Wikipedia

User:Abyssal/Timeline of sauropod research

< User:Abyssal
  1. Astrodon
  2. cetiosaurus rugulosus
  3. hoplosaurus armatus
  4. Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis
  5. Cetiosaurus giganteus
  6. Ultrasaurus
  7. Bolds
  8. Mayer
  9. Dinosauria history
  10. Taylor history
  11. Images
    1. Captions
  12. Lead
  13. Dinosauria 259
  14. Bullets per paper
  15. QPQ
  16. Early History
    1. Maybe Dinosauria 259
  17. Tracks

stage references = http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/taylor2010/Taylor2010-sauropod-history.pdf

Prescientific edit

19th century edit

1830s edit

1830

1840s edit

1841

  • Owen described the new genus Cardiodon for a single tooth discovered in the Middle Jurassic Forest Marble Formation of Wiltshire, England. This was the first sauropod taxon to be named.~stage1x361~
  • Owen described the new genus Cetiosaurus.[3]

He based the name on vertebrae and limb fragments collected from a variety of fossil sites.~stage1x361-362~ The remains bore traits puzzlingly similar to both reptiles and modern whales and so Owen gave it a name meaning "whale lizard".~stage1x362~ He had difficulty making sense of the animal, but speculated that it was a gigantic carnivorous marine reptile that fed on crocodiles and plesiosaurs.~stage1x362~ Owen did not describe any species to accompany this new genus.~stage1x361~

1842

  • Owen formally named the Dinosauria, but explicitly excluded Cetiosaurus because he thought it aquatic and explicitly intended to confine the name "dinosaur" to terrestrial animals.~stage1x362~

1849

1850s edit

1850

  • Mantell erected the new genus Pelorosaurus for the species "Cetiosaurus" conybeari.[6]

The taxon was known from a humerous exceeding four feet in length collected from the Lower Cretaceous Wealden Supergroup.~stage1x362-363~ The size of the bone inspired awe at the time but it now regarded as being of only modest size for a sauropod.~stage1x363~ Fortuitously this species is the only sauropod known to have a medullary cavity in its limbs, a trait that allowed Mantell to deduce its terrestrial lifestyle.~stage1x363~

1852

  • Mantell described the species Pelorosaurus becklesii.[8] He also reported an impression of skin near the animal's elbow. The finding revealed that Pelorosaurus was covered in "polygonal" scales "between one and a few centimeters in diameter".[9] This was the first sauropod skin impression ever discovered and to this day sauropod skin fossils are rare.~stage1x363~

The P. becklesii type specimen is BMNH R1868.~stage1x363~


1859

  • Owen criticized Mantell's description of Pelorosaurus, claiming that he had mistaken the rear side of the bone for its forward surface. However, Owen's accusation of error has been subsequently rejected by paleontologists.~stage1x363~

Owen proposed the name Opisthocoelia for the group now known as sauropods.~stage2x366~


Astrodon was the first sauropod named from North America and to be named outside of Europe in general. ~stage1x363~

1860s edit

1860

1865

1868

  • Falconer reported the first known sauropod fossils from India.[11]

1869

June 23rd

  • Hulke reported the discovery of a large humerus by Geological Society of London fellow J. C. Mansel Pleydell at Kimmeridge Bay to a meeting of the Society. He attributed the bone to a giant terrestrial reptile he called Ischyrosaurus.[14]

1870s edit

1870

The type specimen consisted of two vertebrae collected from different locations. These vertebrae bore hollow air-filled spaces resembling those of flying animals, leading Seeley to conclude that the animal was a gigantic pterosaur. However, both vertebrae are currently recognized as sauropod remains and each bone belonging to a different species at that.~stage1x363~

1871

C. oxoniensis was based on various Middle Jurassic fossils collected in the Oxford, England area. Phillips believed them all to belong to the same kind of animal but this is no longer taken for granted. Due to the uncertainty about the identity of some members of the type series, a large comparatively well preserved specimen discovered near Kirtlington Station was later designated the lectotype by Upchurch and Martin in 2003.~stage2x363-364~ Nevertheless, Phillips inferred from the anatomy of its limb bones that C. oxoniensis had an upright posture. He recognized that this would allow the animal to walk on land, but still thought it probably preferred marshy environments. Phillips was also the first to suggest that sauropods may have had dinosaurian affinities, although he did not regard it as a true dinosaur in its own right.~stage2x365~ In a 2010 overview of the history of sauropod paleontology, paleontologist Michael P. Taylor praised the anatomical acumen Phillips showed in this publication and regarded it as "a giant leap forward" in the field.~stage2x363-364~ Taylor also stated that the publication contained "the first meaningful window on the morphology and ecology of a saurpod dinosaur."~stage2x365~



1872

  • Hulke described the new genus Eucamerotus.[17] It is now regarded as a junior synonym of Ornithopsis.[18]

1873

November 5th

  • Hulke read his prepared manuscript for the description of a new species of Cetiosaurus that he named C. humerocristatus to the Geological Society of London.[14]

1874

  • Seeley published a description of a stegosaur vertebra that he mistook for a sauropod braincase. In this paper he also proposed the name Ceteosauria for the group now known as Sauropoda.~stage2x366~

1875


In this publication, Owen illustrated the now-missing type specimen of Cardiodon.~stage1x361~


1876

1877

The T. indicus type specimen consisted only of a partial thigh bone and two tail vertebrae. The only distinguishing trait Lydekker noted was that the tail vertebrae centra were concave on the front surface and convex on the rear. However, since many sauropods are now known to bear this trait the genus and species Titanosaurus indicus cannot be distinguished from them and it is now regarded as a taxon of dubious value.~stage2x365~

T. indicus was also the first sauropod to be discovered that once inhabited the ancient supercontinent of Gondwana.~stage2x365~

Marsh referred Atlantosaurus and Apatosaurus to the new family Atlantosauridae.~stage2x366~

Cope began advising Dr. John Ryder on the creation of a life-size illustration of the skeleton of Camarasaurus.~stage2x366~

December 21st

  • Cope exhibited the finished, somewhat inaccurate Camarasaurus reconstruction at a meeting of the American Philosophical Society. Despite its historic significance, this illustration would not be published until 1914.~stage2x366~


1878

c-A

  • Cope, E. D. (1878a). "TBAOn the saurians recently discovered in the Dakota Beds of Colorado". American Naturalist. 12 (2): 71–85. doi:10.1086/272033. S2CID 83715371.
  • Cope, E. D. (1878b). "TBAA new species of Amphicoelias". American Naturalist. 12: 563–564.

