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~
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~
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~
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~
Gervais described the new genera and species Aepisaurus elephantinus and Oplosaurus armatus.[7] Aepisaurus was the first sauropod dinosaur to be named outside of England.~stage1x363~
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~
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~
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]
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~
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~
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]
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~
Lydekker described the new genus and species Titanosaurus indicus from the Upper Cretaceous
Lameta Formation of India.[30] This was the first Indian sauropod discovery to be formally named.[31]
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 described the new genus and species Apatosaurus ajax, erected the new genus Atlantosaurus for the species "Titanosaurus" montanus, and described the additional Apatosaurus species
A. grandis.[33]
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~
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.
S2CID83715371.
Cope, E. D. (1878b). "TBAA new species of Amphicoelias". American Naturalist. 12: 563–564.
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~
Marsh described the first known partial sauropod skull, which he referred to Morosaurus.[40]"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
Marsh published the first skeletal reconstruction of a sauropod, that of Brontosaurus.[citation needed][40]"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
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~
Marsh described the first complete sauropod skull, which belonged to Diplodocus.[40]~stage2x368~"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
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)
Lydekker published the description of the new species Ischyrosaurus manseli, for which he credited Hulke.[41]"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
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)
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~
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~
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)
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)
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~
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~
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Bonaparte erected the new genus and species Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis.[35] for some juvenile sauropod remains referred to Bothriospondylus by Ogier.[18] He regarded Lapparentosaurus as a very primitive sauropod.[18]
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]
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~
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]
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]
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]
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]
Le Loeuff erected the new genus Iuticosaurus for "Titanosaurus" valdensis.[41]
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~
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]
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]
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]
Dong described the new genus and species Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum.[42]
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]
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~
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]
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]
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]
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]
Wilson and Upchurch erected the new genus Isisaurus for the species "Titanosaurus" colberti originally described by Jain and Bandyopadhyay in 1997.[101]
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.
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]
described the new genus and species Europasaurus holgeri. WHAT?'Sander, P. M.; Mateus, O. V.; Laven, T.; Knötschke, N. (2006-06-08). "Bone histology indicates insular dwarfism in a new Late Jurassic sauropod dinosaur". Nature. 441 (7094): 739–741.
doi:
10.1038/nature04633.
PMID16760975.
S2CID4361820.
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~
Upchurch and others petitioned the International Comission on Zoological Nomenclature in an effort to help resolved complex tangled history of Cetiosaurus and Pelorosaurus taxonomy.
^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).
^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).
^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).
^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).
Alifanov, V. R.; Averianov, A. O. (2003). "Ferganasaurus verzilini, gen. et sp. nov., a new neosauropod (Dinosauria, Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of Fergana Valley, Kirghizia". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 23 (2): 358–372.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2003)023[0358:FVGESN]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID85902362.
Alifanov, V. R.; Bolotsky, Y. L. (2010). "Arkharavia heterocoelica gen. et sp. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of far eastern Russia". Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal (in Russian). 2010 (1): 76–83.
Apesteguía, Sebastián (September 2004). "Bonitasaura salgadoi gen. et sp. nov.: a beaked sauropod from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia". Naturwissenschaften. 91 (10): 493–497.
doi:
10.1007/s00114-004-0560-6.
PMID15729763.
S2CID33590452.
Apesteguía, Sebastián (2007). "The sauropod diversity of the La Amarga Formation (Barremian), Neuquén (Argentina)". Gondwana Research. 12 (4): 533–546.
doi:
10.1016/j.gr.2007.04.007.
Azuma, Y.; Shibata, M. (2010). "Fukuititan nipponensis, a new titanosauriform sauropod from the Early Cretaceous Tetori Group of Fukui Prefecture, Japan". Acta Geologica Sinica – English Edition. 84 (3): 454–462.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2010.00268.x.
S2CID128897110.
Bonaparte, J. F.; Heinrich, W.-D.; R., Wild (2000). "Review of Janenschia Wild, with the description of a new sauropod from the Tendaguru beds of Tanzania and a discussion on the systematic value of procoelous caudal vertebrae in the Sauropoda". Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 256 (1–3): 25–76.
doi:
10.1127/pala/256/2000/25.
S2CID133671754.
Paul M. Barrett, Roger B.J. Benson and Paul Upchurch (2010). "Dinosaurs of Dorset: Part II, the sauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia, Sauropoda) with additional comments on the theropods". Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. 131: 113–126.
Bonaparte, José F.; González Riga, Bernardo J.; Apesteguía, Sebastián (2006). "Ligabuesaurus leanzai gen. et sp. nov. (Dinosauria, Sauropoda), a new titanosaur from the Lohan Cura Formation (Aptian, Lower Cretaceous) of Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina". Cretaceous Research. 27 (3): 364–376.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2005.07.004.
Buffetaut, Eric (2005). "A new sauropod dinosaur with prosauropod-like teeth from the Middle Jurassic of Madagascar". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 176 (5): 467–473.
doi:
10.2113/176.5.467.
Buffetaut, E.; Suteethorn, V.; Cuny, G.; Tong, H.; Le Loeuff, J.; Khansubha, S.; Jongautchariyakul, S. (2000). "The earliest known sauropod dinosaur". Nature. 407 (6800): 72–74.
doi:
10.1038/35024060.
PMID10993074.
S2CID4387776.
Calvo, J. O.; González Riga, B. J. (2003). "Rinconsaurus caudamirus gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina". Revista Geológica de Chile. 30 (2): 333–353.
doi:
10.4067/S0716-02082003000200011.
Campos, D. A.; Kellner, A. W. A.; Bertini, R. J.; Santucci, R. M. (2005). "On a titanosaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) vertebral column from the Bauru Group, Late Cretaceous of Brazil". Arquivos do Museu Nacional. 63 (3): 565–593.
Canudo, José I.; Royo-Torres, Rafael; Cuenca-Bescós, Gloria (2008). "A new sauropod: Tastavinsaurus sanzi gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous (Aptian) of Spain". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28 (3): 712–731.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2008)28[712:ANSTSG]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID85860510.
