"Megacervixosaurus" and Kunmingosaurus - Zhao's nomina nuda part 7

Figure I have these things written, might as well post them. Today we finish off the sauropods. Remember the references not listed are in the first Zhao nomen nudum post.

"Megacervixosaurus" Zhao, 1983

"Megacervixosaurus tibetensis" Zhao, 1986
Etymology- The genus name refers to a large neck, while the species name refers to Tibet where the remains were found.
Late Cretaceous
Zonggu Formation, Zonggu, Markam County, Tibet, China
Material- specimen including cervical vertebrae
Comments- Zhao (pers. comm. in Molnar, 2011) noted similarity of its posterior cervicals to Austrosaurus.
Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1983) to be a homalosauropodoid, in which he includes peg-toothed taxa like diplodocoids and titanosaurs.  Lambert (1990), Olshevsky (1991) and provisionally Glut (1997) listed it as a diplodocid.   Olshevsky (online, 1999) also suggested it may be mamenchisaurid, perhaps based on the name, though Zhao did place Mamenchisaurus in Homalosauropodoidea too .  Weishampel et al. (2004) questioningly listed it as a lithostrotian.
As no morphological data has been released on "Megacervixosaurus", its relationships must necessarily remain tentative.  The absence of Cretaceous or Asian diplodocids renders that identification suspect, while mamenchisaurids are also unknown from the Cretaceous.  Indeed, the only Late Cretaceous sauropods are rebbachisaurids and titanosaurs, and only the latter are known from East Asia.  "Megacervixosaurus" is here considered a probable titanosaur.

References- Yang, 1986. The Cretaceous System. in Yang, Cheng and Wang (eds.). The Geology of China. Clarendon Press. 153-167.
Zhao,  1986. [unknown title] in Hao, Su, Yu and Li (eds.). The Cretaceous System of China. Stratigraphy of China. 12, 67-73.
Molnar, 2011. New morphological information about Cretaceous sauropod dinosaurs from the Eromanga Basin, Queensland, Australia. Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology. DOI: 10.1080/03115518.2011.533978

Kunmingosaurus Zhao vide Dong, 1992
K. wudingensis Zhao vide Dong, 1992
= "Kunmingosaurus wudingi" Zhao, 1985
= "Kunmingosaurus utingensjs" Zhao, 1985
= "Kunmingosaurus utingi" Zhen, Li and Rao, 1986
= "Kunmingosaurus utingensis" Chure and McIntosh, 1989
= "Kunmingosaurus wudingensis" anonymous, 1990 vide Olshevsky, 1991
= Kunmingosaurus wusdingensis Weishampel, Barrett, Coria, Le Loeuff, Xu, Zhao, Sahni, Gomani and Noto, 2004
Etymology- Kunming is the capital city of Yunnan, while Wuding is the county and basin the specimen was found in.
Hettangian, Early Jurassic
Zhangjiawa Member of the Lufeng Formation, Hoshaofang, Wuding County, Yunnan, China
Holotype- (IVPP coll.) (~11 m) incomplete skeleton including dorsal vertebrae, eight proximal caudal vertebrae, four chevrons, ilium, pubis, femur (~847 mm), tibia, fibula, astragalus, metatarsal I, phalanx I-1, pedal ungual I, metatarsal II, phalanx II-1, pedal ungual II, metatarsal III, phalanx III-1, phalanx III-2, pedal ungual III, metatarsal IV, phalanx IV-1, metatarsal V, phalanx V-1
....(BNHM,PZGR 74) dentary
....(BNHM,PZGR 75) dentary
Referred- ?(FMNH CUP 2042) maxilla (Barrett, 1999)
?(IVPP coll.) tooth (Upchurch and Barrett, 2000)

Kunmingosaurus wudingensis holotype dentaries BNHM,PZGR 74 and 74 in medial (top) and lateral (bottom) views, with four teeth in labial and lingual views. After Young (1966).

 

Kunmingosaurus wudingensis holotype posterior skeleton (after Zhao, 1985).

