Search

Appendix S3. Comments on the taxonomic identifications that are changed in this work and are not commented on in the main text. If not differently stated, the taxonomic identification follows Macaluso et al. (2022b).

Appendix S4. Literature containing osteological information concerning extant species of Palearctic urodeles (see Delfino et al. 2019 for further details).

RHOMALEOPAKHUS, gen. nov. Diagnosis —As for type species., Published as part of Upchurch, Paul, Mannion, Philip D., Xu, Xing & Barrett, Paul M., 2021, Re-assessment of the Late Jurassic eusauropod dinosaur Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum Dong, 1997, from the Turpan Basin, China, and the evolution of hyper-robust antebrachia in sauropods, pp. 1-31 in Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (e 1994414) (e 1994414) 41 (4) on page 12, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2021.1994414, http://zenodo.org/record/5839134

RHOMALEOPAKHUS TURPANENSIS, sp. nov. (Figs. 6–10; Tables 3 and 4) Nomenclatural Acts —The electronic edition of this article conforms to the requirements of the amended International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and hence the new names contained herein are available under that Code from the electronic edition of this article. This published work and the nomenclatural acts it contains have been registered in ZooBank, the online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix ‘http://zoobank.org/.’ The LSID for this publication is: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A42348FE-ECE6-4524-B536- 857AFFD22DB2. The electronic edition of this work was published in a journal with an ISSN, and has been archived and is available from the following digital repositories: CLOCKSS. Species Diagnosis — Rhomaleopakhus turpanensis is diagnosed on the basis of three autapomorphies: (1) humeral deltopectoral crest terminates distally in a transversely narrow ridge that is separated from the main body of the crest by distinct lateral and medial grooves; (2) prominent (100 mm long) ridge, projecting posteromedially, on posterior surface of radial shaft, a short distance below the proximal end; and (3) radial distal articular surface markedly concave in central and medial portions. In addition, Rhomaleopakhus turpanensis possesses one of the most robust ulnae of any known sauropod (maximum proximal end width to proximodistal length ratio is 0.50; Table S2 in Supplemental Data 1), and is currently the only known non-somphospondylan eusauropod with the long-axes of the proximal and distal surfaces of the radius twisted through ∼90° with respect to each other. Holotype —A right forelimb, IVPP V11121-1 (Figs. 6–10; Tables 3 and 4), consisting of the humerus, ulna, radius, one carpal, and virtually complete manus of a single individual. Etymology — Rhomaleos (ancient Greek, masculine) equals ‘robust’ (pertaining to the body), and pakhus (ancient Greek, masculine) equals ‘forearm.’ The species name refers to the Turpan Basin, China, where the holotype was found. Locality and Horizon — Lower part of the Kalazha Formation (Upper Jurassic: upper Kimmeridgian–Tithonian) of Qiketai, Shanshan County, Turpan Basin, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China (Dong, 1997; Deng et al., 2015; Fang et al., 2016). Description and Comparisons Humerus — The right humerus is nearly complete, apart from a portion of the proximomedial expansion (Dong, 1997) and a small part of the proximolateral corner (Figs. 6, 7A, 8A). The posterior surface of this element could not be examined fully due to its large size and storage within a protective cradle. It is a relatively robust element, with an estimated Humeral Robusticity Index (sensu Wilson and Upchurch, 2003) of 0.35, similar to those of other heavily built taxa such as Mamenchisaurus youngi, Apatosaurus, dicraeosaurids, and Opisthocoelicaudia (Upchurch et al., 2015:table 2). Proximally, the humerus expands laterally relative to the shaft, giving it an hourglass-shaped outline in anterior view; this is the plesiomorphic sauropod condition, contrasting with the more asymmetrical humeri of most titanosauriforms and turiasaurians (Tschopp et al., 2015a; Poropat et al., 2016). The anterior surface of the humerus is too damaged proximally to determine whether a tuberosity for the attachment of the M. coracobrachialis was present. The deltopectoral crest of Rhomaleopakhus is more prominent than those of most sauropods and is similar to those in Turiasaurus (Royo-Torres et al., 2006) and brachiosaurids (Wilson and Sereno, 1998). The crest lies entirely on the anterolateral margin of the humeral shaft: it does not expand or project medially across the anterior surface (Fig. 7A), unlike those in many titanosauriforms (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013). It terminates at ∼44% of humerus length from the proximal end: by comparison, values among other sauropods range between 35–50% (Upchurch et al., 2015:table 2). In this respect, Rhomaleopakhus is almost identical to several other CMTs: for example, these