Carballido, José Luis; Salgado, Leonardo; Pol, Diego; Canudo, José Ignacio; Garrido, Alberto (2012). "A new basal rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from the Early Cretaceous of the Neuquén Basin; evolution and biogeography of the group". Historical Biology. 24 (6): 631–654.
doi:
10.1080/08912963.2012.672416.
S2CID130423764.
Carvalho, I. S.; Avilla, L. S.; Salgado, L. (2003). "Amazonsaurus maranhensis gen. et sp. nov. (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian–Albian) of Brazil". Cretaceous Research. 24 (6): 697–713.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2003.07.005.
Casanovas, Maria Lourdes; Santafé, José Vicente; Sanz, José Luis (2001). "Losillasaurus giganteus, un nuevo saurópodo del tránsito Jurásico-Cretácico e la Cuenca de "Los Serranos" (Valencia, España)". Paleontologia I Evolució (in Spanish). 32–33: 99–122.
Coria, R. A.; Filippi, L. S.; Chiappe, L. M.; García, R.; Arcucci, A. B. (2013). "Overosaurus paradasorum gen. et sp. nov. , a new sauropod dinosaur (Titanosauria: Lithostrotia) from the Late Cretaceous of Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina". Zootaxa. 3683 (4): 357–376.
doi:
10.11646/zootaxa.3683.4.2.
PMID25250458.
Rogers, K. C.; Wilson, J. A. (2014). "Vahiny depereti, gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous Maevarano Formation, Madagascar". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 34 (3): 606.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2013.822874.
S2CID85674576.
d’Emic, Michael D. (2013). "Revision of the sauropod dinosaurs of the Lower Cretaceous Trinity Group, southern USA, with the description of a new genus". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 11 (6): 707–726.
doi:
10.1080/14772019.2012.667446.
S2CID84742205.
Díez Díaz, V.; Mocho, P.; Páramo, A.; Escaso, F.; Marcos-Fernández, F.; Sanz, J.L.; Ortega, F. (2016). "A new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Lo Hueco (Cuenca, Spain)". Cretaceous Research. 68: 49–60.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2016.08.001.
Dong, Z.; Paik, I. S.; Kim, H. J. (2001). "A preliminary report on a sauropod from the Hasandong Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Korea". Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Chinese Society of Vertebrate Paleontology: 41–53.
Falconer, H. (1868). "Memorandum of two remarkable vertebrae sent by Dr. Oldham from Jubbulpoor-Spilsbury's Bed". Paleontol. Mem. Notes of the Late Hugh Falconer. 1: 418–419.
Fang, X.; Pang, Q.; Lu, L.; Zhang, Z.; Pan, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Cheng, Z. (2000). "Lower, Middle, and Upper Jurassic divisions of the Lufeng region of Yunnan province". Proceedings of the Third National Stratigraphical Conference of China: 208–214.
Federico Fanti, Andrea Cau, Mohsen Hassine & Michela Contessi (2013). "A new sauropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Tunisia with extreme avian-like pneumatization". Nature Communications. 4 (2080): 1–7.
doi:
10.1038/ncomms3080.
PMID23836048.{{
cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Filippi, L.S.; Garrido, A.C. (2008). "Pitekunsaurus macayai gen. et sp. nov., new titanosaur (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from Upper Cretaceous Neuquén Basin, Argentina". Ameghiniana. 45 (3): 575–590.
González Riga, B. J. (2003). "A new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mendoza, Argentina". Amehginiana. 40: 155–172.
González Riga, B. J.; Previtera, E.; Pirrone, C. A. (2009). "Malarguesaurus florenciae gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosauriform (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mendoza, Argentina". Cretaceous Research. 30 (1): 135–148.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2008.06.006.
Gonzalez Riga, B.; Ortiz David, L. (2014). "A New Titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous (Cerro Lisandro Formation) of Mendoza Province, Argentina". Ameghiniana.
doi:
10.5710/AMGH.24.12.2013.1889.
Harris, J. D.; Dodson, P. (2004). "A new diplodocoid sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 49 (2): 197–210.
Ibiricu, L. M.; Casal, G. A.; Martínez, R. N. D.; Lamanna, M. C.; Luna, M.; Salgado, L. (2013). "Katepensaurus goicoecheai, gen. et sp. nov., a Late Cretaceous rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from central Patagonia, Argentina". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 33 (6): 1351.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2013.776562.
S2CID130685837.
Rubén D. Juárez Valieri & Jorge O. Calvo (2011). "Revision of MUCPv 204, a Senonian Basal Titanosaur from Northern Patagonia". In Calvo, González, Riga, Porfiri and Dos Santos (ed.).
Paleontología y dinosarios desde América Latina(PDF). pp. 143–152.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
Lockley, Martin G.; Hunt, Adrian (1995). Dinosaur Tracks of Western North America. Columbia University Press.
Lockley, Martin G.; Meyer, C. A. (2000). Dinosaur Tracks and other fossil footprints of Europe. New York: Columbia University Press.
ISBN978-0-231-10710-5.
Lu, Junchang; Li Shaoxue; Ji Qiang; Wang Guofu; Zhang Jiahua; Dong Zhiming. "New eusauropod dinosaur from Yuanmou of Yunnan Province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica-English Edition. 80 (1): 1–10.
Lu Junchang; Yoichi Azuma; Chen Rongjun; Zheng Wenjie; Jin Xingsheng (2008). "A new titanosauriform sauropod from the early Late Cretaceous of Dongyang, Zhejiang Province". Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition). 82 (2): 225–235.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2008.tb00572.x.
S2CID130758135.* Lu Junchang; Li Tianguang; Zhong Shimin; Ji Qiang; Li Shaoxue (2008). "A new mamenchisaurid dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Yuanmou, Yunnan Province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 82 (1): 17–26.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2008.tb00320.x.
S2CID128454888.
Lü, J.; Xu, L.; Jia, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Yang, L.; You, H.; Ji, Q. (2009). "A new gigantic sauropod dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Ruyang, Henan, China". Geological Bulletin of China. 28 (1): 1–10.
Lydekker, R. (1877). "Notices of new and other Vertebrata from Indian Tertiary and Secondary rocks". Records of the Geological Survey of India. 10 (1): 30–43.
