stringtranslate.com

List of sauropod species

Sauropoda is a clade of dinosaurs that consists of roughly 300 species of large, long-necked herbivores and includes the largest terrestrial animals ever to exist. The first sauropod species were named in 1842 by Richard Owen, though at the time, he regarded them as unusual crocodilians. Sauropoda was named in 1878 by Othniel Marsh.[1]

Scope

For historical value, this list includes every sauropod species that has been formally named, regardless of whether the species is currently considered to be valid. Invalid species (i.e., species that are regarded as dubious or as a junior synonym of another species) are given a darker gray background.

The precise definition of Sauropoda is disputed. One proposed dividing line is to consider as sauropods all species more closely related to derived sauropods than Melanorosaurus, one of the most sauropod-like taxa historically classified as a "prosauropod". The other is to exclude from Sauropoda any species more distantly related to derived sauropods than Vulcanodon, one of the earliest and most basal taxa historically accepted as a sauropod. This leaves an interval of species more closely related to derived sauropods than Melanorosaurus but not so closely as Vulcanodon that are sauropods under one definition but not the other. Many characteristics of sauropods, such as opisthocoelous cervical vertebrae and columnar limbs, evolved within this transitional region, so that species within it may exhibit a combination of characteristics regarded as sauropod-like or non-sauropod-like.

For the purposes of this list, species whose phylogenetic position may fall within the interval between Melanorosaurus and Vulcanodon, or whose status as a sauropod is otherwise regarded as uncertain, are listed separately from unambiguous sauropods.

The third section of this list covers species that were once classified as sauropods, but have been reidentified as belonging to other groups.

The fourth section of this list covers informally named sauropod species.

Unambiguous sauropods

The following is a list of every species of sauropod that has ever been formally named, regardless of whether it is currently considered valid, dubious, or synonymous with another species. Invalid species are given a darker gray background. It does not contain species that have been recovered as basal to Vulcanodon by phylogenetic analysis, which are covered in a separate list below. The list contains the following information:

Sauropodomorphs of uncertain affinity

This section of the list contains sauropodomorphs that are more closely related to eusauropods than Melanorosaurus but not as closely as Vulcanodon, thus lying between the two proposed boundaries of Sauropoda, as well as sauropodomorphs of unspecified phylogenetic position whose status as sauropods is disputed.

Non-sauropodomorphs misidentified as sauropods

This section of the list covers taxa that were at one point referred to Sauropoda, its historical synonyms Cetiosauria or Opisthocoelia, or referred to a taxon that is now regarded as a sauropod, such as the genus Cetiosaurus. However, it excludes sauropodomorphs that were referred to Sauropoda as a result of debate over where the boundary between sauropods and non-sauropod sauropodomorphs lie.

Informally named sauropods

This section of the list contains sauropods that have never been formally scientifically named, but have been referred to with an informal binomial name.