d-C


Marsh included his family Atlantosauridae in the Sauropoda. The name has since been criticized for ignoring other names for the group with better claims to priority and because sauropods do not have particularly lizard-like feet.~stage2x366~

Cope published a skeletal reconstruction of Camarasaurus, making the taxon "the first sauropod to be adequately figured".~stage2x366~


1879


a-A


  • Marsh described the first known partial sauropod skull, which he referred to Morosaurus.[40]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)


c-B

1880s edit

1881

1882

1883

Marsh estimated the live weight of Brontosaurus at more than 20 tons.~stage2x368~

Michael P. Taylor has praised both the reconstruction in this paper as significantly more accurate than the original Camarasaurus reconstruction by John Ryder and the mass estimate as "reasonably accurate". Nevertheless, Marsh was already inaccurately using a camarasaur skull as a basis for the skull of Brontosaurus.~stage2x368~

1884

  • Marsh described the first complete sauropod skull, which belonged to Diplodocus.[40]~stage2x368~"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

1885

  • Moussaye described the new genus Neosodon, although he did not name a type species for it.[41]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)


1887

1888

  • Lydekker named the Cetiosauridae.[42]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

1889

1890s edit

1890

  • Lydekker referred a tooth crown to the genus Cardiodon. Because the type specimen of the genus has been lost, Lydekker's tooth is the only known fossil to be classified in it.[44]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

the crown was BMNH R1527.~stage1x361~

1891

  • Marsh published a revised reconstruction of Brontosaurus. Although it included many corrections to his previous reconstruction, it also introduced new anatomical errors as well. The skull reconstruction in this publication was also based on that of a boxy-skulled non-Brontosaurus sauropod, although a different specimen suspected to belong to the taxon now known as Brachiosaurus.~stage2x368~

1893

  • Lydekker described "a large collection" of Late Cretaceous sauropod remains from Argentina and erected the new family Titanosauridae for them as well as Titanosaurus itself.[31]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Lydekker reported the first known sauropod fossils from South America.~stage2x368~

1895

1896

  • Deperet claimed to have dicovered an osteoderm belonging to a sauropod. However, his discovery was "ignored" until the 1980 when osteoderms were discovered indisputibly associated with the new genus Saltasaurus.[9]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

1897

  • The American Museum of Natural History dispatched a paleontological expedition to Como Bluff, where they discovered and excavated a partial Diplodocus skeleton.[31]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

1898

  • The American Museum of Natural History established the Bone Cabin Quarry, which would soon become one of the most productive sources of sauropod fossils in the history of North American paleontology.[31]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Osborn ignored MArsh's term Sauropoda in favor of calling the group Cetiosauria.~stage2x366~

1899

  • Osborn described the 1897 Como Bluff Diplodocus.[31]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • The Carnegie Museum of Natural History dispatched its first fossil-hunting expedition to the American West.[31]"TBA". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)


Osborn criticized Marsh's reconstructions of the tail of Brontosaurus.~stage2x368~

20th century edit

1900s edit

1901

  • Riggs reported the discovery of fossils that would later be classified as Brachiosaurus altithorax.[46]

1902

  • Hatcher published on Apatosaurus.[31]

1903

  • Hatcher published three works on Haplocanthosaurus.[31]
  • Riggs reported the discovery of an Apatosaurus specimen discovered near Grand Junction, Colorado.[31]
  • Riggs published a monograph on Apatosaurus that was still widely consulted by researchers as of 2010.~stage2x366~
  • Riggs argued that sauropods should be called opisthocoelians because this name was the oldest applied to the group.~stage2x366~
  • Hatcher argued that Sauropoda was the appropriate name for sauropods because the cetiosaurs were a subgroup it contained rather than a synonym and Opisthocoelia was too poorly defined and based on mistaken assumptions about the group's evolutionary affinities.~stage2x366-368~
  • Bush published on the taxonomy of Cetiosaurus and its connection with Cardiodon.[44]

1904

  • Riggs named the Brachiosauridae.[45]
  • Osborn published the first correct reconstruction of a sauropod forefoot.~stage2x368~

1905

1907

  • Gilmore suggested that Haplocanthosaurus may be a junior synonym of Morosaurus.[47]

1908

...from the Upper Jurassic Tendaguru Formation of German East Africa, in what is now Tanzania.[31]

1909

  • Earl Douglass of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History discovered the future site of Dinosaur National Monument. The find has since come to be regarded as the "culminat[ion]" of the institution's efforts and even "the greatest of all sauropod quarries".[31]

1910s edit

1910

1911

  • Sternfeld erected the new genus Tornieria for the species "Gigantosaurus" africanus.[29][49]

1914

  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]
  • Mook published Cope's original 1877 life-size reconstruction of Camarasaurus.~stage2x366~

1915

1917

1919

1920s edit

1921

  • Osborn and Mook published the first description of a nearly complete sauropod skeleton.[31]

1922

  • Janensch referred the species "Gigantosaurus" africanus to the genus Barosaurus.[29]
  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]

1923

  • The Carnegie Museum of Natural History ceased excavations at the future site of Dinosaur National Monument.[31]

1924


1925

  • Gilmore published more on Camarasaurus.[31]

1926

  • Huene followed Woodward's 1910 referral of the isolated braincase OUMNH J13596 to Cetiosaurus oxoniensis.~stage2x364~

1927

1928

1929

  • Janensch named the Dicraeosauridae.[39]

Huene published the first reconstruction of a titanosaur.~stage2x368~

  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]
  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]
  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]

1930s edit

1932

1933

Longman studied the pneumaticity of sauropod bones.~stage1x363~


1935

  • Young published a paper on sauropod fossils from China.[31]

1935 - 1936

  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]

1936

  • Gilmore published on Apatosaurus.[31]

Gilmore published a monograph on Apatosaurus that is still widely consulted by researchers as of 2010.~stage2x366~

1937

1938

1939

  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]

1940s edit

1940

  • Roland T. Bird oversaw the excavation of sauropod and theropod tracks from the Paluxy River in Texas. This was the first large-scale dinosaur track excavation in history.[52]

1941

1942


1944

1946

  • Swinton described a sauropod pelvis with associated limb bones. These fossils would later be referred to Pelorosaurus.[46]
  • Gilmore reported the discovery of a partial Alamosaurus skeleton in the North Horn Formation of Utah.[53]

1947

  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]

Janensch studied the pneumaticity of sauropod bones.~stage1x363~

1948

  • Young published a paper on sauropods from China.[31]

1950s edit

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1950

  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]
  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]

1953

1954


1955

  • Lavocat reported the discovery of additional Bothriospondylus madagascariensis remains.[18]

1956

  • Romer erected the new genus Euhelopus for the species "Helopus" zdanskyi.[43]

1957


1958

1960s edit

1960

1961

  • Janensch published a study on additonal fossil remains from Tendaguru.[31]

1970s edit

 
Cast of the skull of Nemegtosaurus.
 