Comments- The species name is spelled "wudingi" in the text, and "utingensjs" in the figure caption, which as noted by Chure and McIntosh (1989) are probably unintentional variants, and the latter no doubt a mispelling of "utingensis". 
The skeleton was discovered by Su in 1954, but the dentaries were only discovered later in 1960 and described and illustrated by Young (1966) as specimens of Lufengosaurus magnus.  Dong (1992) referred them to the same individual as the postcrania since they came from the same quarry.  While Dong (and later Olshevsky, 2000) was incorrect in stating  Zhao described the taxon in 1985, his own book contains a diagnosis, type and illustration so would seem to validate the nomenclature (contra Barrett, 1999).  Indeed, Upchurch et al. (2004) attribute the name to Dong, 1992.  A photo of part of the mounted skeleton is in Zhao (1985), contra Barrett (1999).  Dong et al. (1990) published a photograph of the entire skeleton, and several are available online as well.    Li et al. (2010) note Kunmingosaurus lacks dorsal pleurocoels and has a poorly developed fourth trochanter.
Simmons (1965) described a maxilla (FMNH CUP 2042) from Ta Ti in the same beds as Yunnanosaurus robustus, which is similar to Kunmingosaurus in having a sauropodan lateral plate and serrated, spatulate teeth with a lingual ridge.  Barrett (1999) redescribed it as a sauropod maxilla, though he did not refer it to any genus.  Upchurch and Barrett (2000) described a referred tooth.

Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1985) to be a primitive sauropod.  Chure and McIntosh (1989) and Lambert (1990) listed it as a cetiosaurid, while Olshevsky (1991) listed it provisionally as a barapasaurid and Dong (1992) as a shunosaurine camarasaurid. Upchurch and Barrett (2000) discussed it as a 'vulcanodontid', which was a grade of basal sauropods in their scheme, and described a referred tooth.  Upchurch (1995) noted there was no published evidence suggesting it was a vulcanodontid, however.  He later (1998) noted that Kunmingosaurus' teeth were more plesiomorphic than Barapasaurus, Shunosaurus, Patagosaurus and other taxa in having only a shallow lingual concavity and being quite labiolingually compressed.  Barrett (1999) considered the dentaries to be sauropod based on the dorsoventrally expanded symphysis and lateral plate.  Fang et al. (2006) list it as a camarasaurid. 
When entered into a modified version of Wilson's (2002) analysis, Kunmingosaurus emerges more derived than Chinshakiangosaurus, Antetonitrus, Lessemsaurus and Blikanasaurus but less than  Shunosaurus and eusauropods (so is not a cetiosaurid, barapasaurid, shunosaurid or camarasaurid).  It is thus related to taxa such as Gongxianosaurus, Kotasaurus, Spinophorosaurus, Tazoudasaurus and Vulcanodon, so may be considered vulcanodont-grade.  Note the results agree with Upchurch's (1998) statements, though his dental characters were not used by Wilson.  Specifically, Kunmingosaurus is more derived than Chinshakiangosaurus based on the D-shaped teeth and reduced fourth trochanter, but less derived than Shunosaurus based on no crown-to-crown occlusion, straight dorsal ilial margin and unreduced pedal phalanges.

References- Simmons, 1965. The non-therapsid reptiles of the Lufeng Basin, Yunnan, China. Fieldiana, Geology. 15, 1-93.
Young, 1966. On a new locality of the Lufengosaurus of Yunnan. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 10(1), 64-67.
Zhen, Li and Rao, 1986. Dinosaur footprints of Jinnin, Yunnan. Memoirs of the Beijing Natural History Museum.  33, 19pp.
Dong, Hasegawa and Azuma, 1990. The Age of Dinosaurs in Japan and China. Fukui, Japan: Fukui Prefectural Museum. 65 pp.
Dong, 1992. Dinosaurian Faunas of China. China Ocean Press (Beijing). 192 pp.
Upchurch, 1995. The evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 349, 365-390.
Upchurch, 1998. The phylogenetic relationships of sauropod dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 124, 43-103.
Barrett, 1999. A sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Lufeng Formation (Lower Jurassic) of Yunnan Province, People's Republic of China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 19(4), 785-787.
Martin-Rolland, 1999. Les sauropodes chinois [The Chinese sauropods]. Revue Paléobiologie, Genève. 18(1), 287-315.
Olshevsky, 2000. An Annotated Checklist of Dinosaur Species by Continent. Mesozoic Meanderings. 3, 157 pp.
Upchurch and Barrett, 2000. The evolution of sauropod feeding mechanisms. in Sues (ed.). Evolution of Herbivory in Terrestrial Vertebrates: Perspectives from the Fossil Record. Cambridge Press. 79-123.
Upchurch, Barrett and Dodson, 2004. Sauropoda. in Weishampel, Dodson and Osmolska (eds.). The Dinosauria: Second Edition.  University of California Press. 259-322.
Li, Yang, Liu and Wang, 2010. A new sauropod from the Lower Jurassic of Huili, Sichuan, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 48(3),185-202.

