, and relationships of mamenchisaurids". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 35 (1): e889701. Bibcode:2015JVPal..35E9701X. doi:10.1080/02724634.2014.889701. ISSN 0272-4634. S2CID 86062974.
32. Paul, G.S. (1988). "The brachiosaur giants of the Morrison and Tendaguru with a description of a new subgenus, Giraffatitan, and a comparison of the world's largest dinosaurs". Hunteria. 2 (3): 1–14.
33. Sander, P. Martin; Christian, Andreas; Clauss, Marcus; Fechner, Regina; Gee, Carole T.; Griebeler, Eva-Maria; Gunga, Hanns-Christian; Hummel, Jürgen; Mallison, Heinrich; Perry, Steven F.; Preuschoft, Holger (2011). "Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism". Biological Reviews. 86 (1): 117–155. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00137.x. PMC 3045712. PMID 21251189.
34. ^ Larramendi, Asier; Paul, Gregory S.; Hsu, Shu-yu (2020). "A review and reappraisal of the specific gravities of present and past multicellular organisms, with an emphasis on tetrapods". The Anatomical Record. 304 (9): 1833–1888. doi:10.1002/ar.24574. ISSN 1932-8494. PMID 33258532. S2CID 227243708.
35. Upchurch, Paul; Mannion, Philip D.; Xu, Xing; Barrett, Paul M. (2021-07-04). "Re-assessment of the Late Jurassic eusauropod dinosaur Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum Dong, 1997, from the Turpan Basin, China, and the evolution of hyper-robust antebrachia in sauropods". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 41 (4): e1994414. Bibcode:2021JVPal..41E4414U. doi:10.1080/02724634.2021.1994414. ISSN 0272-4634.
36. Taylor, Michael P.; Wedel, Mathew J. (2013-02-12). "Why sauropods had long necks; and why giraffes have short necks". PeerJ. 1: e36. doi:10.7717/peerj.36. ISSN 2167-8359. PMC 3628838. PMID 23638372.
37. "Osteology, paleobiology, and relationships of the sauropod dinosaur Sauroposeidon", by Mathew J. Wedel, Richard L. Cifelli, and R. Kent Sanders (Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 45, pages 343–388, 2000).
38. ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2017). "Restoring Maximum Vertical Browsing Reach in Sauropod Dinosaurs". The Anatomical Record. 300 (10): 1802–1825. doi:10.1002/ar.23617. ISSN 1932-8494. PMID 28556505.
39. Otero, Alejandro; Gallina, Pablo Ariel; Canale, Juan Ignacio; Haluza, Alejandro (2012-06-01). "Sauropod haemal arches: morphotypes, new classification and phylogenetic aspects". Historical Biology. 24 (3): 243–256. doi:10.1080/08912963.2011.618269. ISSN 0891-2963. S2CID 84286012.
40. ^ Hallett, Mark; Wedel, Mathew J. (2016). The Sauropod Dinosaurs : Life in the Age of Giants. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-1-4214-2028-8. OCLC 947074739.
41. Ye, Y.; Ouyang, H.; Fu, Q.-M. (2001). "New material of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis from Ziging China". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 39 (4): 266–271.
42. Christian, Andreas; Peng, Guangzhao; Sekiya, Toru; Ye, Yong; Wulf, Marco G.; Steuer, Thorsten (2013-10-30). Farke, Andrew A. (ed.). "Biomechanical Reconstructions and Selective Advantages of Neck Poses and Feeding Strategies of Sauropods with the Example of Mamenchisaurus youngi". PLOS ONE. 8 (10): e71172. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...871172C. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071172. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3812961. PMID 24204557.
43. SANDER, P. MARTIN; KLEIN, NICOLE; STEIN, KOEN; WINGS, OLIVER (2011). "Sauropod Bone Histology and Its Implications for Sauropod Biology". Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs : Understanding the Life of Giants. Nicole Klein, Remes, Kristian., Gee, Carole T., Sander, Martin, Dr. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-01355-2. OCLC 858764960.
44. Wings, Oliver; Schwarz-Wings, Daniela; Fowler, Denver W. (2011-11-01). "New sauropod material from the Late Jurassic part of the Shishugou Formation (Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, NW China)". Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen. 262 (2): 129–150. doi:10.1127/0077-7749/2011/0183. ISSN 0077-7749.
45. Upchurch, Paul (1995). "The evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs" (PDF). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 349 (1330): 365–390. Bibcode:1995RSPTB.349..365U. doi:10.1098/rstb.1995.0125.
46. ^ Sekiya, T. (2011). Re-examination of Chuanjiesaurus anaensis (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic Chuanjie Formation, Lufeng County, Yunnan Province, southwest China." Memoir of the Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum, 10: 1－54.
47. Allain, Ronan; Najat Aquesbi (2008). "Anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of Tazoudasaurus naimi (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the late Early Jurassic of Morocco". Geodiversitas. 30 (2): 403, 404. ISSN 1280-9659. Archived from the original on 2013-09-25. Retrieved 2021-03-13.