Life restoration of a Vulcanodon.

1970

  • Steel published on the taxonomy of Cetiosaurus and its connection with Cardiodon.[44]

1971

1972

  • Young and Chao described the new species Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis.[43] This species had an unusually long neck and was known from the most complete fossil remains of the Chinese sauropods Young had studied.[31]
  • Lawson reported the discovery of fragmentary Alamosaurus remains in Texas.[53]

1974

  • Kaever and de Lapparent named the new ichnogenus and species Elephanotpides barkhausensis for the poorly preserved tracks of a large quadrupedal dinosaur discovered near Barkhausen, Germany. The trackmaker was probably a sauropod.[54]

1975

  • Cruickshank argued that Vulcanodon was a true sauropod and not merely a prosauropod.[44]
  • Ogier reported the discovery of additional Bothriospondylus fossils from Madagascar.[18]

1976

 
The skeleton of Patagosaurus fariasi .

1977


1978

  • Wild described the new genus and species Ohmdenosaurus liasicus.[51]
  • Bakker observed that sauropods were the dominant herbivorous dinosaurs of the Jurassic period.[56]
  • Berman and McIntosh published a revision of the taxonomy of the Late Jurassic sauropods of North America.[56]

They suggested that the genus Atlantosaurus was a synonym of Apatosaurus ajax.~stage2x366~

1979

1980s edit

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1980

  • Bonaparte and Powell described the new genus and species Saltasaurus loricatus.[38] Embedded in this dinosaur's skin was an armor composed of small lumps of bone slightly more than half a centimeter across and interspersed with larger rounded plates about 10 cm in diameter that bore a keel along their surfaces. This discovery vindicated Deperet's 1896 claim to have discovered a bony plate in the tail of a sauropod from Madagascar.[9]
  • Bonaparte and Powell named the Saltasauridae.[38]
  • Kues reported the discovery of Alamosaurus teeth in the Kirkland and Fruitland formations of New Mexico.[53]

1983

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1981

1983

  • Geology student Jeff Pittman recognized that the "potholes" hindering excavation equipment traffic through a gypsum mine in southeastern Arkansas were actually sauropod dinosaur footprint.[58]

1984

  • Cooper referred an isolated shoulder blade to the genus Vulcanodon, although this identification is now doubtful.[44]

1985

  • Mateer and McIntosh published a thorough redescription of Euhelopus.[59]

1986

  • Bonparte named the Neosauropoda.[42]
  • Bonaparte observed that Patagosaurus was the best understood Middle Jurassic sauropod from Argentina.[31]
  • Bonaparte regarded Volkheimeria as a primitive cetiosaurid.[47]
  • Bonaparte argued that Bothriospondylus was a nomen dubium.[18]
  • Powell suggested that the type species of Laplatasaurus should be reclassified into the genus Titanosaurus.[60]
  • Powell suggested that the species Titanosaurus robustus should be reclassified into the genus Neuquensaurus.[61]

1987

  • Lockley disputed Robert T. Bakker's hypothesis that an Early Cretaceous sauropod trackway from the Davenport Ranch, Texas area preserves evidence that sauropods traveled in herds with the young surrounded by the adults to protect them from predators. Instead, Lockley interpreted this trackway as a herd of sauropods traveling through a narrow area, with the young following the adults.[62]
  • Martin published an examination of sauropod neck posture, igniting a controversy regarding the subject.~stage3x368~

1988

  • The first fossils of the sauropod that would one day be named Ampelosaurus were discovered.[53]

1989

  • Dong and others argued that some fossilized tail clubs from China belong to Omeisaurus and Shunosaurus. The attribution of a club to Omeisaurus has since been refuted.[63]
  • Lucas and Hunt published on Alamosaurus remains discovered in Texas.[53]
  • Lucas and Hunt argued that Alamosaurus was evidence for faunal exchange between North and South America during the Late Cretaceous.[53]
  • Jeff Pittman proved that the sauropod tracks he recognized in an Arkansas gypsum mine were actually at the same level of the geologic column as the Glen Rose Formation sauropod tracks of Texas.[64]

1990s edit

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1990

  • McIntosh published a revision of the taxonomy of the Late Jurassic sauropods of North America.[56]
  • McIntosh published an additional revision of the taxonomy of the Late Jurassic sauropods of North America.[56]
  • McIntosh argued that Apatosaurus minimus was not a legitimate member of that genus and that its precise classification within Sauropoda couldn't be determined with confidence.[44]
  • McIntosh regarded Dystrophaeus as a diplodicid.[47]
  • McIntosh argued that Morosaurus agilis was a sauropod of otherwise uncertain classification.[47]
  • McIntosh regarded Volheimeria as a brachiosaurid.[47]
  • McIntosh regarded "Apatosaurus" alenquerensis as a species of Camarasaurus.[59]
  • McIntosh regarded Mamenchisaurus as a particularly unusual diplodocid.[59]
  • McIntosh regarded Aragosaurus as a camarasaurid.[65]
  • McIntosh cast doubt on the likelihood that the supposed scapula, coracoid and ulna of Amphicoelias really belonged to it.[65]
  • McIntosh argued that Amphicoelias was closeley related to or even synonymous with Diplodocus.[65]
  • McIntosh classified Supersaurus in the Diplodocidae.[49]
  • McIntosh regarded Haplocanthosaurus as a cetiosaurid.[18]
  • McIntosh regarded Lapparentosaurus as a brachiosaurid.[18]
  • McIntosh supported the distinction between Pelorosaurus conybeari, which he regarded as a brachiosaurid, and Cetiosaurus.[46]
  • McIntosh reclassified "Dinodocus" mackesoni as a species of Pelorosaurus.[46]
  • McIntosh referred some sauropod fossils described by Swinton in 1946 to Pelorosaurus.[46]
  • McIntosh concluded that "Cetiosaurus" humerocristatus should actually be regarded as a new genus of brachiosaurid.[46]
  • McIntosh also included the first attempt to formulate a diagnosis for the genus Laplatasaurus in order to help distinguish it from Saltasaurus.[60]
  • McIntosh regarded the genus Neuquensaurus as a junior synonym of Saltasaurus and suggested that the proper of the binomial of the species therefore should be Saltasaurus australis.[66]
  • McIntosh also considered "Neuquensaurus" robustus to belong to Saltasaurus.[67]
  • Lockley disputed claims that some sauropod tracks were left underwater by swimming trackmakers.[68]