values are 44% in Anhuilong and Omeisaurus tianfuensis, and 43% in Huangshanlong (Ren et al., 2018). In anterior view, the anterolateral margin of the deltopectoral crest has a sigmoid profile and is relatively narrow throughout its length. One unusual feature of the deltopectoral crest is that its distal terminus forms a narrow ridge that is offset medially and laterally from the rest of the crest surface by deep, dorsoventrally oriented grooves or breaks-in-slope: this is provisionally regarded as autapomorphic. Rhomaleopakhus lacks prominent ridges or bulges on the posterolateral surface of the shaft, at the level of the deltopectoral crest. Such projections occur in many titanosaurs, including Alamosaurus, Opisthocoelicaudia, Patagotitan, and Saltasaurus, and have been interpreted as the insertion sites of a number of muscles, including the M. latissimus dorsi, M. scapulohumeralis anterior, and M. deltoideus clavicularis, although these interpretations are debated (e.g., Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977; Otero, 2010, 2018; Upchurch et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2020; Otero et al., 2020; Voegele et al., 2020). In Rhomaleopakhus, as in most sauropods (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013; Upchurch et al., 2015), the humeral shaft is wider transversely than anteroposteriorly, producing an elliptical horizontal cross-section at midlength. The transverse width of the shaft at midlength to proximodistal length ratio is estimated at 0.17–0.18. There is a small amount of torsion in the shaft, such that the long-axes of the proximal and distal end surfaces are slightly rotated relative to each other, but Rhomaleopakhus lacks the marked torsion (c. 40°) seen in many diplodocids (Tschopp et al., 2015a) and some CMTs (e.g., at least 30° in Klamelisaurus [Moore et al., 2020] and 25° in Huangshanlong [Huang et al., 2014] and Anhuilong (Ren et al., 2018]). Huang et al. (2014) regarded such humeral torsion as a synapomorphy of Mamenchisauridae, but there is clearly some variation among CMTs and homoplasy within Sauropoda, especially given that a strong degree of torsion of the humeral shaft is the plesiomorphic sauropodomorph condition that is lost in early sauropods (e.g., Yates, 2007; McPhee et al., 2014). The distal end of the humerus is relatively wide transversely compared with the width of the shaft at midlength, largely because it projects a considerable distance medially (Fig. 7A). The ratio of distal end transverse width to humerus proximodistal length is 0.38, which is equaled or exceeded only by Apatosaurus and a few titanosaurs (Poropat et al., 2016; Table S2 in Supplemental Data 1). Distally, the anterior surface of the humerus is flat, apart from the relatively large lateral and medial anterodistal processes (sensu Upchurch et al., 2015) (Fig. 8B). Although the relative size of these anterodistal processes is difficult to quantify, they are very reduced or absent in Chubutisaurus and titanosaurs (D’ Emic, 2012), and are particularly large in several CMTs (Remes, 2008), such as Chuanjiesaurus (Sekiya, 2011) and Huangshanlong (Huang et al., 2014). Enlarged (Huang et al., 2014) and/or anteriorly directed (Ren et al., 2018) anterodistal processes have been regarded as a synapomorphy of Mamenchisauridae: however, reduction and loss of these processes appears to be the derived state (D’ Emic, 2012), and increased process size requires quantification and more comparative work before it can provide support for mamenchisaurid affinities. In Rhomaleopakhus, the distal articular surface is rugose and does not expand up onto the anterior face of the shaft, unlike the humeri of some titanosaurs (Wilson and Carrano, 1999; Wilson, 2002). The ulnar and radial condyles are not strongly divided from each other, and the former is somewhat larger than the latter. Remes (2008) suggested that mamenchisaurids possess a unique distal humeral configuration. In Klamelisaurus, Omeisaurus tianfuensis, and Mamenchisaurus youngi, the lateral condyle (which Remes [2008] termed the ‘radial’ condyle, but which has become the ulnar condyle in sauropods because of the rotation of the antebrachium [Bonnan, 2003]), is larger than the radial one. Moreover, the ulnar and radial condylar surfaces have long axes that are at ∼90° to each other in distal end view, with the former directed anterolaterally. This results in the lateral part of the distal end having a distinct subtriangular profile, formed by fairly straight anterolateral and posterolateral margins that meet each other at an acute angle (e.g., He et al., 1988:fig. 44B; Ouyang and Ye, 2002:fig. 35F; Sekiya, 2011:figs. 38C, 39C). In many other sauropods, this lateral portion is more semicircular or subquadrate in distal view (see Upchurch et al., 2015:fig. 4; N.B., Upchurch et al.’s fig. 4A shows the distal end profile of the right humerus of Mamenchisaurus youngi incorrectly labelled as the left). Rhomaleopakhus possesses the same distal end profile seen in other CMTs (Fig. 8B): however, several non-CMTs also possess this