M-R
Elaine B. Machado; Leonardo dos S. Avilla; William R. Nava; Diogenes de A. Campos; Alexander W. A. Kellner (2013). "A new titanosaur sauropod from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil". Zootaxa. 3701 (3): 301–321.
doi:
10.11646/zootaxa.3701.3.1.
PMID26191585.
Mahammed, F.; Läng, E.; Mami, L.; Mekahli, L.; Benhamou, M.; Bouterfa, B.; Kacemi, A.; Chérief, S. A.; Chaouati, H.; Taquet, P. (2005). "The 'Giant of Ksour', a Middle Jurassic sauropod dinosaur from Algeria". Comptes Rendus Palevol. 4 (8): 707–714.
doi:
10.1016/j.crpv.2005.07.001.
Mannion, P. D.; Otero, A. (2012). "A reappraisal of the Late Cretaceous Argentinean sauropod dinosaur Argyrosaurus superbus, with a description of a new titanosaur genus". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32 (3): 614–638.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2012.660898.
S2CID86762374.
Mantell, G. A. (1850). "On the Pelorosaurus: an undescribed gigantic terrestrial reptile, whose remains are associated with those of the Iguanodon and other saurians in the strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 140: 379–390.
Mantell, G. A. "On the structure of the Iguanodon, and on the fauna and flora of the Wealden Formation". Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. 1: 141–146.
Marsh, O. C. (1877b). "Notice of a new and gigantic dinosaur". American Journal of Science and Arts. 14: 87–88.
Marsh, O. C. (1877c). "Characters of the Odontornithes, with notice of a new allied genus". American Journal of Science and Arts. 14: 85–88.
Marsh, O. C. (1878a). "Notice of new dinosaurian reptiles". American Journal of Science Series 3. 14: 241–244.
Marsh, O. C. (1878b). "Principle characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs . Part I". American Journal of Science Series 3. 16: 411–416.
Martinelli, A.; Forasiepi, A. M. (2004). "Late Cretaceous vertebrates from Bajo de Santa Rosa (Allen Formation), Rio Negro province, Argentina, with the description of a new sauropod dinosaur (Titanosauridae)". Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales. 6 (2): 257–305.
doi:
10.22179/REVMACN.6.88.
Mateus, O. V.; Mannion, P. D.; Upchurch, P. (2014). "Zby atlanticus, a new turiasaurian sauropod (Dinosauria, Eusauropoda) from the Late Jurassic of Portugal". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 34 (3): 618.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2013.822875.
S2CID59387149.
Matheron, P. (1869). "Note sur les reptiles fossiles des dépôts fluvio-lacustres crétaces du bassin à lignite de Fuveau". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 26 (2): 781–795.
Melville, A. G. (1849). "Notes on the vertebral column of Iguanodon". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 139: 285–300.
Mo, J.; Wang, W.; Huang, Z.; Huang, X.; Xu, X. (2006). "A Basal Titanosauriform from the Early Cretaceous of Guangxi, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 80 (4): 486–489.
Mo, J.-Y.; Huang, C.-L.; Zhao, Z.-R.; Wang, W.; Xing, X. (2008). "A new titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Guangxi, China". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 46 (2): 147–156.
Owen, R. (1841). "A description of a portion of the skeleton of the Cetiosaurus, a gigantic extinct saurian reptile occurring in the oolitic formations of different portions of England". Proceedings of the Geological Society of London. 3: 457–462.
Owen, R. (1842). "Report on British Fossil reptiles, Pt. II". Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 11: 60–204.
Owen, R. (1875). "A monograph on the Fossil Reptilia of the Mesozoic Formations". 29. Palaeontographical Society: 93. {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
Owen, R. (1876). "Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Wealden and Purbeck Formations Supplement 7. Crocodilia (Poikilopleuron) and Dinosauria? (Chondrosteosaurus)". Palaeontographical Society Monographs. 30: 1–7.
doi:
10.1080/02693445.1876.12113270.
Pang, Q.; Cheng, Z. (2000). "A new family of sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Tianzhen, Shanxi province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 74 (2): 117–125.
Peng, G.; Y. Ye; Y. Gao; C. Shu; S. Jiang (2005). "A new camarasaurid from the Middle Jurassic, Xiashaximiao Formation in Dashanpu, China". Jurassic Dinosaur Faunas in Zigong: 81–85.
Phillips, J. (1871). Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 523.
Rauhut, O. W. M.; Remes, K.; Fechner, R.; Cladera, G.; Puerta, P. (2005). "Discovery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period of Patagonia". Nature. 435 (7042): 670–672.
doi:
10.1038/nature03623.
PMID15931221.
S2CID4385136.
Remes, Kristian (2007). "A second Gondwanan diplodocid dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic Tendaguru Beds of Tanzania, East Africa". Palaeontology. 50 (3): 653–667.
doi:
10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00652.x.
S2CID129739733.
Rose, P. J. (2007). "A new titanosauriform sauropod (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Early Cretaceous of central Texas and its phylogenetic relationships". Palaeontologia Electronica. 10 (2): 8A–1–8A–65.
Saegusa, H.; Ikeda, T. (2014). "A new titanosauriform sauropod (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Lower Cretaceous of Hyogo, Japan". Zootaxa. 3848 (1): 1–66.
doi:
10.11646/zootaxa.3848.1.1.
PMID25112425.
Salgado, L.; Azpilicueta, C. (2000). "Un nuevo saltasaurino (Sauropoda, Titanosauridae) de la provincia de Río Negro (Formacíon Allen, Cretácico Superior), Patagonia, Argentina". Ameghiniana. 37 (3): 259–264.
Salgado, L.; Garrido, A.; Cocca, S. E.; Cocca, J. R. (December 2004). "Lower Cretaceous rebbachisaurid sauropods from Cerro Aguada Del León, Neuquén Province, northwestern Patagonia, Argentina". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 24 (4): 903–912.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2004)024[0903:LCRSFC]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID129233849.