1991

  • Salgado and Bonaparte described the new genus and species Amargasaurus cazaui.[39] It was the second known member of the family Dicraeosauridae.[69]
  • Wild erected the genus Janenschia for the species "Gigantosaurus" robustus.[48] He dismissed the genus Tornieria as invalid.[49]
  • Czerkas reported the presence of spines made of keratin preserved along the back of a new, but unnamed diplodocid. This same specimen also preserved impressions of the skin that covered areas near the tip of its tail.[9]

1992

  • Powell erected the new genus Neuquensaurus for the species "Titanosaurus" australis.[38]
  • Powell observed that Saltasaurus was the best understood Late Cretaceous sauropod genus from South America.[31]
  • A partial sauropod skeleton was discovered on the Isle of Wight.[46]
  • Gayet and others argued that Alamosaurus was evidence for faunal exchange between North and South America during the Late Cretaceous.[53]
  • Farlow observed that sauropod trackways could be categorized as either being "narrow-gauge" or "wide-gauge".[70]
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1993

  • Bonaparte and Coria named the Titanosauria.[45][71]
  • Jacobs and others erected the new genus Malawisaurus for the species "Gigantosaurus" dixeyi.[50] The erection of this genus was accompanied by reports of the discovery of additional fossils of the species. These fossils included the first uncontroversial titanosaur skull to be found associated with its postcranial remains.[66]
  • Russell and Zheng performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • Upchurch dismissed the genus Gigantosaurus as a nomen dubium.[49]
  • Jacobs and others regarded Bellusaurus as a very primitive titanosaur.[73]
  • Salgado and Coria reported the discovery of more Aeolosaurus fossils. These remains were from the Allen Formation of Rio Negro Province, Argentina.[53]
  • Lockley and dos Santos described the Kimmeridgian-aged Avelino quarry tracksite near Lisbon, Portugal, the first scientifically documented sauropod dinosaur tracksite in Europe to contain well-preserved tracks of the animals' front feet. All of the trackmakers seem to have been juveniles.[74]
  • Britt published one of the first scientific examinations of sauropod bone pneumaticity in several decades.~stage1x363~
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1994

  • Hunt and others erected the new genus Jainosaurus for the species "Anatarctosaurus" septentrionalis.[50]
  • Czerkas published more information about the keratinous spines of the diplodocid specimen he reported in 1992.[9]
  • Upchurch performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • Lockley and others argued that Deltapodus was probably not left by a sauropod because the hind prints had only three toes and the tracks themselves were preserved in an environment where sauropod tracks are not generally found.~135~ Instead they concluded it was more likely to be the tracks of a thyreophoran, possibly a stegosaur.[75]
  • A cave enthusiast near Fatima, Portugal looked down on a quarry from a high ridge and noticed that its floor was covered in sauropod footprints.[76] The site included the longest known dinosaur trails at the time. The individual tracks are the largest sauropod prints known from the Middle Jurassic and include the largest foreprints of any known sauropod track type.[77]
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1995

  • Upchurch named the Eusauropoda.[43] He defined the taxon as the descendants of the most recent ancestor shared by Shunosaurus and Saltasaurus.[47]
  • Upchurch named the Nemegtosauridae.[42][78] He defined it as the stem-based clade of diplodocoids more closeley related to Nemegtosaurus than to Diplodocus.[78]
  • McIntosh published a revision of the taxonomy of the Late Jurassic sauropods of North America.[56]
  • Madsen and others published a revision of the taxonomy of the Late Jurassic sauropods of North America.[56]
  • Upchurch performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • Upchurch's analysis uncovered a monophyletic Euhelopododidae.[79]
  • Upchurch found Mamenchisaurus to be a euhelopodid.[63]
  • Calvo and Salgado performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • Upchurch used the name Diplodocoidea for the first time.[65]
  • Upchurch found Haplocanthosaurus to be related to Brachiosaurus and Camarasaurus.[18]
  • Calvo and Salgado found Haplocanthosaurus to be a primitive diplodocoid.[18]
  • Blows re-examined the taxonomy of Early Cretaceous sauropods from Britain. He concluded that both Ornithopsis and Eucamerotus were valid and distinctive names.[18] He regarded Ornithopsis as a brachiosaurid, although subsequent research has not supported this. He also referred the 1992 Isle of Wight sauropod to Eucamerotus.[46]
  • Upchurch found "Pelorosaurus" becklesii to actually be a titanosaur and therefore the oldest known European member of that group.[46]
  • Upchurch found Argyrosaurus to be a titanosaur.[80]

1996

  • Zhang and Chen published the description of the new species Mamenchisaurus jingyanensis, for which they credited Zang and Li.[43] They also cast doubt about whether or not the postcranial remains attributed to Abrosaurus really belonged to that genus.[49] The referred the aforementioned genus to the Camarasauridae, but as of 2004 other paleontologists have not been able to confirm this.[73]
  • Bonaparte published a review of sauropod discoveries in Argentina.[31]
  • Wilson and Smith reported he discovery of an additional Amphicoelias skeleton in Montana. They argued against McIntosh's 1990 claim that Amphicoelias was very similar if not synonymous with Diplodocus, instead suggesting that Amphicoelias occupied a more primitive position within the Diplodocoidea than Diplodocus itself does.[65]
  • Curtice and others found Ultrasauros to be the same as Supersaurus.[49]
  • Curtice and Wilhite followed McIntosh in classifying Supersaurus in the Diplodocidae.[49]
  • Jacobs and others reported the discovery of additional Malawisaurus fossils.[60]
  • Chatterjee and Rudra reported the discovery of more Titanosaurus fossils in India.[66]
  • Bonaparte attempted to ascertain the provenance of the type specimen of Neuquensaurus australis and suggested that the Rio Colorado Formation of Neuquen Province or the Allen Formation of Rio Negro Province as possibilities.[66]