state and, in any case, it is potentially the plesiomorphic eusauropod condition (Mannion et al., 2019a). In Rhomaleopakhus, the lateral third of the flat distal end surface is quite strongly beveled (∼30° relative to the plane lying perpendicular to the proximodistal long-axis of the humerus) (Fig. 7A): as a result, it faces laterodistally. This feature, however, does not seem to have a clear phylogenetic significance; it occurs sporadically in distantly related taxa such as Amargasaurus, Anhuilong, Haestasaurus, Limaysaurus, Mamenchisaurus youngi, and Saltasaurus (Ouyang and Ye, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2018; Mannion et al., 2019a). The supracondylar (= olecranon or cuboid) fossa, and the medial and lateral ridges that bound it on the distal part of the posterior surface of the shaft, are partially obscured by the packing material upon which the humerus rests (Fig. 8B). However, this fossa is not deep, unlike those of Giraffatitan and several somphospondylans (Upchurch et al., 2004 a, 2015; D’ Emic, 2012), and the associated ridges are broadly rounded transversely rather than acute. Ulna —The ulna is complete apart from a small amount of material missing from the proximal end (Figs. 6, 9A–F). It is extremely robust, with one of the highest proximal end maximum width to proximodistal length ratios (0.50) of any sauropod, although Opisthocoelicaudia has a ratio of 0.51 (Table S2 in Supplemental Data 1). The expanded proximal end is triradiate because of the presence of well-developed anterolateral, anteromedial, and posteromedial processes. As in other sauropods, the anterolateral and anteromedial processes define a deep concavity that receives the proximal end of the radius (Wilson and Sereno, 1998). In proximal view (Fig. 9E), the ulna of Rhomaleopakhus has a ‘V’-shaped profile, rather than the ‘T’-shape seen in several somphospondylans (Upchurch et al., 2015). The angle between the anteromedial and anterolateral processes is ∼70°, which is the derived state (i.e., less than 80°) that occurs in most sauropods (including Chuanjiesaurus, Mamenchisaurus youngi, and Klamelisaurus), except some nonneosauropods, such as Shunosaurus, Omeisaurus tianfuensis, Anhuilong, Huangshanlong, Bellusaurus, and Cetiosaurus, as well as several titanosaurs, in which this angle is greater than 80° and often approaches 90° (Huang et al., 2014; Tschopp et al., 2015a; Poropat et al., 2016; Ren et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2020). In Rhomaleopakhus, the anteromedial to anterolateral process length ratio (sensu Upchurch et al., 2015) is 1.72 (N.B., the measurements in Table 3 give a ratio of 1.25, but these are the maximum lengths of the processes, not their lengths measured to the intersection of process long-axes, as defined by Upchurch et al. [2015:fig. 13A]). This ratio typically ranges between 1.6–1.8 in non-neosauropod eusauropods (e.g., Vulcanodon, Cetiosauriscus, Ferganasaurus), 1.0–1.3 in most diplodocoids and non-titanosauriform macronarians, and>1.5 in titanosauriforms (with values>1.6 in titanosaurs such as Opisthocoelicaudia and ≥2.0 in Epachthosaurus and Cedarosaurus) (Upchurch et al., 2015:table 2). The anteromedial process of the proximal end of the Rhomaleopakhus ulna has a strongly concave articular surface (Fig. 9A–D), as also occurs in many titanosaurs (Upchurch, 1995, 1998), several non-neosauropod eusauropods such as Janenschia and Haestasaurus (Bonaparte et al., 2000; Upchurch et al., 2015; Mannion et al., 2019a), and in a more shallowly concave form in Chuanjiesaurus (Sekiya, 2011). Dong (1997) stated that the olecranon process is relatively low in Rhomaleopakhus, although this region is moderately projected, which is emphasized by the concave proximal surface of the anteromedial process. Similarly developed olecranon processes are seen in Mamenchisaurus youngi (Ouyang and Ye, 2002:fig. 36), Chuanjiesaurus (Sekiya, 2011:fig. 40), Haestasaurus (Upchurch et al., 2015), Janenschia (Bonaparte et al., 2000; Mannion et al., 2019a), and several titanosaurs (Upchurch, 1995; Wilson and Carrano, 1999; Upchurch et al., 2004a). In Rhomaleopakhus, the posteromedially directed process of the proximal end creates a concavity on the posteromedial surface that does not fade out until approximately the midlength of the element, whereas the lateral surface is flat or slightly convex anteroposteriorly. In horizontal cross-section, the proximal portion of the ulna retains the triradiate configuration, but by midlength it is elliptical, with the long-axis of this ellipse oriented anteromedially. There is a prominent ridge for a ligamentous attachment to the radius, located on the anteromedial surface of the shaft at ∼100 mm above the distal end. The distal end of the ulna is expanded both anteroposteriorly and transversely relative to the shaft. In distal view (Fig. 9F), the margins of this surface are strongly convex laterally and posteriorly, but slightly concave anteromedially, resulting in a comma-shaped distal profile, as is typical for most non-titanosaurian sauropods (Upchurch