I'm still alive! And look- Megaraptor foot!

Just wanted to reassure everyone I'm still here.  I've been doing *gasp* actual work to be submitted, finishing off the last appendix of the manuscript.  But in the absence of something else, here's a Photoshop rendition of Megaraptor's metatarsus using the holotype (metatarsal III, from Novas, 1998), MUCPv-341 (metatarsal IV, from Calvo et al., 2004) and UNPSJB-PV 958 (metatarsal II, from Lamanna, 2004).  The individuals are almost the same size based on their manual unguals Is, so the metatarsals are at almost the same scale.

Composite metatarsus of Megaraptor in extensor view with metatarsal IV also in proximal view.  Modified from Novas (1998), Calvo et al. (2004) and Lamanna (2004). 

References- Novas, 1998. Megaraptor namunhuaiquii, gen. et sp. nov., a large-clawed, Late Cretaceous theropod from Patagonia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 18(1), 4-9.

Calvo, Porfiri, Veralli, Novas and Pobletei, 2004. Phylogenetic status of Megaraptor namunhuaiquii Novas based on a new specimen from Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina. Ameghiniana. 41(4), 565-575.

Lamanna, 2004. Late Cretaceous dinosaurs and crocodiliforms from Egypt and Argentina. PhD Thesis. University of Pennsylvania. 305 pp.

If this were a scathing criticism of YOUR paper, would you want to be notified by me when I post it?

Title says it all, based on this comment.  I know some professionals read my blog, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion. 

Do they even understand the matrix they're coding?

You may remember my prior criticism of Hone and Benton (2008), who merged matrices when examining pterosaur relationships, but didn't combine equivalent OTUs.  They had both Lepidosauromorpha AND the lepidosauromorphs Gephyrosaurus, Sphenodontia and Squamata.  And they had both Choristodera AND the choristoderes Lazarussuchus, Cteniogenys and Champsosaurus.  Disturbingly, each more inclusive OTU did not clade with its exemplars in their trees.

Well now we have another example of using matrices without taking equivalent OTUs into account.  Yates (2004) had a sauropodomorph matrix where he tried two sets of outgroups.  One was Herrerasaurus and (Neo)Theropoda, another was Ornithischia and an expanded Theropoda including Herrerasaurus.  In the recent description of Chuxiongosaurus, Lu et al. (2010) used Yates' matrix but just ran the whole thing without noticing this.  Thus we have a cladogram with "Neotheropoda" sister to "Theropods"... :|  Herrerasaurus is the outgroup, probably because it is listed first in Yates' matrix, and Lu et al. didn't realize PAUP makes the first listed OTU the outgroup automatically.  Thus Ornithischia (which really should be the outgroup) is sister to the double-theropod clade.  What makes it especially sad is even if Lu et al. didn't read Yates' text, Yates labels the OTUs "Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis", "Theropoda (excluding Herrerasaurus)" and "Theropoda (including Herrerasaurus)" in his matrix.  How can you copy codings from that and not realize those aren't all independant taxa?!

As an aside, I'd like to see Chuxiongosaurus compared to Yunnanosaurus and Jingshanosaurus.  Thanks to Brad McFeeters for alerting me to this mess.

Coming soon, more Zhao taxa and part 2 of my recommended theropod clade definitions.

References- Hone and Benton, 2008. Contrasting supertree and total-evidence methods: the origin of the pterosaurs. Zitteliana. 28, 35-60. 

Lu, Kobayashi, Li and Zhong, 2010. A new basal sauropod dinosaur from the Lufeng Basin, Yunnan Province, Southwestern China. Acta Geologica Sinica. 84(6), 1336-1342. 