Salgado, L.; Carvalho, I. D. S.; Garrido, A. C. (2006). "Zapalasaurus bonapartei, un nuevo saurópodo de La Formación La Amarga (Cretacico Inferior), noroeste de Patagonia, Provincia de Neuquén, Argentina [Zapalasaurus bonapartei, a new sauropod from the La Amarga Formation (Lower Cretaceous), northwestern Patagonia, Neuquén province, Argentina". Géobios. 39: 695–707.
doi:
10.1016/j.geobios.2005.06.001.
Salgado, Leonardo; and Carvalho; Ismar de Souza (2008). "Uberabatitan ribeiroi, a new titanosaur from the Marília Formation (Bauru Group, Upper Cretaceous), Minas Gerais, Brazil". Palaeontology. 51 (4): 881–901.
doi:
10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00781.x.
S2CID128831758.
Santucci, R. M.; Bertini, R. J. (2006). "A new titanosaur from western São Paulo State, Upper Cretaceous Bauru Group, south-east Brazil". Palaeontology. 49 (1): 59–66.
doi:
10.1111/j.1475-4983.2005.00527.x.
S2CID53960777.
Sauvage, H. E. (1874). "Memoire sur les dinosauriens et les crocodiliens des terrains jurassiques de Boulogne-sur-Mer". Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France (in French). 10: 1–58.
Sauvage, H. E. (1876). "Notes sur les reptiles fossiles". Bulletin of the Societe Geologique de France Ser. 3 (in French). 4: 435–442.
Seeley, H. G. (1869). Index to the fossil remains of Aves, Ornithosauria, and Reptilia, from the Secondary System of Strata arranged in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. pp. xxiii + 143 pp.
Seeley, H. G. (1870). "Ornithopsis, a gigantic animal of the Pterodacyle kind from the Wealden". Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th Series. 4 (5): 305–318.
Smith, Joshua B.; Lamanna, M.C.; Lacovara, K.J.; Dodson, P.; Smith, J.R.; Poole, J.C.; Giegengack, R.; Attia, Y. (2001). "A Giant sauropod dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous mangrove deposit in Egypt". Science. 292 (5522): 1704–1706.
doi:
10.1126/science.1060561.
PMID11387472.
S2CID33454060.
Taylor, Michael P.; Wedel, Mathew J.; Cifelli, Richard L. (2011). "Brontomerus mcintoshi, a new sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Cedar Mountain Formation, Utah, USA". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 56 (1): 75–98.
doi:
10.4202/app.2010.0073.
S2CID17215624.
Tidwell, V.; Carpenter, K.; Meyer, S. (2001). "New Titanosauriform (Sauropoda) from the Poison Strip Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Utah". In Tanke, D. H.; Carpenter, K. (eds.). Mesozoic Vertebrate Life. Life of the Past. Indiana University Press. pp. 139–165.
Upchurch, P.; Barrett, P. M.; Dodson, P. (2004). "Sauropoda". In Weishampel, D. B.; Dodson, P.; Osmolska, H. (eds.). The Dinosauria (2 ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 259–322.
ISBN978-0520254084.
Wang, X.; You, H.; Meng, Q.; Gao, C.; Chang, X.; Liu, J. (2007). "Dongbeititan dongi, the first sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Jehol Group of western Liaoning Province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition). 81 (6): 911–916.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2007.tb01013.x.
S2CID128812879.
Wedel, M. J.; Cifelli, R. L.; Sanders, R. K. (2000). "Sauropseidon proteles, a new sauropod from the Early Cretaceous of Oklahoma". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20 (1): 109–114.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2000)020[0109:SPANSF]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID55987496.
Wills, Simon (2013-12-15). "John Whitaker Hulke, surgeon and palaeontologist". In Duffin, C. J.; Moody, R. T. J.; Gardner-Thorpe, C. (eds.). A History of Geology and Medicine. GSL Special Publications. Geological Society of London.
ISBN978-1862393561.
Wu, W.-H.; Dong, Z.-M.; Sun, Y.-W.; Li, C.-T.; Li, T. (2006). "A New Sauropod Dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Jiutai, Jilin, China". Global Geology. 25 (1): 6–9.
Lida Xing; Tetsuto Miyashita; Philip J. Currie; Hailu You; Jianping Zhang; Zhiming Dong (2015). "A new basal eusauropod from the Middle Jurassic of Yunnan, China, and faunal compositions and transitions of Asian sauropodomorph dinosaurs". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 60 (1): 145–154.
doi:
10.4202/app.2012.0151.
S2CID59143277.
Xu, Xing; Zhang, Xiaohong; Tan, Qingei; Zhao, Xijin; Tan, Lin (2006). "A new titanosaurian sauropod from Late Cretaceous of Nei Mongol, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 80 (1): 20–26.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2006.tb00790.x.
S2CID129970315.
Ye, Y.; Gao, Y.-H.; Jiang, S. (2005). "A new genus of sauropod from Zigong, Sichuan". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 43 (3): 175–181.
H. You; F. Tang; Z. Luo (2003). "A new basal titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Early Cretaceous of China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 77 (4): 424–429.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2003.tb00123.x.
S2CID129403851.
You, H.; Ji, Q.; Lamanna, M. C.; Li, J.; Li, Y. (2004). "A titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur with opsithocoelous caudal vertebrae from the early Late Cretaceous of Liaoning province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 78 (4): 907–911.
You, H.; Li, D.; Zhou, L.; Ji, Q. (2006). "Huanghetitan liujiaxiaensis, a New Sauropod Dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hekou Group of Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province, China". Geological Review. 52 (5): 668–674.
You, H.-L.; Li, D.-Q.; Zhou, L.-Q.; Ji, Q (2008). "Daxiatitan binglingi: a giant sauropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of China". Gansu Geology. 17 (4): 1–10.
Zhang, X.; Lü, J.; Li, J.; Yang, L.; Hu, W.; Jia, S.; Ji, Q.; Zhang, C. (2009). "A new sauropod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Gaogou Formation of Nanyang, Henan Province". Acta Geologica Sinica. 83 (2): 212–221.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2009.00032.x.
S2CID129422997.