et al., 2015). The distal articular surface is mildly convex anteroposteriorly and transversely. Radius —The radius is complete and is 63% of the length of the humerus. This is broadly similar to the condition in many other sauropods, which tend to have values ≥65% (Yates and Kitching, 2003; Mannion et al., 2013). For example, this value is ∼66% in Mamenchisaurus youngi (Ouyang and Ye, 2002) and ranges from 65–76% in specimens referred to Omeisaurus (He et al., 1988; Ren et al., 2018). By contrast, this ratio is reduced in titanosauriforms (Mannion et al., 2013) and many CMTs (Ren et al., 2018), with particularly low values of 58% and 50% in Huangshanlong and Anhuilong, respectively (Huang et al., 2014; Ren et al., 2018). The radius of Rhomaleopakhus is a robust element with expanded proximal and distal ends relative to the shaft (Dong, 1997) (Fig. 9G–J). The maximum widths of the proximal and distal ends are subequal, the proximal end transverse width to radius proximodistal length ratio is 0.31, and the distal end is ∼1.3 times as wide as the shaft at its midlength (Table 3). The proximal end surface is flat, with a central shallow concavity and a slightly convex portion around both its anterior and lateral margins. In proximal view (Fig. 9K), the radius has a ‘D’-shaped profile, comprising a straight posterior margin (that becomes mildly concave towards the medial corner), and strongly convex anterior and lateral margins. This proximal profile appears to be plesiomorphic for sauropods, contrasting with the derived subtriangular profile with pointed medial process seen in many titanosauriforms (Upchurch et al., 2015:fig. 9), and the anteroposteriorly narrow morphology that characterizes some turiasaurians (Mateus et al., 2014). Approximately 100 mm below the mildly concave posteromedial margin of the proximal end, on the posterior surface, there is a prominent 100 mm long ridge that projects posteromedially. Titanosaurs, such as Epachthosaurus, Rapetosaurus, and Saltasaurus, usually have a ridge on the posterior surface of the radius that extends along much of the element’ s length (Curry Rogers, 2005, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013), and Ren et al. (2018: fig. 4C) described a ‘lateral ridge’ (‘lr’) on the proximal part of the Anhuilong radius. However, the morphology and position of the short, prominent and posteromedially directed ridge seen in Rhomaleopakhus appears to be unique and is provisionally regarded as an autapomorphy. The radius is twisted along its length such that the long-axis of the proximal articular surface is set at about 90° to that of the distal end. As a result, the posterior surface of the shaft turns to face laterally as it approaches the distal end. Such torsion of the radius is rare among sauropods (Mannion et al., 2013), although it has also been observed in the somphospondylan Huabeisaurus (D’ Emic et al., 2013) and a few titanosaurs (e.g., Epachthosaurus – Poropat et al., 2016; Malawisaurus – Gomani, 2005; Rapetosaurus – Curry Rogers, 2009). At midlength, the cross-section through the shaft is elliptical in Rhomaleopakhus, with the radius being wider transversely than anteroposteriorly. There is a prominent vertical ridge on the posterolateral surface, located at approximately onefifth of element length from the distal end. This matches the prominent ridge on the anteromedial surface of the shaft of the ulna, close to the distal end, suggesting that these two ridges marked the location of a strong interosseous ligament (Upchurch et al., 2004a). In medial view (Fig. 9J), the distal end surface is set at an oblique angle to the long axis of the shaft such that it slopes anteroproximally (N.B., this would be proximolateral beveling of the distal end, in anterior view, if the radius was not twisted through 90° along its length). As a result, the distal end surface is set at ∼15° to the plane perpendicular to the proximodistal longaxis of the radius. Non-neosauropod eusauropods (such as Shunosaurus and Mamenchisaurus), and at least some rebbachisaurids, display no such beveling of the distal radius, whereas turiasaurians and several titanosaurs have angles of ∼25° or higher (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2019a). The degree of distal radial beveling in Rhomaleopakhus is similar to that seen in several nonneosauropod eusauropods, including Omeisaurus tianfuensis, Chuanjiesaurus, and Jobaria, as well as some neosauropods such as Diplodocus and Giraff