Footnotes

  1. ^ In 2004, Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson listed Cetiosaurus brevis as a nomen dubium.[4] In 2011, Upchurch, Mannion, and Barrett regarded Cetiosaurus brevis and Pelorosaurus conybeari to be objective synonyms and, based on both the caudal vertebrae associated with the name C. brevis and humerus associated with P. conybeari, regarded the taxon, which they called Pelorosaurus conybeari, to be a valid species.[8]
  2. ^ Some authors have treated Cetiosaurus conybeari Melville, 1849 and Pelorosaurus conybeari Mantell, 1850 as distinct taxa, with the former being based on a series of four caudal vertebrae and the latter on a humerus.[11][12][13] Others have regarded Pelorosaurus conybeari as simply Cetiosaurus conybeari assigned to a new genus.[14][10][8] Among those who treated P. conybeari as having been named by Mantell and based on a humerus, Blows regarded P. conybeari as a nomen vanum[15] and Upchurch et al. treated it as a valid taxon.[4]
  3. ^ According to Naish and Martill, "sauropod experts seem in universal agreement that ʻC. gigasʼ is a camarasauromorph".[26] Naish and Martill themselves regarded Chondrosteosaurus to be a camarasaurid;[27] in contrast, Upchurch, Mannion, and Barrett regarded the specimen to be a titanosauriform.[8]
  4. ^ Both Marsh and Lydekker named a sauropod genus Titanosaurus in 1877. Because Lydekker's Titanosaurus indicus was published first, Marsh renamed Titanosaurus montanus to Atlantosaurus montanus later that year.[30]
  5. ^ In 2015, Tschopp, Mateus, and Benson argued that D. longus was a nomen dubium.[29] In 2017, Carpenter disputed their claims regarding the status of D. longus[34]
  6. ^ Originally described as Ischyrosaurus, without a species name, by John W. Hulke in 1874.[24] Edward Drinker Cope had already named a genus Ischyrosaurus. In 1888, Lydekker assigned it to Ornithopsis, giving the species name as Ornithopsis manseli, which he credited to an unpublished manuscript by Hulke.[38]
  7. ^ Hatcher incorrectly believed that Haplocanthus had to be changed because it was too similar to Haplacanthus Agassiz, 1845.[42] Nonetheless, the name Haplocanthosaurus became widely used, and in 1991, the ICZN ruled to conserve the name Haplocanthosaurus.[43]
  8. ^ Gigantosaurus had to be renamed because Seeley had already used the name for a different sauropod
  9. ^ In 1988, He et al. regarded it as uncertain whether O. changshouensis belonged to Omeisaurus or Mamenchisaurus.[51] In 1996, Zhang and Chen referred O. changshouensis to Mamenchisaurus in 1996.[52] In 2019, Tan et al. used the name Omeisaurus changshouensis but regarded it as more like Mamenchisaurus than Omeisaurus[53]
  10. ^ Kim formally named a genus Ultrasaurus two years before Jensen did, so Ultrasaurus mcintoshi was renamed Ultrasauros.
  11. ^ The name Protognathus was preoccupied
  12. ^ Issue 10 of volume 30 of the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences is dated October 1993, but was not actually available until February or March 1994[56]
  13. ^ Exact date disputed. Article dated July 1, 2005, but copies apparently did not become available until December 18, 2005.[67]
  14. ^ The issue is dated 2009, but the paleontologist Darren Naish reported that it was actually published in 2008.[75]
  15. ^ Originally described as a diplodocid, and recovered as such by Tschopp et al. in 2015[29] and Tschopp and Mateus in 2017.[77] In contrast, recovered as a dicraeosaurid by Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla in 2020.[39]