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~
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~
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~
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~
Gervais described the new genera and species Aepisaurus elephantinus and Oplosaurus armatus.[7] Aepisaurus was the first sauropod dinosaur to be named outside of England.~stage1x363~
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~
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~
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]
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~
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~
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]
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~
Lydekker described the new genus and species Titanosaurus indicus from the Upper Cretaceous
Lameta Formation of India.[30] This was the first Indian sauropod discovery to be formally named.[31]
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 described the new genus and species Apatosaurus ajax, erected the new genus Atlantosaurus for the species "Titanosaurus" montanus, and described the additional Apatosaurus species
A. grandis.[33]
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~
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.
S2CID83715371.
Cope, E. D. (1878b). "TBAA new species of Amphicoelias". American Naturalist. 12: 563–564.
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~
Marsh described the first known partial sauropod skull, which he referred to Morosaurus.[40]"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
Marsh published the first skeletal reconstruction of a sauropod, that of Brontosaurus.[citation needed][40]"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
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~
Marsh described the first complete sauropod skull, which belonged to Diplodocus.[40]~stage2x368~"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
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)
Lydekker published the description of the new species Ischyrosaurus manseli, for which he credited Hulke.[41]"TBA". {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
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)
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~
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~
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)
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)
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~
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~
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Bonaparte erected the new genus and species Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis.[35] for some juvenile sauropod remains referred to Bothriospondylus by Ogier.[18] He regarded Lapparentosaurus as a very primitive sauropod.[18]
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]
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~
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]
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]
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]
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]
Le Loeuff erected the new genus Iuticosaurus for "Titanosaurus" valdensis.[41]
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~
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]
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]
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]
Dong described the new genus and species Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum.[42]
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]
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~
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]
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]
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]
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]
Wilson and Upchurch erected the new genus Isisaurus for the species "Titanosaurus" colberti originally described by Jain and Bandyopadhyay in 1997.[101]
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.
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]
described the new genus and species Europasaurus holgeri. WHAT?'Sander, P. M.; Mateus, O. V.; Laven, T.; Knötschke, N. (2006-06-08). "Bone histology indicates insular dwarfism in a new Late Jurassic sauropod dinosaur". Nature. 441 (7094): 739–741.
doi:
10.1038/nature04633.
PMID16760975.
S2CID4361820.
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~
Upchurch and others petitioned the International Comission on Zoological Nomenclature in an effort to help resolved complex tangled history of Cetiosaurus and Pelorosaurus taxonomy.
^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).
^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).
^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).
^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).
Alifanov, V. R.; Averianov, A. O. (2003). "Ferganasaurus verzilini, gen. et sp. nov., a new neosauropod (Dinosauria, Saurischia, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of Fergana Valley, Kirghizia". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 23 (2): 358–372.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2003)023[0358:FVGESN]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID85902362.
Alifanov, V. R.; Bolotsky, Y. L. (2010). "Arkharavia heterocoelica gen. et sp. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of far eastern Russia". Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal (in Russian). 2010 (1): 76–83.
Apesteguía, Sebastián (September 2004). "Bonitasaura salgadoi gen. et sp. nov.: a beaked sauropod from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia". Naturwissenschaften. 91 (10): 493–497.
doi:
10.1007/s00114-004-0560-6.
PMID15729763.
S2CID33590452.
Apesteguía, Sebastián (2007). "The sauropod diversity of the La Amarga Formation (Barremian), Neuquén (Argentina)". Gondwana Research. 12 (4): 533–546.
doi:
10.1016/j.gr.2007.04.007.
Azuma, Y.; Shibata, M. (2010). "Fukuititan nipponensis, a new titanosauriform sauropod from the Early Cretaceous Tetori Group of Fukui Prefecture, Japan". Acta Geologica Sinica – English Edition. 84 (3): 454–462.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2010.00268.x.
S2CID128897110.
Bonaparte, J. F.; Heinrich, W.-D.; R., Wild (2000). "Review of Janenschia Wild, with the description of a new sauropod from the Tendaguru beds of Tanzania and a discussion on the systematic value of procoelous caudal vertebrae in the Sauropoda". Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 256 (1–3): 25–76.
doi:
10.1127/pala/256/2000/25.
S2CID133671754.
Paul M. Barrett, Roger B.J. Benson and Paul Upchurch (2010). "Dinosaurs of Dorset: Part II, the sauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia, Sauropoda) with additional comments on the theropods". Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. 131: 113–126.
Bonaparte, José F.; González Riga, Bernardo J.; Apesteguía, Sebastián (2006). "Ligabuesaurus leanzai gen. et sp. nov. (Dinosauria, Sauropoda), a new titanosaur from the Lohan Cura Formation (Aptian, Lower Cretaceous) of Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina". Cretaceous Research. 27 (3): 364–376.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2005.07.004.
Buffetaut, Eric (2005). "A new sauropod dinosaur with prosauropod-like teeth from the Middle Jurassic of Madagascar". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 176 (5): 467–473.
doi:
10.2113/176.5.467.
Buffetaut, E.; Suteethorn, V.; Cuny, G.; Tong, H.; Le Loeuff, J.; Khansubha, S.; Jongautchariyakul, S. (2000). "The earliest known sauropod dinosaur". Nature. 407 (6800): 72–74.
doi:
10.1038/35024060.
PMID10993074.
S2CID4387776.
Calvo, J. O.; González Riga, B. J. (2003). "Rinconsaurus caudamirus gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina". Revista Geológica de Chile. 30 (2): 333–353.
doi:
10.4067/S0716-02082003000200011.
Campos, D. A.; Kellner, A. W. A.; Bertini, R. J.; Santucci, R. M. (2005). "On a titanosaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) vertebral column from the Bauru Group, Late Cretaceous of Brazil". Arquivos do Museu Nacional. 63 (3): 565–593.
Canudo, José I.; Royo-Torres, Rafael; Cuenca-Bescós, Gloria (2008). "A new sauropod: Tastavinsaurus sanzi gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous (Aptian) of Spain". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 28 (3): 712–731.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2008)28[712:ANSTSG]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID85860510.
Carballido, José Luis; Salgado, Leonardo; Pol, Diego; Canudo, José Ignacio; Garrido, Alberto (2012). "A new basal rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from the Early Cretaceous of the Neuquén Basin; evolution and biogeography of the group". Historical Biology. 24 (6): 631–654.
doi:
10.1080/08912963.2012.672416.