1997

  • Novas published the description of the new genus Limaysaurus, for which he credited Calvo and Salgado.[39] WHAT
  • Salgado, Coria, and Calvo named the Camarasauromorpha.[35][73] Although they named the clade, the authors did not give it a formal phylogenetic definition. They did, however, label the node in the paper's cladogram from which Camarasaurus and the Titanosauriformes descend with the name Camarasauromorpha. Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson have since suggested that this may have been the intended definition, although these authors would propose a new definition themselves in 2004.[73]
  • Salgado, Coria, and Calvo named the Titanosauriformes.[35]
  • Salgado and others performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • Li and Cai contended that the genus Mamenchisaurus was being used as a "watebasket taxon" for a variety of unrelated Middle and Late Jurassic Chinese sauropods.[59]
  • Salgado and Calvo argued that the skull of Nemegtosaurus got its long, diplodocoid-like shape through the physical distortion of its remains after death and that this feature was not a genuine anatomical trait of the taxon. They argued that many of the supposed distinguishing traits of Quaesitosaurus were also a result of distortion.[78]
  • Salgado and others reported the discovery of additional Aeolosaurus fossils. These were from the Los Alamistos Formation of Rio Negro Province, Argentina.[53]
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1998

  • Dantas and others erected the new genus Lourinhasaurus for "Apatosaurus" alenquerensis.[43]
  • Wilson and Sereno named the Macronaria.[29] They defined it as the stem-based clade of neosauropods more closeley related to Saltasaurus than to Diplodocus.[49]
  • Upchurch performed a cladistic analysis of sauropods that produced a "well-resolved" evolutionary tree.[56]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined Sauropoda of the stem-based clade containing dinosaurs more closely related to Saltasaurus than to Plateosaurus.[81]
  • Wilson and Sereno suggested a new stem-based definiteion for Eusauropoda.[47]
  • Chiappe and others reported the discovery of the first known sauropod embryo fossils, which were found in South America. The embryos themselves probably belonged to lithostrotian titanosaurs.[82]
  • Upchurch performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • Upchurch's analysis uncovered a monophyletic Euhelopododidae.[79]
  • Wilson and Sereno performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • In this paper they contended that the various cladistic analyses that paleontologists have performed on the sauropods were already "beginning to converge on a consensus of the broad outline" of their phylogeny.[79]
  • They found Euhelopus to be related to the Titanosaurs.[79]
  • They found Jobaria to be just outside the Macronarians.[79]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined the new taxon Somphospondyli as those titanosauriforms more closeley related to Saltasaurus than Brachiosaurus.[59]
  • Wilson and Sereno found the Omeisaurus species O. changshouensis, O. fuxiensis, and O. luoquanensis to be nomina dubia.[63]
  • Wilson and Sereno argued that despite Dong and others' 1989 attribution of a bony tail club to Omeisaurus and Shunosaurus, only the latter can confidently asserted to have possesed one.[63]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined Neosauropoda as the descendant of the most recent ancestor shared by Diplodocus and Saltasaurus.[65]
  • Dantas and others reported the disovery of more Lourinhasaurus fossils.yeahit'sthesamepaper[59]
  • Upchurch found Mamenchisaurus to be a euhelopodid.[63]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined Diplodocoidea as neosauropods more closeley related to Diplodocus than to Saltasaurus.[65]
  • Wilson and Sereno argued that the species "Rebbachisaurus" tessonei should be reclassified as Rayososaurus tessonei based on shared features in the shoulder blade. This referral has since been regarded with skepticism.[69]
  • Wilson and Sereno also regarded the fossils of the species "Rebbachisaurus" tamesnensis as Rayososaurus remains.[69]
  • Upchurch found Haplocanthosaurus to be just outside the Neosauropoda.[18]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined the Titanosauriformes as the node-based clade descended from the most recent ancestor shared by Brachiosaurus and Saltasaurus.[18]
  • Upchurch found Lapparentosaurus to be a brachiosaurid.[18]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined the Brachiosauridae as the stem-based clade of Titanosauriformes more closely related to Brachiosaurus than Saltasaurus.[46]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined the Somphospondyli as the stem-based clade of Titanosauriformes more closeley related to Saltasaurus than to Brachiosaurus.[71]
  • Wilson and Sereno defined the Titanosauria as the stem-based clade of Titanosauriformes more closeley related to Saltasaurus than to Brachiosaurus or Euhelopus. This definition has since been criticized for using Euhelopus as an anchor taxon, since its evolutionary affinities have been a source of controversy.[71]
  • Upchurch suggested that advanced titanosaurs may have migrated into North America from Asia instead of northward from South America.[53]
  • Wilson and Sereno suggested that advanced titanosaurs may have migrated into North America from Asia instead of northward from South America.[53]
  • Sereno defined the Saltasauridae as the descendants of the most recent ancestor shared by Saltasaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia.[66]
  • Lopez-Martinez and others noted the presence of sauropod and ornithopod tracks near the K-T Boundary in the Tremp Formation of northeastern Spain. The presence of tracks so close to the Cretaceous-Tertiary suggests that the dinosaur died out rapidly rather than gradually.[83]
  • Carpenter and Tidwell argued that Marsh based the skull of his 1891 Brontosaurus reconstruction on a Brachiosaurus skull.~stage2x368~
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

1999

  • Sereno and others named the Rebbachisauridae.[42][78] They defined it as the stem-based clade of diplodocoids more closeley related to Rebbachisaurus than to Diplodocus.[78]
  • Monbaron, Russell, and Taquet reclassified the species Cetiosaurus mogrebiensis in the new genus and species Atlasaurus imelakai.[29][73]
  • Bonaparte described the new genus and species Agustinia ligabuei.[45] They argued that this sauropod was so unusual that it deserved its own family, the Agustiniidae.[71]
  • Martin and others published additional research on Phuwiangosaurus.[31]
  • Gomani published additional research on sauropods from Malawi.[82]
  • Upchurch performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[72]
  • Upchurch found Euhelopus to belong to the monophyletic family Euhelopodidae.[59]
  • Upchurch found Mamenchisaurus to be a euhelopodid.[63]
  • Sereno and others found Jobaria to not even be a true neosauropod.[79]
  • Upchurch argued like Salgado and Calvo that the skull of Nemegtosaurus got its long, diplodocoid-like shape through the physical distortion of its remains after death, but argued that it had other traits showing an evolutionary link to the diplodocoids that were legitimate. He also concurred with the aforementioned authors that many of the allegedly distinguishing traits of Quaesitosaurus were a result of distortion rather than the actual anatomy of the animal.[78]
  • Sereno and others referred all of the fossils ascribed to the species Rebbachisaurus tamesnensis to Jobaria.[78]
  • Sereno and others regarded Jobaria as more primitive than the Neosauropoda.[73]
  • Upchurch found Antarctosaurus to be a diplodocoid.[84]
  • Gomani reported the discovery of additional Malawisaurus fossils.[60]
  • Gomani and others reported the discovery of additional Malawisaurus fossils.[60]