48. Li, Kui; Liu, Jian; Yang, Chunyan; Hu, Fang (2011). "Dinosaur assemblages from the middle jurassic shaximiao formation and chuanjie formation in the sichuan-yunnan basin, China". Volumina Jurassica. IX: 21–42.
49. ^ Wang, Jun; Ye, Yong; Pei, Rui; Tian, Yamin; Feng, Chongqin; Zheng, Daran; Chang, Su-Chin (2018-09-01). "Age of Jurassic basal sauropods in Sichuan, China: A reappraisal of basal sauropod evolution". GSA Bulletin. 130 (9–10): 1493–1500. Bibcode:2018GSAB..130.1493W. doi:10.1130/B31910.1. ISSN 0016-7606.

External links

• Dinosaur.net.cn (in Chinese and English)

v t e Sauropodomorpha
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Sauropsida Clade: Avemetatarsalia Clade: Dinosauria Avemetatarsalia see Avemetatarsalia Sauropodomorpha see below↓
Sauropodomorpha Sauropodomorpha Buriolestes Eoraptor Gigantoscelus Guaibasaurus Mbiresaurus Pampadromaeus Panphagia Saturnaliidae Buriolestes? Eoraptor? Chromogisaurus Nhandumirim Pampadromaeus? Panphagia? Saturnalia Bagualosauria Arcusaurus Asylosaurus Bagualosaurus Efraasia Nambalia Pantydraco Thecodontosaurus Unaysauridae Jaklapallisaurus Macrocollum Unaysaurus Plateosauria Plateosauravus Ruehleia Xixiposaurus Plateosauridae Euskelosaurus Gresslyosaurus Issi Pachysauriscus Plateosaurus Yimenosaurus Massopoda Gryponyx Gyposaurus Ignavusaurus Kholumolumo Musankwa Sarahsaurus Tuebingosaurus Riojasauridae Eucnemesaurus Riojasaurus Massospondylidae Adeopapposaurus Coloradisaurus Glacialisaurus Ignavusaurus? Leyesaurus Lufengosaurus Massospondylus Ngwevu Pradhania Sarahsaurus Xingxiulong? Sauropodiformes Chuxiongosaurus? Jingshanosaurus Lishulong Qianlong Seitaad Xingxiulong? Yizhousaurus Yunnanosaurus Anchisauria Aardonyx Anchisaurus Camelotia Irisosaurus Lamplughsaura Leonerasaurus Melanorosaurus Meroktenos Mussaurus Pulanesaura Sefapanosaurus Sauropoda see below↓
Sauropoda Sauropoda Amygdalodon Blikanasaurus Chinshakiangosaurus Gongxianosaurus Isanosaurus Leonerasaurus? Pulanesaura? Protognathosaurus Schleitheimia Tuebingosaurus? Lessemsauridae Antetonitrus Ingentia Ledumahadi Lessemsaurus Gravisauria Archaeodontosaurus? Kotasaurus Ohmdenosaurus Rhoetosaurus Sanpasaurus? Zizhongosaurus? Vulcanodontidae Tazoudasaurus Vulcanodon Eusauropoda Algoasaurus Asiatosaurus Bagualia Barapasaurus Bellusaurus Cetiosauriscus Dashanpusaurus Dystrophaeus Janenschia Jobaria Nebulasaurus Perijasaurus Shunosaurus Spinophorosaurus Tehuelchesaurus Volkheimeria Cetiosauridae Cetiosaurus Chebsaurus Ferganasaurus? Lapparentosaurus? Patagosaurus? Mamenchisauridae Analong Anhuilong Cetiosauriscus? Chuanjiesaurus Datousaurus? Eomamenchisaurus Huangshanlong Hudiesaurus Jingiella Klamelisaurus? Mamenchisaurus Omeisaurus Qijianglong Rhomaleopakhus Tienshanosaurus Tonganosaurus Wamweracaudia Xinjiangtitan Yuanmousaurus Zigongosaurus Turiasauria Amanzia Bellusaurus? Haestasaurus? Janenschia? Losillasaurus Mierasaurus Moabosaurus Narindasaurus Oplosaurus? Tehuelchesaurus? Tendaguria Turiasaurus Zby Neosauropoda Diplodocoidea (see below ↓ ) Macronaria (see below ↓ ) Dubious sauropods Bothriospondylus Cardiodon Dinodocus Gigantosaurus Neosodon Qinlingosaurus Ultrasaurus
Diplodocoidea Diplodocoidea Haplocanthosaurus Diplodocimorpha Rebbachisauridae Agustinia Amazonsaurus Campananeyen Comahuesaurus Dzharatitanis? Histriasaurus Lavocatisaurus Maraapunisaurus? Nopcsaspondylus Sidersaura Xenoposeidon Zapalasaurus Khebbashia Limaysaurinae Cathartesaura Limaysaurus Rayososaurus? Rebbachisaurinae Demandasaurus Itapeuasaurus Katepensaurus Nigersaurus Rebbachisaurus Tataouinea Flagellicaudata Dicraeosauridae Amargasaurus Amargatitanis Bajadasaurus Brachytrachelopan Dicraeosaurus Dyslocosaurus? Kaatedocus Lingwulong Pilmatueia Smitanosaurus Suuwassea Tharosaurus Diplodocidae Apatosaurinae Amphicoelias? Apatosaurus Atlantosaurus? Brontosaurus Diplodocinae Ardetosaurus Barosaurus Dinheirosaurus Diplodocus Galeamopus Kaatedocus? Leinkupal Supersaurus Tornieria