S2CID130423764.
Carvalho, I. S.; Avilla, L. S.; Salgado, L. (2003). "Amazonsaurus maranhensis gen. et sp. nov. (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian–Albian) of Brazil". Cretaceous Research. 24 (6): 697–713.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2003.07.005.
Casanovas, Maria Lourdes; Santafé, José Vicente; Sanz, José Luis (2001). "Losillasaurus giganteus, un nuevo saurópodo del tránsito Jurásico-Cretácico e la Cuenca de "Los Serranos" (Valencia, España)". Paleontologia I Evolució (in Spanish). 32–33: 99–122.
Coria, R. A.; Filippi, L. S.; Chiappe, L. M.; García, R.; Arcucci, A. B. (2013). "Overosaurus paradasorum gen. et sp. nov. , a new sauropod dinosaur (Titanosauria: Lithostrotia) from the Late Cretaceous of Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina". Zootaxa. 3683 (4): 357–376.
doi:
10.11646/zootaxa.3683.4.2.
PMID25250458.
Rogers, K. C.; Wilson, J. A. (2014). "Vahiny depereti, gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous Maevarano Formation, Madagascar". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 34 (3): 606.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2013.822874.
S2CID85674576.
d’Emic, Michael D. (2013). "Revision of the sauropod dinosaurs of the Lower Cretaceous Trinity Group, southern USA, with the description of a new genus". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 11 (6): 707–726.
doi:
10.1080/14772019.2012.667446.
S2CID84742205.
Díez Díaz, V.; Mocho, P.; Páramo, A.; Escaso, F.; Marcos-Fernández, F.; Sanz, J.L.; Ortega, F. (2016). "A new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Lo Hueco (Cuenca, Spain)". Cretaceous Research. 68: 49–60.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2016.08.001.
Dong, Z.; Paik, I. S.; Kim, H. J. (2001). "A preliminary report on a sauropod from the Hasandong Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Korea". Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Chinese Society of Vertebrate Paleontology: 41–53.
Falconer, H. (1868). "Memorandum of two remarkable vertebrae sent by Dr. Oldham from Jubbulpoor-Spilsbury's Bed". Paleontol. Mem. Notes of the Late Hugh Falconer. 1: 418–419.
Fang, X.; Pang, Q.; Lu, L.; Zhang, Z.; Pan, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Cheng, Z. (2000). "Lower, Middle, and Upper Jurassic divisions of the Lufeng region of Yunnan province". Proceedings of the Third National Stratigraphical Conference of China: 208–214.
Federico Fanti, Andrea Cau, Mohsen Hassine & Michela Contessi (2013). "A new sauropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Tunisia with extreme avian-like pneumatization". Nature Communications. 4 (2080): 1–7.
doi:
10.1038/ncomms3080.
PMID23836048.{{
cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Filippi, L.S.; Garrido, A.C. (2008). "Pitekunsaurus macayai gen. et sp. nov., new titanosaur (Saurischia, Sauropoda) from Upper Cretaceous Neuquén Basin, Argentina". Ameghiniana. 45 (3): 575–590.
González Riga, B. J. (2003). "A new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mendoza, Argentina". Amehginiana. 40: 155–172.
González Riga, B. J.; Previtera, E.; Pirrone, C. A. (2009). "Malarguesaurus florenciae gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosauriform (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mendoza, Argentina". Cretaceous Research. 30 (1): 135–148.
doi:
10.1016/j.cretres.2008.06.006.
Gonzalez Riga, B.; Ortiz David, L. (2014). "A New Titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous (Cerro Lisandro Formation) of Mendoza Province, Argentina". Ameghiniana.
doi:
10.5710/AMGH.24.12.2013.1889.
Harris, J. D.; Dodson, P. (2004). "A new diplodocoid sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 49 (2): 197–210.
Ibiricu, L. M.; Casal, G. A.; Martínez, R. N. D.; Lamanna, M. C.; Luna, M.; Salgado, L. (2013). "Katepensaurus goicoecheai, gen. et sp. nov., a Late Cretaceous rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from central Patagonia, Argentina". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 33 (6): 1351.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2013.776562.
S2CID130685837.
Rubén D. Juárez Valieri & Jorge O. Calvo (2011). "Revision of MUCPv 204, a Senonian Basal Titanosaur from Northern Patagonia". In Calvo, González, Riga, Porfiri and Dos Santos (ed.).
Paleontología y dinosarios desde América Latina(PDF). pp. 143–152.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
Lockley, Martin G.; Hunt, Adrian (1995). Dinosaur Tracks of Western North America. Columbia University Press.
Lockley, Martin G.; Meyer, C. A. (2000). Dinosaur Tracks and other fossil footprints of Europe. New York: Columbia University Press.
ISBN978-0-231-10710-5.
Lu, Junchang; Li Shaoxue; Ji Qiang; Wang Guofu; Zhang Jiahua; Dong Zhiming. "New eusauropod dinosaur from Yuanmou of Yunnan Province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica-English Edition. 80 (1): 1–10.
Lu Junchang; Yoichi Azuma; Chen Rongjun; Zheng Wenjie; Jin Xingsheng (2008). "A new titanosauriform sauropod from the early Late Cretaceous of Dongyang, Zhejiang Province". Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition). 82 (2): 225–235.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2008.tb00572.x.
S2CID130758135.* Lu Junchang; Li Tianguang; Zhong Shimin; Ji Qiang; Li Shaoxue (2008). "A new mamenchisaurid dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Yuanmou, Yunnan Province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 82 (1): 17–26.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2008.tb00320.x.
S2CID128454888.
Lü, J.; Xu, L.; Jia, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Yang, L.; You, H.; Ji, Q. (2009). "A new gigantic sauropod dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Ruyang, Henan, China". Geological Bulletin of China. 28 (1): 1–10.
Lydekker, R. (1877). "Notices of new and other Vertebrata from Indian Tertiary and Secondary rocks". Records of the Geological Survey of India. 10 (1): 30–43.