21st century edit

2000s edit

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2000

  • Buffetaut and others found that true sauropods appeared all the way back in the Late Triassic.[56]
  • Wilkinson and others performed a cladistic analysis of sauropods that produced a "well-resolved" evolutionary tree.[56]
  • Wilkinson and others performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[79]
  • Bilbey and others reported the discovery of additional better preserved Haplocanthosaurus remains from Utah.[79][18]
  • Isanosaurus was the first sauropod dinosaur to be reported from the Late Triassic.[44]
  • Upchurch and Barrett argued that the neck of Shunosaurus was best suited to side-to-side motions rather than vertical ones.[63]
  • Wilkinson and others bemoaned the difficulty of determining the position of Haplocanthosaurus in the sauropod family tree due to its scanty remains and strange features.[18]
  • Sullivan and Lucas argued that Alamosaurus was evidence for faunal exchange between North and South America during the Late Cretaceous.[53]
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2001

  • Smith and others described the new genus and species Paralititan stromeri.[94] The discovery of Paralititan provided important insight into the Late Cretaceous titanosaurs of Africa. The depositional context of the specimen also suggests that at least some sauropod taxa preferred habitats resembling modern mangrove swamps.[66]





  • Chiappe and others published additional research on the South American titanosaur embryos.[82]
  • Chiappe and others published additional research on the South American titanosaur embryos.[82]
  • Curry Rogers and Forster performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[79]
  • Curry Rogers and Forster found Antarctosaurus to be a titanosaur.[84]
  • Curry Rogers and Forster argued that Rapetosaurus provided evidence that nemegtosaurids were titanosaurs.[66]


2002

  • Upchurch and Martin performed a cladistic analysis of sauropod evolution.[79]
  • Upchurch and Martin published a revision of Cetiosaurus taxonomy.[63]
  • Lehman and Coulson reported the discovery of additional Alamosaurus fossils.[53]

2003

Wilson and Upchurch also demonstrated that the genus and species Titanosaurus indicus were dubious taxa with no known distinguishing characteristics.~stage2x365~

Wilson and Upchurch found Microcoelus and Titanosaurus nanus to be nomina dubia.~stage2x368~


  • Upchurch and Martin persuasively demonstrated that Cardiodon and Cetiosaurus were distinct genera, despite previously published allegations that they were synonyms.[44]~stage1x361~
  • Upchurch and Martin published a revision of Cetiosaurus taxonomy.[63]
  • Upchurch and Martin concluded that only the species Cetiosaurus oxoniensis truly belonged to the genus.[46] Like McIntosh in 1990, they regarded Pelorosaurus conybeari as distinct from Cetiosaurus, but they disagreed with his assignment of the species to the Brachiosauridae, instead arguing that it was not possible to reliably classify to a more precisely than to Titanosauriformes.[46]
  • Upchurch and Martin concluded that "Cetiosaurus" humerocristatus may represent a distinct brachiosaurid, but opined that the evidence was too tentative to justify erecting a new generic name for it.[104]

They found that Pelorosaurus becklesii was a primitive titanosauriform, possible a brachiosaurid.~stage1x363~

Upchurch and Martin designated the largest member of the Cetiosaurus oxoniensis type series discovered near Kirtlington Station as the lectotype of the species.~stage2x364~

  • Wedel published a study on the pneumaticity of sauropod bones.~stage1x363~
  • Wedel published an additional study on the pneumaticity of sauropod bones.~stage1x363~

Powell found Microcoelus and Titanosaurus nanus to be nomina dubia.


2004

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
  • Salgado and others erected the new genus Limaysaurus for the species "Rebbachisaurus" tessonei originally described by Calvo and Salgado in 1995.[108]
  • Galton and Upchurch found Blikanasaurus to be the most primitive known sauropod.[111]
  • Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson proposed a new definition of the Camarasauromorpha as the descendant of the most recent common ancestor shared by Camarasaurus and Saltasaurus. The new definition was intended to prevent the name from falling into synonymy with Macronaria.[73] They were also critical of Wilson and Sereno's definition of Titanosauria because it redundantly included three taxa and used the genus Euhelopus as an anchor taxon even though it's exact evolutionary affinities were controversial. The authors redefined Titanosauria as the stem-based clade of titanosauriforms more closely related to Saltasaurus than Brachiosaurus, the same definition Wilson and Sereno applied to Somphospondyli.[71] They named the new clade Lithostrotia, which they defined as the descendants of the most recent ancestor shared by Malawisaurus and Saltasaurus.[53]


2005

  • Wedel published a study on the pneumaticity of saurpod bones.~stage1x363~
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2006

  • The informal name "Moabosaurus utahensis" was used for the first time.
  • The informal name "Pakisaurus balochistani" was used for the first time.


Barrett figured the only known remainin Cardiodon fossil, the tooth cataloged as BMNH R1527.~stage1x361~

  • Galton and Knoll "tentatively" accepted the respecive 1910 and 1926 referrals by Woodward and Huene of the isolated braincase OUMNH J13596 to Cetiosaurus oxoniensis.~stage2x364~
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2007

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2008

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2009

  • Upchurch and others petitioned the International Comission on Zoological Nomenclature in an effort to help resolved complex tangled history of Cetiosaurus and Pelorosaurus taxonomy.

~stage1x363~

2010s edit

2010

  • Barrett, Benson and Upchurch erected the new genus Duriatitan for the species "Cetiosaurus" humerocristatus.[159]
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.
 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2011

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2012

2013

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2014

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2015

 
Life restoration of a Polycotylus.