(?) MAMENCHISAURIDAE Young and Chao, 1972 GEN. ET SP. INDET. (Fig. 5) Material —Four teeth, IVPP V11121-2 (Fig. 5; Table 2). Locality and Horizon —Lower part of the Kalazha Formation (Upper Jurassic: upper Kimmeridgian–Tithonian) of Qiketai, Shanshan County, Turpan Basin, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China (Dong, 1997; Deng et al., 2015; Fang et al., 2016) (Fig. 1). Exact locality unknown (see Introduction, above). Description The four teeth are not labelled with unique specimen numbers and so are referred to as specimens 1–4 herein. Two of the teeth (identified as premaxillary teeth by Dong [1997]) are embedded in a fragment of very worn, indeterminate bone, and the other two teeth are loose and were interpreted by Dong (1997) as maxillary teeth. It is not possible to determine which elements yielded these teeth, but it seems likely that the three smaller, low-crowned teeth were from the posterior part of the tooth row, whereas the single larger, higher-crowned tooth would have been more anteriorly positioned. No useful morphology can be gleaned from the bone fragment, although it is unlikely to have been the premaxilla on the basis of tooth size. Two of the teeth are quite similar in morphology: these are the larger tooth in the bone fragment (tooth 2) and the smaller of the two loose teeth (tooth 3). These specimens resemble the low broad teeth of Jobaria (Sereno et al., 1999; Chure et al., 2010), Turiasaurus (Royo-Torres and Upchurch, 2012), and Zby (Mateus et al., 2014), whereas the other two teeth (teeth 1 and 4) are more slender (Table 2). Tooth 1 (smaller tooth in bone fragment: Fig. 5A–D) has been badly damaged and is missing most of the original surface, so its true shape cannot be determined. No informative character states can be observed. Tooth 2 (larger tooth in bone fragment: Fig. 5A–D) lacks denticles and wear facets. There is no sign of wrinkled enamel texture on either the labial or lingual surface, suggesting some general surficial wear either during life or after the tooth was shed. The apex of the tooth is pointed and is deflected distally: this suggests that it is either an upper right or lower left tooth. The labial surface is gently convex mesiodistally and apicobasally, with the part of the crown mesial to the apex more strongly convex than that section distal to it, creating an asymmetrical ‘D’-shaped cross-section. Mesial and distal grooves appear to be absent on the labial surface. The crown is mesiodistally expanded with respect to the tooth base, but the crown–root junction cannot be precisely determined because most of the tooth below this expansion is obscured by bone. The mesial margin is smoothly convex from apex to base, whereas the distal margin is first concave, then convex, producing a mildly sinuous profile in labial and lingual views (Fig. 5A, B). Most of the lingual surface of the crown is concave mesiodistally and apicobasally: the base of this concavity lies at a point approximately level with the maximum mesiodistal width of the tooth. Basal to this point, the lingual crown surface is swollen and mesiodistally convex. The crown margins are both slightly swollen, with the distal margin possessing a small, low, and elliptical boss that is level with the point of greatest mesiodistal expansion. This boss is in the same position as similar structures in Euhelopus (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009). There is no true lingual ridge, but a slight eminence extends from the tooth apex for a very short distance basally, before merging into the surface of the lingual concavity. Tooth 3 (the smaller of the isolated teeth: Fig. 5E–H) has the same morphology, in most respects, as tooth 2. The enamel surface is better preserved and has a wrinkled texture. The lingual ‘boss’ is less distinct and is a simple swelling of the distal margin, situated at a point level with the greatest mesiodistal expansion. As in tooth 2, there are no true mesial or distal grooves on the labial surface, but a distinct change in slope distal to the apical swelling does create the impression of a groove in the distal position (the cross-sectional asymmetry mentioned above). The root–crown junction cannot be observed because of breakage. Neither ‘shoulder-like’ nor apical macrowear are present. Tooth 4 (largest tooth: Fig. 5I–L) is badly abraded and the enamel surface texture cannot be observed. There is also some damage to the crown margins. No wear facets or serrations can be identified. This tooth is much longer than the others, with a maximum length of 40 mm (Table 2): however, it is not possible to judge the position of the root–crown boundary because of the absence of enamel. It appears to be much slenderer than the other teeth, with a maximum mesiodistal width of 11 mm, and thus a Slenderness Index (SI: sensu Upchurch, 1998; Chure et al., 2010) that is potentially>3, but the true value cannot be determined because of the lack of accurate information on the location of the crown–root junction. The crown has a ‘D’- shaped cross-section but has only a very shallow lingual concavity. There is no sign of a lingual ridge, lingual bosses, or labial grooves, but these absences could be the result of poor preservation. Comparisons and Identification The teeth are too incomplete to be usefully incorporated into a formal phylogenetic analysis. Instead, we assess their affinities by evaluating the potential significance of the putative synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies that they display. Possession of crowns that are basally constricted mesiodistally is a derived state characteristic of Sauropodomorpha (Yates, 2007; McPhee et