M-R
Elaine B. Machado; Leonardo dos S. Avilla; William R. Nava; Diogenes de A. Campos; Alexander W. A. Kellner (2013). "A new titanosaur sauropod from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil". Zootaxa. 3701 (3): 301–321.
doi:
10.11646/zootaxa.3701.3.1.
PMID26191585.
Mahammed, F.; Läng, E.; Mami, L.; Mekahli, L.; Benhamou, M.; Bouterfa, B.; Kacemi, A.; Chérief, S. A.; Chaouati, H.; Taquet, P. (2005). "The 'Giant of Ksour', a Middle Jurassic sauropod dinosaur from Algeria". Comptes Rendus Palevol. 4 (8): 707–714.
doi:
10.1016/j.crpv.2005.07.001.
Mannion, P. D.; Otero, A. (2012). "A reappraisal of the Late Cretaceous Argentinean sauropod dinosaur Argyrosaurus superbus, with a description of a new titanosaur genus". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 32 (3): 614–638.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2012.660898.
S2CID86762374.
Mantell, G. A. (1850). "On the Pelorosaurus: an undescribed gigantic terrestrial reptile, whose remains are associated with those of the Iguanodon and other saurians in the strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 140: 379–390.
Mantell, G. A. "On the structure of the Iguanodon, and on the fauna and flora of the Wealden Formation". Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. 1: 141–146.
Marsh, O. C. (1877b). "Notice of a new and gigantic dinosaur". American Journal of Science and Arts. 14: 87–88.
Marsh, O. C. (1877c). "Characters of the Odontornithes, with notice of a new allied genus". American Journal of Science and Arts. 14: 85–88.
Marsh, O. C. (1878a). "Notice of new dinosaurian reptiles". American Journal of Science Series 3. 14: 241–244.
Marsh, O. C. (1878b). "Principle characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs . Part I". American Journal of Science Series 3. 16: 411–416.
Martinelli, A.; Forasiepi, A. M. (2004). "Late Cretaceous vertebrates from Bajo de Santa Rosa (Allen Formation), Rio Negro province, Argentina, with the description of a new sauropod dinosaur (Titanosauridae)". Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales. 6 (2): 257–305.
doi:
10.22179/REVMACN.6.88.
Mateus, O. V.; Mannion, P. D.; Upchurch, P. (2014). "Zby atlanticus, a new turiasaurian sauropod (Dinosauria, Eusauropoda) from the Late Jurassic of Portugal". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 34 (3): 618.
doi:
10.1080/02724634.2013.822875.
S2CID59387149.
Matheron, P. (1869). "Note sur les reptiles fossiles des dépôts fluvio-lacustres crétaces du bassin à lignite de Fuveau". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. 26 (2): 781–795.
Melville, A. G. (1849). "Notes on the vertebral column of Iguanodon". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 139: 285–300.
Mo, J.; Wang, W.; Huang, Z.; Huang, X.; Xu, X. (2006). "A Basal Titanosauriform from the Early Cretaceous of Guangxi, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 80 (4): 486–489.
Mo, J.-Y.; Huang, C.-L.; Zhao, Z.-R.; Wang, W.; Xing, X. (2008). "A new titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Guangxi, China". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 46 (2): 147–156.
Owen, R. (1841). "A description of a portion of the skeleton of the Cetiosaurus, a gigantic extinct saurian reptile occurring in the oolitic formations of different portions of England". Proceedings of the Geological Society of London. 3: 457–462.
Owen, R. (1842). "Report on British Fossil reptiles, Pt. II". Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 11: 60–204.
Owen, R. (1875). "A monograph on the Fossil Reptilia of the Mesozoic Formations". 29. Palaeontographical Society: 93. {{
cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
Owen, R. (1876). "Monograph on the fossil Reptilia of the Wealden and Purbeck Formations Supplement 7. Crocodilia (Poikilopleuron) and Dinosauria? (Chondrosteosaurus)". Palaeontographical Society Monographs. 30: 1–7.
doi:
10.1080/02693445.1876.12113270.
Pang, Q.; Cheng, Z. (2000). "A new family of sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Tianzhen, Shanxi province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 74 (2): 117–125.
Peng, G.; Y. Ye; Y. Gao; C. Shu; S. Jiang (2005). "A new camarasaurid from the Middle Jurassic, Xiashaximiao Formation in Dashanpu, China". Jurassic Dinosaur Faunas in Zigong: 81–85.
Phillips, J. (1871). Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 523.
Rauhut, O. W. M.; Remes, K.; Fechner, R.; Cladera, G.; Puerta, P. (2005). "Discovery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period of Patagonia". Nature. 435 (7042): 670–672.
doi:
10.1038/nature03623.
PMID15931221.
S2CID4385136.
Remes, Kristian (2007). "A second Gondwanan diplodocid dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic Tendaguru Beds of Tanzania, East Africa". Palaeontology. 50 (3): 653–667.
doi:
10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00652.x.
S2CID129739733.
Rose, P. J. (2007). "A new titanosauriform sauropod (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Early Cretaceous of central Texas and its phylogenetic relationships". Palaeontologia Electronica. 10 (2): 8A–1–8A–65.
Saegusa, H.; Ikeda, T. (2014). "A new titanosauriform sauropod (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Lower Cretaceous of Hyogo, Japan". Zootaxa. 3848 (1): 1–66.
doi:
10.11646/zootaxa.3848.1.1.
PMID25112425.
Salgado, L.; Azpilicueta, C. (2000). "Un nuevo saltasaurino (Sauropoda, Titanosauridae) de la provincia de Río Negro (Formacíon Allen, Cretácico Superior), Patagonia, Argentina". Ameghiniana. 37 (3): 259–264.
Salgado, L.; Garrido, A.; Cocca, S. E.; Cocca, J. R. (December 2004). "Lower Cretaceous rebbachisaurid sauropods from Cerro Aguada Del León, Neuquén Province, northwestern Patagonia, Argentina". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 24 (4): 903–912.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2004)024[0903:LCRSFC]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID129233849.