2016

2017

See also edit

Footnotes edit

  1. ^ Mayor (2005); "Comanche Fossil Medicine in Oklahoma", page 195.
  2. ^ Mayor (2005); "Comanche Fossil Medicine in Oklahoma", page 196.
  3. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 263. For the original publication, see Owen (1841).
  4. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", pages 270-271. For the original publication, see Owen (1842).
  5. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 308. For the original publication, see Melville (1849).
  6. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 266 and "Systematics and Evolution", page 308. For the original publication, see Mantell (1850).
  7. ^ For Aepisaurus elephantinus, see Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 270. Note that Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004) use the common but erroneous spelling "Aepysaurus". For Oplosaurus armatus, see ibid., page 261. For the original description of the aforementioned taxa, see Gervais (1852).
  8. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271. For the original publication, see Mantell (1852).
  9. ^ a b c d e Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Integument and Armor", page 295.
  10. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 270. For the original publication, see Leidy (1865).
  11. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Historical Review", page 272. For the original publication, see Falconer (1868).
  12. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 270. For the original publication, see Seeley (1869).
  13. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271. For the original publication, see Matheron (1869).
  14. ^ a b Hulke (1874); page 16.
  15. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 266. For the original publication, see Seeley (1870).
  16. ^ For Cetiosaurus glymptonensis, see Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 265. for Ornithopsis oxoniensis, see ibid. page 263. For the original publication, see Phillips (1871).
  17. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 307. For the original publication, see Hulke (1872).
  18. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 307.
  19. ^ Wills (2013); "Sauropods", pages 417-418. Note that Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 267 gives an erroneous date of 1873, cf. Wills (2013). For the original publication, see Hulke (1874).
  20. ^ Barrett, Benson, and Upchurch (2010); in passim.
  21. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271. For the original publication, see Sauvage (1874).
  22. ^ For the genus, see Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 307. For the species, see ibid.; "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 270. Note that Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004) used the common but erroneous spelling B. "suffosus", cf. Owen (1875); in passim. For the original publication, see Owen (1875).
  23. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271. For the original publication, see Owen (1876).
  24. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271. For the original publication, see Sauvage (1876).
  25. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 261. For the original publication, see Cope (1877a).
  26. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 266. For the original publication, see Cope (1877b).
  27. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 266. Note that Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson erroneously attributed C. diversidens to Cope (1877b). The correct citation is Cope (1877c).
  28. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 266. For the original publication, see Cope (1877d).
  29. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 265.
  30. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Historical Review", page 272. For the original publication, see Lydekker (1877).
  31. ^ 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 Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Historical Review", page 272.
  32. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271. Note that Upchurch, Barrett and Dodson erroneously attribute T. montanus to Marsh (1877a). The correct citation is Marsh (1877b).
  33. ^ For Apatosaurus ajax, see Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 264. For Atlantosaurus see ibid., page 271. For Apatosaurus grandis, see ibid., page 266. However, note that Upchurch, Barrett and Dodson erroneously attributed both Atlantosaurus and Apatosaurus grandis to Marsh (1877c); the correct citation for both is Marsh (1877a).
  34. ^ For Amphicoelias fragillimus, see Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 265. However, note that Upchurch, Barrett and Dodson erroneously attribute A. fragillimus to Cope (1878a); the correct citation is Cope (1878b).
  35. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 266.
  36. ^ For Morosaurus impar, see Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 266. For Atlantosaurus immanis see ibid., page 264. For the original publication, see Marsh (1878a).
  37. ^ For Sauropoda, see Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 261. For Diplodocus longus see ibid., page 264. For Morosaurus robustus see ibid., page 266. For the original publication, see Marsh (1878b).
  38. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 270.
  39. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 264.
  40. ^ a b c Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Historical Review", pages 271-272.
  41. ^ 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 Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271.
  42. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 263.
  43. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 262.
  44. ^ a b c d e f g h Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 298.
  45. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 267.
  46. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 308.
  47. ^ a b c d e f g h Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 299.
  48. ^ a b c d e f g h i Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 268.
  49. ^ a b c d e f g h Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 305.
  50. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 269.
  51. ^ a b c d e f g h Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 261.
  52. ^ Lockley and Hunt (1995); "Digging for Dinosaur Tracks", page 199.
  53. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 311.
  54. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "Sauropods on the Rise: Germany, Iberia, and Switzerland", page 159.
  55. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "Social Sauropods", page 166.
  56. ^ a b c d e f g h i Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Introduction", page 259.
  57. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "Sauropod Tracks", page 209.
  58. ^ Lockley and Hunt (1995); "Problematic Potholes", pages 191–192.
  59. ^ a b c d e f g Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 300.
  60. ^ a b c d e Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 312.
  61. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", pages 313-314.
  62. ^ Lockley and Hunt (1995); "'Swimming' Brontosaurs and the Dangers of Misinterpretation", page 186.
  63. ^ a b c d e f g h i Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 301.
  64. ^ Lockley and Hunt (1995); "Problematic Potholes", page 192.
  65. ^ a b c d e f g Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 302.
  66. ^ a b c d e f g Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 313.
  67. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 314.
  68. ^ Lockley and Hunt (1995); "Chapter 5: The Cretaceous", page 319.
  69. ^ a b c Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 304.
  70. ^ Lockley and Hunt (1995); "The Sauropod Straddle", page 175.
  71. ^ a b c d e Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 309.
  72. ^ a b c d e f g h Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 295.
  73. ^ a b c d e f g Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 306.
  74. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "Baby Brontosaurs", page 162.
  75. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "Dinosaurs in the Great Deltas of Yorkshire", pages 135–136.
  76. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "The First Iberian Sauropods", page 138.
  77. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "The First Iberian Sauropods", page 139.
  78. ^ a b c d e f g Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 303.
  79. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 296.
  80. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 310.
  81. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Definition and Diagnosis", page 259.
  82. ^ a b c d Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Historical Review", page 273.
  83. ^ Lockley and Meyer (2000); "The Last European Dinosaurs", page 239.
  84. ^ a b Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", pages 311-312.