Yates, 2004. Anchisaurus polyzelus (Hitchcock): The smallest known sauropod dinosaur and the evolution of gigantism among sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Postilla. 230, 58 pp.

"Damalosaurus" - Zhao's nomina nuda part 6

 Following along our survey of Zhao's sauropods, note he originally spelled this one with an 'o', unlike most subsequent authors.

"Damalosaurus" Zhao, 1983
"Damalasaurus laticostalis" Zhao, 1985
"Damalasaurus magnus" Zhao, 1985
= "Damalosaurus laticostalis" [sic] Chure and McIntosh, 1989
= "Damalosaurus magnus" [sic] Chure and McIntosh, 1989
= "Damalasaurus magnas" [sic] Zhang and Li, 1997
Etymology- Named for Damala Mountain in Qamdo, with the species referring to wide ribs (laticostalis) or large size (magnus).
Early Jurassic
Middle Daye Group, Daye, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- (~15 m) specimen including dorsal rib
Comments- The species is listed as "magnus" in the text, but "laticostalis" in the plate caption.  Olshevsky (1991) listed "laticostalis as the type, though I consider it probable only one species is intended by Zhao since two are never present in faunal lists together (Zhao and Cheng, 1985; Zhang and Li, 1997; Fang et al., 2006).  Fang et al. use "laticostalis" for the species, suggesting it is the intended one since Zhao is a coauthor.  Zhao (1985) includes a photograph of a dorsal rib in situ, which the length estimate above is taken from assuming proportions like Barapasaurus.   Glut (1997) incorrectly stated it is Middle Jurassic in age.  Weishampel et al. (2004) list this as an undescribed sauropod in their faunal list. 

Dorsal rib of "Damalosaurus laticostalis/magnus" in matrix, from Zhao (1985).

Relationships- Stated by Zhao (1983, 1985) to be a primitive sauropod.  Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, while Lambert (1990) and Olshevsky (1991) listed it as a brachiosaurid.  Glut (1997) only listed it as Sauropoda incertae sedis.  Fang et al. (2006) place it in Cetiosauridae, noting again it's a primitive sauropod. As those authors placing it in Brachiosauridae have never seen the specimen, and brachiosaurids are currently unknown from Asia or the Early Jurassic, that assignment seems less likely.  Since Cetiosauridae is currently viewed as a grade of basal eusauropods, "Damalosaurus" is here placed as Sauropoda incertae sedis.

"Oshanosaurus" - Zhao's nomina nuda part 5

"Oshanosaurus youngi" Zhao, 1985
Etymology- Oshan is a variant of Eshan, a county in Yunnan it was found in.  The species name probably references famed Chinese paleontologist Young Zhongjian.
Hettangian, Early Jurassic
Zhangjiawa Member of the Lufeng Formation, Dianchung, Eshan County, Yunnan, China

Holotype anterior mandible of Eshanosaurus deguchiianus (IVPP V11579) in medial (A), dorsal (B) and lateral (C) views, and tooth in lingual (D), labial (E) and distal (F) views (after Xu et al., 2001).  Is this "Oshanosaurus youngi"?

Comments- Glut (1997) incorrectly stated it was found in Mongolia.  I suspect this is an old name for Eshanosaurus, which has the same etymology, is also from the Dianzhong Basin of Eshan County, was discovered by Zhao in 1971 and was later described in part by him (Zhao and Xu, 1998; Xu et al., 2001). 
Relationships-  Stated by Zhao (1985) to be a primitive sauropod.  Chure and McIntosh (1989), Lambert (1990) and provisionally Olshevsky (1991) listed it as a cetiosaurid.  Glut (1997) listed it as a possible heterodontosaurid or "geranosaur", possibly because Zhao mentions it in the same sentence as Dianchungosaurus.  As traditional Cetiosauridae now refers to a grade of basal eusauropods, ignoring the Eshanosaurus connection I would retain "Oshanosaurus" as Sauropoda incertae sedis. 
While Eshanosaurus is corrently believed to be a therizinosaur, therizinosaur mandibles are quite similar to those of sauropodomorphs and were poorly known in the 1980s.  Indeed, Eshanosaurus' mandible resembles those of basal eusauropods (e.g. Shunosaurus) more than basal sauropodomorphs in having a dorsoventrally expanded symphysis, anterior teeth the largest, a basolingual swelling on its teeth, a lingual median ridge on its teeth, and tooth roots expanded to be broader than their crowns.  However, it is unlike eusauropods in having a narrow symphysis, smooth enamel, a lateral dentary ridge and perpendicular serrations on its teeth.  Given Eshanosaurus' similar incongruity when considered as a therizinosaur (more derived than the much later Falcarius in having a decurved symphysis, lateral ridge and enlarged serrations; not to mention early appearence compared to other coelurosaurs), it may be convergent with both eusauropods and therizinosaurs.