Salgado, L.; Carvalho, I. D. S.; Garrido, A. C. (2006). "Zapalasaurus bonapartei, un nuevo saurópodo de La Formación La Amarga (Cretacico Inferior), noroeste de Patagonia, Provincia de Neuquén, Argentina [Zapalasaurus bonapartei, a new sauropod from the La Amarga Formation (Lower Cretaceous), northwestern Patagonia, Neuquén province, Argentina". Géobios. 39: 695–707.
doi:
10.1016/j.geobios.2005.06.001.
Salgado, Leonardo; and Carvalho; Ismar de Souza (2008). "Uberabatitan ribeiroi, a new titanosaur from the Marília Formation (Bauru Group, Upper Cretaceous), Minas Gerais, Brazil". Palaeontology. 51 (4): 881–901.
doi:
10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00781.x.
S2CID128831758.
Santucci, R. M.; Bertini, R. J. (2006). "A new titanosaur from western São Paulo State, Upper Cretaceous Bauru Group, south-east Brazil". Palaeontology. 49 (1): 59–66.
doi:
10.1111/j.1475-4983.2005.00527.x.
S2CID53960777.
Sauvage, H. E. (1874). "Memoire sur les dinosauriens et les crocodiliens des terrains jurassiques de Boulogne-sur-Mer". Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France (in French). 10: 1–58.
Sauvage, H. E. (1876). "Notes sur les reptiles fossiles". Bulletin of the Societe Geologique de France Ser. 3 (in French). 4: 435–442.
Seeley, H. G. (1869). Index to the fossil remains of Aves, Ornithosauria, and Reptilia, from the Secondary System of Strata arranged in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. pp. xxiii + 143 pp.
Seeley, H. G. (1870). "Ornithopsis, a gigantic animal of the Pterodacyle kind from the Wealden". Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th Series. 4 (5): 305–318.
Smith, Joshua B.; Lamanna, M.C.; Lacovara, K.J.; Dodson, P.; Smith, J.R.; Poole, J.C.; Giegengack, R.; Attia, Y. (2001). "A Giant sauropod dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous mangrove deposit in Egypt". Science. 292 (5522): 1704–1706.
doi:
10.1126/science.1060561.
PMID11387472.
S2CID33454060.
Taylor, Michael P.; Wedel, Mathew J.; Cifelli, Richard L. (2011). "Brontomerus mcintoshi, a new sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Cedar Mountain Formation, Utah, USA". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 56 (1): 75–98.
doi:
10.4202/app.2010.0073.
S2CID17215624.
Tidwell, V.; Carpenter, K.; Meyer, S. (2001). "New Titanosauriform (Sauropoda) from the Poison Strip Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Utah". In Tanke, D. H.; Carpenter, K. (eds.). Mesozoic Vertebrate Life. Life of the Past. Indiana University Press. pp. 139–165.
Upchurch, P.; Barrett, P. M.; Dodson, P. (2004). "Sauropoda". In Weishampel, D. B.; Dodson, P.; Osmolska, H. (eds.). The Dinosauria (2 ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 259–322.
ISBN978-0520254084.
Wang, X.; You, H.; Meng, Q.; Gao, C.; Chang, X.; Liu, J. (2007). "Dongbeititan dongi, the first sauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Jehol Group of western Liaoning Province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition). 81 (6): 911–916.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2007.tb01013.x.
S2CID128812879.
Wedel, M. J.; Cifelli, R. L.; Sanders, R. K. (2000). "Sauropseidon proteles, a new sauropod from the Early Cretaceous of Oklahoma". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 20 (1): 109–114.
doi:
10.1671/0272-4634(2000)020[0109:SPANSF]2.0.CO;2.
S2CID55987496.
Wills, Simon (2013-12-15). "John Whitaker Hulke, surgeon and palaeontologist". In Duffin, C. J.; Moody, R. T. J.; Gardner-Thorpe, C. (eds.). A History of Geology and Medicine. GSL Special Publications. Geological Society of London.
ISBN978-1862393561.
Wu, W.-H.; Dong, Z.-M.; Sun, Y.-W.; Li, C.-T.; Li, T. (2006). "A New Sauropod Dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Jiutai, Jilin, China". Global Geology. 25 (1): 6–9.
Lida Xing; Tetsuto Miyashita; Philip J. Currie; Hailu You; Jianping Zhang; Zhiming Dong (2015). "A new basal eusauropod from the Middle Jurassic of Yunnan, China, and faunal compositions and transitions of Asian sauropodomorph dinosaurs". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 60 (1): 145–154.
doi:
10.4202/app.2012.0151.
S2CID59143277.
Xu, Xing; Zhang, Xiaohong; Tan, Qingei; Zhao, Xijin; Tan, Lin (2006). "A new titanosaurian sauropod from Late Cretaceous of Nei Mongol, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 80 (1): 20–26.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2006.tb00790.x.
S2CID129970315.
Ye, Y.; Gao, Y.-H.; Jiang, S. (2005). "A new genus of sauropod from Zigong, Sichuan". Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 43 (3): 175–181.
H. You; F. Tang; Z. Luo (2003). "A new basal titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Early Cretaceous of China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 77 (4): 424–429.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2003.tb00123.x.
S2CID129403851.
You, H.; Ji, Q.; Lamanna, M. C.; Li, J.; Li, Y. (2004). "A titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur with opsithocoelous caudal vertebrae from the early Late Cretaceous of Liaoning province, China". Acta Geologica Sinica. 78 (4): 907–911.
You, H.; Li, D.; Zhou, L.; Ji, Q. (2006). "Huanghetitan liujiaxiaensis, a New Sauropod Dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hekou Group of Lanzhou Basin, Gansu Province, China". Geological Review. 52 (5): 668–674.
You, H.-L.; Li, D.-Q.; Zhou, L.-Q.; Ji, Q (2008). "Daxiatitan binglingi: a giant sauropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of China". Gansu Geology. 17 (4): 1–10.
Zhang, X.; Lü, J.; Li, J.; Yang, L.; Hu, W.; Jia, S.; Ji, Q.; Zhang, C. (2009). "A new sauropod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Gaogou Formation of Nanyang, Henan Province". Acta Geologica Sinica. 83 (2): 212–221.
doi:
10.1111/j.1755-6724.2009.00032.x.
S2CID129422997.