Talk:Omeisaurus

Wrong photo?

Is the newly added photo of "Omeisaurus tianfuensis" in fact a photo of Mamenchisaurus jingyanesi? The size and proportions of the neck and tail (long and thin) look more like Mamenchisaurus. The skulls are different also. The Beijing Museum of Natural History has both and has sent them on tour. Ecphora (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I took the photograph in 2005 at a dinosaur exhibition held in Citiplaza in Hong Kong. It was marked as "Omeisaurus tianfuensis" . There were 2 other Mamenchisaurus on display in the same exhibition, they were a very big Mamenchisaurus jingyanesi and a smaller Mamenchisaurus constructus. I tried searching the web and confirmed from different sources ([1] and [2]) that they were labelled as such. giloun (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the new SV-POW [1], the species of Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus need to be sussed out, and several might swap genera. So it looks like the question of which mounts are Omei and which are Mamenchi might be kind of pointless right now... I'd say go with how it's labeled. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I also photographed both the BMNH's "Omeisaurus tianfuensis" [2] and "Mamenchisaurus jingyanesi" [3] in January 2008 when they were on view at the Miami Museum of Natural History. I wonder if the labels weren't mixed up in one of the exhibits, because the new image of "O. tianfuensis" [4] looks much more like what was shown as M. jingyanesi at the Miami Museum [5]. It is definitely not what was labeled as O. tianfuensis at the Miami Museum, which was considerably smaller and had a different skull. Ecphora (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Sauropods identification and I can't tell which from which. It is interesting however that the skull of "O. tianfuensis" shown in the photo album labeled source 1 [1] is more similar to that of "O. tianfuensis" at the Miami Museum [6] than the "Mamenchisaurus constructus" [7] shown in Hong Kong 2005. The actual description in 2005 can be seen here [8]. This description is very much similar to what appears in Zigong Dinosaur Museum's webpage [9] about Omeisaurus tianfuensis giloun (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the BMNH and asked them whether [10] is Omeisaurus or Mamenchisaurus. If I get a reply I will post it here. Ecphora (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Middle vs Late Jurassic

How can it be asserted that "Large herds of [Middle Jurassic] Omeisaurus probably roamed the late Jurassic countryside, alongside such late Jurassic stegosaurids as Tuojiangosaurus and Chungkingosaurus"? Did 10s of millions of years not mean anything in the Jurassic Era or is this just a poetic flight of fancy?AnthroMimus (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Omeisaurus" fossils have been found in the Middle and Late Jurassic, although they may not all belong to the same genus. Also, as far as I know, they have only been found from the late Middle Jurassic and early Late Jurassic, so it's not the entire Middle and Late Jurassic. Dgrootmyers (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Shunosaurus

Can anyone find a ref suggesting that the tail club attributed to Omeisaurus actually belongs to a large Shunosaurus? I seem to remember hearing of this once. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Upchurch doubted the attribution in 2004. I added a reference.--MWAK (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Conference abstract citation

I'm the author of the 2021 SVP abstract cited in the classification section. I appreciate the recognition of my work, but as a matter of principle I am not a big fan of conference abstracts being cited on Wikipedia (at least not without clear indication that they are preliminary, non-peer-reviewed results). Additionally, the article somewhat misrepresents what I said in my abstract; I did not directly comment on the validity of Omeisaurus species other than O. junghsiensis and did not reach a firm conclusion about their membership in the genus (other than the already-problematic "O." maoianus). Since I am the author, I figure it's best to bring this up on the talk page first rather than directly removing it myself, in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)