References- Zhao and Xu, 1998. The oldest coelurosaurian. Natrure. 394, 234-235.
Xu, Zhao and Clark, 2001. A new therizinosaur from the Lower Jurassic Lower Lufeng Formation of Yunnan, China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 21(3), 477-483.

"Lancangosaurus" - Zhao's nomina nuda part 4

As always, general references are in the first post of the series.

"Lancangosaurus" Zhao, 1980
"Lancanjiangosaurus" Zhao, 1983
"Lancangjiangosaurus cachuensis" Zhao, 1985
"Lancanjiangosaurus cachuensis" Chure and McIntosh, 1989
"Lancanjiangosaurus cahuensis" Glut, 1997
"Lancanjiangosaurus cashuensis" Martin-Rolland, 1999
"Lanchangjiangosaurus cachuensis" Fang, Zhang, Lu, Han, Zhao and Li, 2006
Etymology- The genus references the Lancang Jiang, the local name for the head of the Mekong River.  The species name refers to the Zaqu River, which is the upper reaches of the Mekong.
Middle Jurassic
Middle Dapuka Group, Dabuka, Qamdo County, Tibet, China
Material- (~15 m) specimen including skull, mandible, twelve teeth and limb elements
specimen (Fang et al., 2006)

Teeth of "Lancangosaurus" (after Zhao, 1985).

Comments- Though usually believed to be a preliminary name for Datousaurus (e.g. Olshevsky, 1991), "Lancangosaurus" was first reported by Zhao (1980) in relation to a Dapuka specimen, not the Xiashaximiao Datousaurus.  Listed characters are large skull, large spatulate teeth which decrease gradually in size posteriorly, a thick mandible and robust limbs.  Dong et al. (1983) believed the teeth were congeneric with those from the Wujiaba Quarry of the Shangshaximiao Formation, which they described as belonging to Omeisaurus junghsiensis and O. fuxiensis.  Zhao (1985) figures teeth in situ, though the photograph is unclear.  Note Olshevsky (1991) switched the authorship for the variants "Lancanjiangosaurus" and "Lancangjiangosaurus".  Glut (1997) incorrectly listed it as being Late Jurassic in age.  Fang et al. (2006) note additional material from lower in the same formation.  Given the etymology, either "Lancangosaurus" or "Lancangjiangosaurus" would be the most accurate names.
Relationships- "Lancanjiangosaurus" was stated by Zhao (1983) to be a bothrosauropodoid, in which he includes spatulate-toothed taxa like camarasaurids and brachiosaurids.  Zhao (1985) notes it is a sauropod similar to Cetiosaurus.  Chure and McIntosh (1989) listed it as a cetiosaurid, as does Olshevsky (1991) provisionally, while Lambert (1990) listed it as a brachiosaurid.  Glut (1997) merely referred it to Sauropoda incertae sedis.  Most recently, Fang et al. (2006) place it in Cetiosauridae.  The known characters are found in both basal eusauropods like Omeisaurus and camarasaurids, though the age, locality and Zhao's opinion all favor the former identification.  Whether Dong et al. are correct in placing it close to Omeisaurus is unknown, and for now I recommend keeping it as Eusauropoda incertae sedis.
References- Zhao, 1980. [Mesozoic vertebrate-bearing beds and stratigraphy of northern Xinjinag: Report of Paleontological Expedition to Xinjiang IV.] Memoirs of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Academia Sinica A. 15, 1-119.
Dong, Zhou and Zhang, 1983. [Dinosaurs from the Jurassic of Sichuan]. Palaeontologica Sinica, New Series C. 162(23), 1-136 .
Martin-Rolland, 1999. Les sauropodes chinois [The Chinese sauropods]. Revue Paléobiologie, Genève. 18(1), 287-315.