al., 2014; Peyre de Fabrègues et al., 2015; Apaldetti et al., 2018; Chapelle and Choiniere, 2018), although this is lost in the elongated ‘pencil-like’ teeth of most diplodocoids and derived somphospondylans (Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004a). The labial profile of the IVPP V11121-2 teeth, with convex mesial and sigmoid distal margins, is characteristic of most spatulate sauropod teeth (Carballido and Pol, 2010). Only tooth 3 confirms the presence of wrinkled tooth enamel, but its absence on the other three crowns appears to be the result of poor preservation. Such enamel texturing is absent in the earliest branching sauropodomorphs (e.g., Efraasia), occurs in small patches of fine wrinkles in more derived non-sauropods (such as massospondylids, Melanorosaurus), and occurs over the entire crown as coarse anastamosing ridges and grooves in ‘true’ sauropods (e.g., Pulanesaura, Gongxianosaurus, Tazoudasaurus, and eusauropods) (Yates, 2007; Carballido and Pol, 2010; McPhee et al., 2015; Apaldetti et al., 2018; Chapelle and Choiniere, 2018). The presence of a lingual concavity on tooth crowns is generally regarded as a synapomorphy pertaining to a node between Sauropoda and Eusauropoda (Upchurch, 1995; Yates, 2007; Peyre de Fabrègues et al., 2015; Apaldetti et al., 2018; Chapelle and Choiniere, 2018). For example, this feature occurs in the teeth of all eusauropods (except diplodocoids and those somphospondylans with ‘pencil-like’ teeth), as well as some non-eusauropod sauropods such as Gongxianosaurus and Tazoudasaurus, but is rudimentary in Chinshakiangosaurus and Pulanesaura (Barrett et al., 2002; Upchurch et al., 2007a; Mannion et al., 2013; McPhee et al. 2015). Labial grooves are a synapomorphy of Eusauropoda, being present in Shunosaurus, Barapasaurus, Omeisaurus, Patagosaurus, and many other forms, including most neosauropods (except some diplodocoids and titanosaurs with cylindrical teeth). By contrast, with the exception of Pulanesaura (McPhee et al., 2015), such grooves are absent in non-eusauropod sauropods (e.g., Tazoudasaurus) and non-sauropod sauropodomorphs such as Plateosaurus and Anchisaurus (Upchurch, 1995; Yates, 2007; Peyre de Fabrègues et al., 2015; Apaldetti et al., 2018; Chapelle and Choiniere, 2018). There is some evidence that the distal labial groove evolved before the mesial one, since the teeth of Chinshakiangosaurus and Amygdalodon either possess only the latter, or the distal groove is more marked than the mesial one (Upchurch et al., 2007a; Carballido and Pol, 2010). This character state distribution could be taken as evidence that the IVPP V11121-2 teeth did not belong to a eusauropod: however, Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (IVPP V10603) also lacks both mesial and distal grooves (PMB and PU pers. observ., 2010), and this feature might sometimes reflect individual variation and/or position in the jaws (Holwerda et al., 2015). Non-sauropod sauropodomorphs typically have SI values in the range of 1.5–2.0, with some taxa (such as Thecodontosaurus and Anchisaurus) having SIs around 2.2 (Chure et al., 2010). Most sauropods, except diplodocoids and titanosaurs, have SI values between 2.0–2.5, although a few forms (such as Amygdalodon, Patagosaurus, Jobaria, and turiasaurians) have unusually low SIs in the range of 1.3–1.6 (Barrett et al., 2002; Chure et al., 2010). Thus, although caution is warranted given their incomplete preservation, the SI of 1.5 (tooth 2) to ∼3.0 (tooth 4) estimated for the IVPP V11121-2 teeth (Table 2) is consistent with a phylogenetic position anywhere within Sauropodomorpha apart from Diplodocoidea and Somphospondyli. Dong (1997) stated that the teeth of Hudiesaurus are serrated, but we found no such structures on any of the four crowns. Virtually all non-sauropod sauropodomorphs, and many non-eusauropod sauropods, have relatively large serrations on both the mesial and distal margins of their tooth crowns (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson and Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004a, 2007a, b; Yates, 2007; Apaldetti et al., 2018; Chapelle and Choiniere, 2018). Well-developed serrations are also present on both mesial and distal crown margins in some non-neosauropod eusauropods, such as the CMT Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020). In a few early-branching eusauropods (e.g., Barapasaurus, Omeisaurus tianfuensis, a referred specimen of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis), serrations are retained on the mesial margins and lost on the distal margins (Ye et al., 2001; Yates, 2007; Moore et al., 2020). Variation can even occur along the length of the jaw of a single individual: for example, the anterior dentary teeth of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum lack serrations, whereas they are present as relatively small projections on just the mesial/apical margins of the posterior teeth (Moore et al., 2020). Thus, the absence of serrations in the IVPP V11121-2 teeth is more typical of a neosauropod (or close relative such as a