  85. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 267. For the original publication, see Wedel, Ciffeli, and Sanders (2000).
  86. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 261. For the original publication, see Buffetaut et al. (2000).
  87. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 261. For the original publication, see Fang et al. (2000).
  88. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 261. For the original publication, see Bonaparte, Heinrich, and Wild (2000).
  89. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 268. For the original publication, see Pang and Cheng (2000).
  90. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 270. For the original publication, see Salgado and Azpilicueta (2000).
  91. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 265. For the original publication, see Casanovas, Santafe, and Sanz (2001).
  92. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 268. For the original publication, see Tidwell, Carpenter, and Meyer (2001).
  93. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 269. For the original publication, see Tang et al. (2001).
  94. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 269. For the original publication, see Smith et al. (2001).
  95. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 270. For the original publication, see Curry Rogers and Forster (2001).
  96. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Table 13.1: Sauropoda", page 271. For the original publication, see Dong, Paik, and Kim (2001).
  97. ^ For the original publication, see Carvalho, Avilla, and Salgado (2003).
  98. ^ For the original publication, see Yales and Kitching (2003).
  99. ^ For the original publication, see Alifanov and Averianov (2003).
  100. ^ For the original publication, see You, Tang, and Luo (2003).
  101. ^ For the original publication, see Wilson and Upchurch (2003).
  102. ^ For the original publication, see González Riga (2003).
  103. ^ For the original publication, see Calvo and González Riga (2003).
  104. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", pages 308-309.
  105. ^ For the original publication, see Kellner and (2004).
  106. ^ For the original publication, see Apesteguía (2004).
  107. ^ For the original publication, see You et al. (2004).
  108. ^ For the original publication, see Salgado et al. (2004).
  109. ^ For the original publication, see Harris and Dodson (2004).
  110. ^ For the original publication, see Allain et al. (2004).
  111. ^ Upchurch, Barrett, and Dodson (2004); "Systematics and Evolution", page 297.
  112. ^ For the original publication, see Buffetaut (2005).
  113. ^ For the original publication, see Kellner et al. (2005).
  114. ^ For the original publication, see Rauhut et al. (2005).
  115. ^ For the original publication, see Gallina and Apesteguía (2005).
  116. ^ For the original publication, see Mahhamad et al. (2005).
  117. ^ For the original publication, see Ye et al. (2005).
  118. ^ For the original publication, see Peng et al. (2005).
  119. ^ For the original publication, see Gomani (2005).
  120. ^ For the original publication, see Novas et al. (2005).
  121. ^ For the original publication, see Campos et al. (2005).
  122. ^ For the original publication, see Santucci and Bertini (2006).
  123. ^ For the original publication, see Malkani (2006).
  124. ^ For the original publication, see Ksepka and Norell (2006).
  125. ^ For the original publication, see Mo et al. (2006).
  126. ^ For the original publication, see You et al. (2006).
  127. ^ For the original publication, see Wu et al. (2006).
  128. ^ For the original publication, see Bonaparte et al. (2006).
  129. ^ For the original publication, see Kellner et al. (2006).
  130. ^ For the original publication, see Xu et al. (2007).
  131. ^ For the original publication, see Royo-Torres, Cobos, and Alcalá (2006).
  132. ^ For the original publication, see Lü et al. (2006).
  133. ^ For the original publication, see Salgado, Carvalho and Garrido (2006).
  134. ^ For the original publication, see Calvo et al. (2007b).
  135. ^ For the original publication, see Rose (2007).
  136. ^ For the original publication, see Apesteguía (2007).
  137. ^ For the original publication, see Remes (2007).
  138. ^ For the original publication, see Wang et al. (2007).
  139. ^ For the original publication, see Calvo et al. (2007a).
  140. ^ For the original publication, see You et al. (2008).
  141. ^ For the original publication, see Lü et al. (2008a).
  142. ^ For the original publication, see Lü et al. (2008b).
  143. ^ For the original publication, see Filippi and Garrido (2008).
  144. ^ For the original publication, see Mo et al. (2008).
  145. ^ For the original publication, see Canudo et al. (2008).
  146. ^ For the original publication, see Salgado and Carvalho (2008).
  147. ^ For the original publication, see Zhang et al. (2009).
  148. ^ For the original publication, see Salgado and Coria (2009).
  149. ^ For the original publication, see Hocknull et al. (2009).
  150. ^ For the original publication, see González Riga et al. (2009).
  151. ^ For the original publication, see You and Li (2009).
  152. ^ For the original publication, see Lu et al. (2009a).
  153. ^ For the original publication, see Remes et al. (2009).
  154. ^ For the original publication, see Lu et al. (2009b).
  155. ^ For the original publication, see Chure et al. (2010).
  156. ^ For the original publication, see Alifanov and Bolotsky (2010).
  157. ^ For the original publication, see Garcia et al. (2010).
  158. ^ For the original publication, see Lu et al. (2010).
  159. ^ For the original publication, see Barrett, Benson, and Upchurch (2010).
  160. ^ For the original publication, see Azuma and Shibata (2010).
  161. ^ For the original publication, see Mo, Xu, and Buffetaut (2010).
  162. ^ For the original publication, see Csiki et al. (2010).
  163. ^ For the original publication, see Calvo and Porfiri (2010).
  164. ^ For the original publication, see Li et al. (2010).
  165. ^ For the original publication, see Mateus et al. (2011).
  166. ^ For the original publication, see Kellner et al. (2011).
  167. ^ For the original publication, see Taylor, Wedel and Cifelli (2011).
  168. ^ For the original publication, see Fernández-Baldor et al. (2011).
  169. ^ For the original publication, see Navarrete, Casal and Martínez (2011).
  170. ^ For the original publication, see Filippi, García and Garrido (2011).
  171. ^ For the original publication, see Jiang et al. (2011).
  172. ^ For the original publication, see Filippi et al. (2011).
  173. ^ For the original publication, see Zaher et al. (2011).
  174. ^ For the original publication, see Juárez Valieri and Calvo (2011).
  175. ^ For the original publication, see Carballido et al. (2012).
  176. ^ For the original publication, see Mannion and Otero (2012).
  177. ^ For the original publication, see Tschopp and Mateus (2012).
  178. ^ For the original publication, see Woodruff (2012).
  179. ^ For the original publication, see D’Emic (2013).
  180. ^ For the original publication, see Machado et al. (2013).
  181. ^ For the original publication, see Lü et al. (2013a).
  182. ^ For the original publication, see Ibiricu et al. (2013).
  183. ^ For the original publication, see Le Loeuff, Suteethorn and Buffetaut (2013).
  184. ^ For the original publication, see Coria et al. (2013).
  185. ^ For the original publication, see Fanti et al. (2013).
  186. ^ For the original publication, see Wu et al. (2013).
  187. ^ For the original publication, see Lü et al. (2013b).
  188. ^ For the original publication, see Lacovara et al. (2014).
  189. ^ For the original publication, see Huang et al. (2014).
  190. ^ For the original publication, see Gallina et al. (2014).
  191. ^ For the original publication, see González Riga and Ortiz David (2014).
  192. ^ For the original publication, see Gorscak et al. (2014).
  193. ^ For the original publication, see Saegusa and Ikeda (2014).
  194. ^ For the original publication, see Curry Rogers and Wilson (2014).
  195. ^ For the original publication, see Li et al. (2014).
  196. ^ For the original publication, see Mateus, Mannion and Upchurch (2014).
  197. ^ For the original publication, see Tschopp, Mateus, and Benson (2015).
  198. ^ For the original publication, see Upchurch, Mannion, and Taylor (2015).
  199. ^ For the original publication, see Xing et al. (2015a).
  200. ^ For the original publication, see Carballido et al. (2015).
  201. ^ For the original publication, see McPhee et al. (2015).
  202. ^ For the original publication, see Xing et al. (2015b).
  203. ^ For the original publication, see Bandeira et al. (2016).
  204. ^ For the original publication, see Díez Díaz et al. (2016).
  205. ^ For the original publication, see González Riga et al. (2016).
  206. ^ For the original publication, see Martínez et al. (2016).
  207. ^ For the original publication, see Poropat et al. (2016).
  208. ^ For the original publication, see Carvalho et al. (2017).

References edit

A-F edit

G-L edit

M-R edit

S-Z edit

External links edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abyssal/Timeline_of_sauropod_research&oldid=1092625278"