Macronaria Macronaria Abrosaurus Aragosaurus Bashunosaurus? Daanosaurus Dashanpusaurus? Europasaurus Haestasaurus? Yuzhoulong Camarasauridae Camarasaurus Lourinhasaurus Titanosauriformes Astrodon Duriatitan Eucamerotus Fushanosaurus Fusuisaurus Ornithopsis Pelorosaurus Rugocaudia? Brachiosauridae Abydosaurus Atlasaurus Brachiosaurus Cedarosaurus Galvesaurus? Giraffatitan Lusotitan Sonorasaurus Soriatitan Venenosaurus Vouivria Somphospondyli Angolatitan Arkharavia Astrophocaudia Austrosaurus Brohisaurus Brontomerus Chubutisaurus Dongbeititan Europatitan Fukuititan Garumbatitan Jiangxititan? Jiutaisaurus Liaoningotitan Ligabuesaurus? Liubangosaurus Oceanotitan Padillasaurus Pukyongosaurus Ruixinia Sauroposeidon Sibirotitan Tastavinsaurus Triunfosaurus Euhelopodidae Australodocus? Chiayusaurus? Erketu Euhelopus Gannansaurus Gobititan Huabeisaurus Huanghetitan Jiangshanosaurus? Phuwiangosaurus Qiaowanlong Silutitan Tambatitanis Tangvayosaurus Yongjinglong Yunmenglong Diamantinasauria Australotitan Diamantinasaurus Sarmientosaurus Savannasaurus Wintonotitan? Titanosauria see below↓
Titanosauria Titanosauria Abdarainurus Aegyptosaurus? Andesaurus Angolatitan? Arackar Argyrosaurus Atacamatitan Austroposeidon Baotianmansaurus Barrosasaurus Baurutitan? Bonatitan? Borealosaurus Brasilotitan Choconsaurus Daxiatitan Dongyangosaurus Dreadnoughtus? Elaltitan Epachthosaurus? Gandititan Hamititan Huabeisaurus Jiangshanosaurus? Kaijutitan Karongasaurus Laplatasaurus Ligabuesaurus? Magyarosaurus Malarguesaurus? Malawisaurus Mnyamawamtuka Narambuenatitan Ninjatitan Normanniasaurus Nullotitan Pellegrinisaurus? Petrobrasaurus Pitekunsaurus Rapetosaurus Rukwatitan Ruyangosaurus Tastavinsaurus? Tengrisaurus? Tiamat Traukutitan Trigonosaurus Sonidosaurus Uberabatitan Volgatitan Xianshanosaurus Diamantinasauria? Lirainosaurinae Ampelosaurus Atsinganosaurus Garrigatitan Lirainosaurus Lohuecotitan Mansourasaurus Paludititan Eutitanosauria Inawentu Menucocelsior Colossosauria Antarctosaurus Baalsaurus Bonitasaura Chucarosaurus Epachthosaurus? Jainosaurus Quetecsaurus Tengrisaurus? Vahiny Rinconsauria Adamantisaurus Maxakalisaurus? Muyelensaurus Overosaurus Panamericansaurus Rinconsaurus Aeolosaurini Aeolosaurus Arrudatitan Bravasaurus Caieiria Gondwanatitan Punatitan Shingopana Lognkosauria Argentinosaurus Drusilasaura Dzharatitanis? Futalognkosaurus Jiangxititan? Mendozasaurus Notocolossus Patagotitan Puertasaurus Saltasauroidea Bustingorrytitan Titanomachya Udelartitan Nemegtosauridae Nemegtosaurus Quaesitosaurus? Tapuiasaurus? Saltasauridae Igai Isisaurus? Qingxiusaurus Quaesitosaurus? Opisthocoelicaudiinae Abditosaurus? Alamosaurus Baurutitan? Dreadnoughtus? Opisthocoelicaudia Pellegrinisaurus? Qunkasaura Zhuchengtitan? Saltasaurinae Abditosaurus? Bonatitan? Ibirania Maxakalisaurus? Neuquensaurus Paralititan Rocasaurus Saltasaurus Yamanasaurus Dubious titanosaurs Bruhathkayosaurus? Campylodoniscus Clasmodosaurus Hypselosaurus Iuticosaurus Loricosaurus Macrurosaurus? Microcoelus Mongolosaurus? Titanosaurus
Topics in sauropodomorph research Sauropod neck posture Sauropod hiatus List of sauropod species

• Mamenchisaurids
• Late Jurassic dinosaurs of Asia
• Jurassic China
• Early Cretaceous dinosaurs of Asia
• Cretaceous China
• Fossils of China
• Paleontology in Xinjiang
• Fossil taxa described in 1954
• Taxa named by Yang Zhongjian
• Multispecific sauropod genera
• Sauropods of Asia
• Late Jurassic sauropods
• Early Cretaceous sauropods