References

  1. ^ Marsh 1878b.
  2. ^ McPhee & Choiniere 2018.
  3. ^ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay Upchurch, Barrett & Dodson 2004.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Upchurch & Martin 2003.
  6. ^ Upchurch & Martin 2003, p. 212.
  7. ^ Steel 1970, p. 64.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Upchurch, Mannion & Barrett 2011.
  9. ^ Mocho et al. 2016.
  10. ^ a b Taylor & Naish 2007, p. 1559.
  11. ^ a b Steel 1970, pp. 64, 68.
  12. ^ a b Ostrom 1970, pp. 129–130.
  13. ^ a b Upchurch et al. 2004, p. 308.
  14. ^ Naish & Martill 2001, pp. 205–207.
  15. ^ Blows 1995, pp. 195–196.
  16. ^ a b c Le Loeuff 1993, p. 107.
  17. ^ a b Upchurch, Mannion & Taylor 2015.
  18. ^ a b Mannion et al. 2019.
  19. ^ a b Carpenter & Tidwell 2005.
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Mannion et al. 2013.
  21. ^ a b Martill, Earland & Naish 2006.
  22. ^ Pereda Suberbiola & Barrett 1999.
  23. ^ a b c Barrett, Benson & Upchurch 2010.
  24. ^ a b Hulke 1874.
  25. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Mannion 2010.
  26. ^ Naish & Martill 2001, p. 195.
  27. ^ Naish & Martill 2001, pp. 195, 198.
  28. ^ a b c Wilson & Upchurch 2003.
  29. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Tschopp, Mateus & Benson 2015.
  30. ^ Marsh 1877b.
  31. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Ikejiri 2005.
  32. ^ a b c d Mannion, Tschopp & Whitlock 2021.
  33. ^ Carpenter 1998.
  34. ^ Carpenter 2017.
  35. ^ a b Carpenter 2018.
  36. ^ Woodruff & Foster 2014.
  37. ^ a b c D'Emic 2013.
  38. ^ Lydekker 1888.
  39. ^ a b c d Whitlock & Wilson Mantilla 2020.
  40. ^ Powell 2003.
  41. ^ Tweet 2019.
  42. ^ Hatcher 1903b.
  43. ^ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1991.
  44. ^ a b c Taylor 2009.
  45. ^ a b McPhee et al. 2016.
  46. ^ Otero 2010.
  47. ^ a b c Mannion 2011.
  48. ^ Wilson et al. 2009.
  49. ^ a b Poropat et al. 2017.
  50. ^ McPhee et al. 2016.
  51. ^ He, Li & Cai 1988, p. 85.
  52. ^ Zhang & Chen 1996, p. 107.
  53. ^ Tan et al. 2019, p. 112.
  54. ^ Viglietti et al. 2018.
  55. ^ Currie et al. 2018.
  56. ^ Mortimer 2021.
  57. ^ Cerda et al. 2021.
  58. ^ a b c Xing et al. 2015.
  59. ^ a b Barrett et al. 2002.
  60. ^ Upchurch et al. 2021.
  61. ^ D'Emic, Foreman & Jud 2016.
  62. ^ Apesteguía 2007.
  63. ^ a b Bellardini et al. 2022.
  64. ^ Royo-Torres et al. 2021.
  65. ^ a b Park 2016.
  66. ^ Ma et al. 2021.
  67. ^ Sánchez-Hernández 2006.
  68. ^ Mo 2013, pp. 38, 40.
  69. ^ Silva Junior et al. 2022, p. 31.
  70. ^ Fronimos 2023, p. 3.
  71. ^ Wilson & Upchurch 2009.
  72. ^ Carballido et al. 2020.
  73. ^ a b Gallina 2016.
  74. ^ a b Taylor 2018.
  75. ^ Naish 2009.
  76. ^ a b D'Emic & Foreman 2012.
  77. ^ Tschopp & Mateus 2017.
  78. ^ Ren et al. 2020.
  79. ^ Beeston et al. 2024.
  80. ^ Hocknull et al. 2021, p. 18.
  81. ^ Hocknull et al. 2021, p. 38.
  82. ^ Vila et al. 2022.
  83. ^ Silva Junior et al. 2022.
  84. ^ Mo et al. 2022.
  85. ^ Agnolin et al. 2023.
  86. ^ a b Mo et al. 2023.
  87. ^ a b Mocho et al. 2023.
  88. ^ a b Filippi et al. 2023.
  89. ^ a b Simón & Salgado 2023.
  90. ^ Lerzo et al. 2024.
  91. ^ a b Han et al. 2024.
  92. ^ "Jingia".
  93. ^ "Addendum". Historical Biology: 1. 2024-04-15. doi:10.1080/08912963.2024.2325806. ISSN 0891-2963.
  94. ^ a b Rauhut 2003.
  95. ^ Carballido & Pol 2010.
  96. ^ Pol et al. 2020.
  97. ^ a b c Gomez, Carballido & Pol 2021.
  98. ^ McPhee et al. 2016, p. 3.
  99. ^ McPhee et al. 2015.
  100. ^ Kutty et al. 2007.
  101. ^ Upchurch & Martin 2003, p. 215.
  102. ^ Melville 1849.
  103. ^ Baird & Horner 1979, p. 16.
  104. ^ Sauvage 1895, p. 469.
  105. ^ a b Osborn 1898, p. 227.
  106. ^ Carpenter & Wilson 2008, p. 228.
  107. ^ Gilmore & Stewart 1945.
  108. ^ Baird & Horner 1979, pp. 15–16.
  109. ^ Galton 1981.
  110. ^ Maidment et al. 2008, p. 18.
  111. ^ a b Ouyang & Ye 2002, p. 74.
  112. ^ Li & Cai 1997.

Works cited

Pereira, Paulo V L G C; Bandeira, Kamila L N; Vidal, Luciano S; Ribeiro, Theo B; Candeiro, Carlos R dos A; Bergqvist, Lilian P (2024-05-13). "A new sauropod species from north-western Brazil: biomechanics and the radiation of Titanosauria (Sauropoda: Somphospondyli)". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae054. ISSN 0024-4082.

Further reading

External links