turiasaurian) (Upchurch et al., 2004a; Royo-Torres and Upchurch, 2012), though this is also seen in Amygdalodon, Shunosaurus, and teeth referred to Kotasaurus (Carballido and Pol, 2010). Given this variation, however, the absence/presence of serrations probably provides only weak evidence of phylogenetic affinities (Upchurch, 1998; Barrett and Upchurch, 2005; Upchurch et al., 2007b; Carballido and Pol, 2010). An apicobasally oriented ridge within the lingual concavity is present in nearly all known spatulate sauropod teeth (Barrett et al., 2002; Mannion et al., 2013), and might be homologous with the mesiodistally convex lingual surface of the crowns of many diplodocoids and somphospondylans (Upchurch et al., 2004 a, 2011). The absence of this ridge in the IVPP V11121-2 teeth is shared with just three other taxa with spatulate teeth: Oplosaurus armatus from the Early Cretaceous of England (Upchurch et al., 2004 a, 2011), Jobaria from the Middle Jurassic of Niger (Mannion et al., 2017), and Klamelisaurus gobiensis from the Middle Jurassic of China (Zhao, 1993; Moore et al., 2020). However, in most other respects the teeth of the former two taxa are very different from those of IVPP V11121-2 (Upchurch et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2017). In particular, the lingual surfaces of the IVPP V11121-2 crowns are nearly flat mesiodistally, whereas this surface is concave in Oplosaurus and Jobaria. Perhaps the most informative character state in the IVPP V11121-2 teeth is the presence of a boss on the distal margin of the crown. These resemble those seen in Euhelopus (Wilson and Sereno, 1998; Wilson and Upchurch, 2009). Over the past decade, nearly all studies have recovered Euhelopus within Macronaria, usually as an early-branching somphospondylan (e.g., Wilson and Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Wilson and Upchurch, 2009; D’ Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013; Gorscak and O’ Connor, 2019; Carballido et al., 2020). Consequently, the presence of these bosses in IVPP V11121-2 specimens 2 and 3 would previously have been interpreted as indicative of macronarian affinities and potential membership of an Early Cretaceous somphospondylan euhelopodid radiation (sensu D’ Emic, 2012; see also Canudo et al. [2002] and Barrett and Wang [2007]). However, Moore et al. (2020) found that most of their phylogenetic analyses placed Euhelopus within CMTs, well outside Neosauropoda. Moreover, the distolingual boss is also present on the dentary teeth of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (Suteethorn et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2020), although it also characterizes the teeth of the Early Cretaceous Chinese taxon Yongjinglong, which has been recovered as a somphospondylan in previous studies (Li et al., 2014; Mannion et al., 2019b). In summary, the character states present in the teeth of IVPP V11121-2 support their identification as those of a non-neosauropod eusauropod (though somphospondylan affinities cannot be ruled out) and are consistent with Dong’ s (1997) suggestion that they belonged to a mamenchisaurid. Indeed, apart from the absence of the lingual apicobasal ridge in IVPP V11121-2, these teeth most closely resemble those of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum. IVPP V11121-2 lacks any true autapomorphies but does possess a unique combination of features: it is the only taxon currently known that lacks both the apicobasal lingual ridge and clear labial grooves, while also possessing a distolingual boss. Given the inadvisability of naming new taxa on such scant material (e.g., the danger of historical obsolescence described by Wilson and Upchurch [2003]), we refrain from erecting a new genus or species at this time, pending further discoveries., Published as part of Upchurch, Paul, Mannion, Philip D., Xu, Xing & Barrett, Paul M., 2021, Re-assessment of the Late Jurassic eusauropod dinosaur Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum Dong, 1997, from the Turpan Basin, China, and the evolution of hyper-robust antebrachia in sauropods, pp. 1-31 in Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (e 1994414) (e 1994414) 41 (4) on pages 9-12, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2021.1994414, http://zenodo.org/record/5839134, {"references":["Young, C. C., and X. - J. Chao. 1972. Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis sp. nov. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Monographs (Series A) 8: 1 - 30.","Dong, Z. 1997. A gigantic sauropod (Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum, gen. et sp. nov.) from the Turpan Basin, China; pp. 102 - 110 in Z. Dong (ed.), Sino-Japanese Silk Road Dinosaur Expedition. China Ocean Press, Beijing.","Deng, S., S. Wang, Z. Yang, Y. Lu, X. Li, Q. Hu, C. An, D. Xi, and X. Wan. 2015. Comprehensive study of the Middle-Upper Jurassic strata in the Junggar Basin, Xinjiang. Acta Geoscientia Sinica 36: 559 - 574.","Fang, Y., C. Wu, Y. Wang, L. Wang, Z. Guo, and H. Hu. 2016. Stratigraphic and sedimentary characteristics of the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous strata in the Junggar Basin, Central Asia: tectonic and climate implications. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 129: 294 - 308.","Upchurch, P. 1998. The phylogenetic relationships of sauropod dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 124: 43 - 103.","Sereno, P. C., A. L. Beck, D. B. Dutheil, H. C. E. Larsson, G. H. Lyon, B. Moussa, R. W. Sadleir, C. A. Sidor, D. J. Varricchio, G. P. Wilson, and J. A. Wilson. 1999. Cretaceous sauropods from the Sahara and the uneven rate of skeletal evolution among dinosaurs. Science 286: 1342 - 1347.","Chure, D. J., B. B. Britt, J. A. Whitlock, and J. A. Wilson. 2010. First complete sauropod dinosaur skull from the Cretaceous of the Americas and the evolution of sauropod dentition. Naturwissenschaften 97: 379 - 391.","Royo-Torres, R., and P. Upchurch. 2012. The cranial anatomy of the sauropod Turiasaurus riodevensis and implications for its phylogenetic relationships. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 10: 553 - 583.","Mateus, O., P. D. Mannion, and P. Upchurch. 2014. Zby atlanticus, a new turiasaurian sauropod (Dinosauria, Eusauropoda) from the Late Jurassic of Portugal. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 34: 618 - 634.","Wilson, J. A., and P. Upchurch. 2009. Redescription and reassessment of the phylogenetic affinities of Euhelopus zdanskyi (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Early Cretaceous of China. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 7: 199 - 239.","Yates, A. M. 2007. The first complete skull of the Triassic dinosaur Melanorosaurus Haughton (Sauropodomorpha: Anchisauria). Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 9 - 55.","McPhee, B. W., A. M. Yates, J. N. Choiniere, and F. Abdala, 2014. The complete anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of Antetonitrus ingenipes (Sauropodiformes, Dinosauria): implications for the origins of Sauropoda. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 171: 151 - 205.","Peyre de Fabregues, C., R. Allain, and V. Barriel. 2015. Root causes of phylogenetic incongruence observed within basal sauropodomorph interrelationships. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 175: 569 - 586.","Apaldetti, C., R. N. Martinez, I. A. Cerda, D. Pol, and O. Alcober. 2018. An early trend towards gigantism in Triassic sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Nature Ecology and Evolution 2: 1227 - 1232.","Chapelle, K. E. J., and J. N. Choiniere. 2018. A revised cranial description of Massospondylus carinatus Owen (Dinosauria: Sauropodomorpha) based on computed tomographic scans and a review of cranial characters for basal Sauropodomorpha. PeerJ 6: e 4224. doi. org / 10.7717 / peerj. 4224","Upchurch, P., P. M. Barrett, and P. Dodson. 2004 a. Sauropoda; pp. 259 - 324 in D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, and H. Osmolska, (eds.), The Dinosauria (Second Edition). University of California Press, Berkeley.","Carballido, J. L., and D. Pol. 2010. The dentition of Amygdalodon patagonicus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) and the dental evolution in basal sauropods. Comptes Rendus Palevol 9: 83 - 93.","McPhee, B. W., M. F. Bonnan, A. M. Yates, J. Neveling, and J. N. Choiniere. 2015. A new basal sauropod from the pre-Toarcian Jurassic of South Africa: evidence of niche partitioning at the sauropodomorph - sauropod boundary? Scientific Reports 5: 13224. doi. org / 10.1038 / srep 13224","Upchurch, P. 1995. The evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 349: 365 - 390.","Barrett, P. M., Y. Hasegawa, M. Manabe, S. Isaji, and H. Matsouka. 2002. Sauropod dinosaurs from the Lower Cretaceous of Eastern Asia: taxonomic and biogeographic implications. Palaeontology 45: 1197 - 1217.","Upchurch, P., P. M. Barrett, and P. M. Galton. 2007 a. A phylogenetic analysis of basal sauropodomorph relationships: implications for the origin of sauropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 57 - 90.","Mannion, P. D., P. Upchurch, R. N. Barnes, and O. Mateus. 2013. Osteology of the Late Jurassic Portuguese sauropod dinosaur Lusotitan atalaiensis (Macronaria) and the evolutionary history of basal titanosauriforms. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 168: 98 - 206.","Holwerda, F. M., D. Pol, and O. W. M. Rauhut. 2015. Using dental enamel wrinkling to define sauropod tooth morphotypes from the Canadon Asfalto Formation, Patagonia, Argentina. PLoS ONE 10: e 0118100. doi. org / 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0118100","Wilson, J. A., and P. C. Sereno. 1998. Early evolution and higher-level phylogeny of sauropod dinosaurs. Memoir of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 5: 1 - 68.","Moore, A. J., P. Upchurch, P. M. Barrett, J. M. Clark, and X. Xu. 2020. Osteology of Klamelisaurus gobiensis (Dinosauria: Eusauropoda) and the evolutionary history of Middle - Late Jurassic Chinese sauropods. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 18: 1299 - 1393.","Ye, Y., H. Ouyang, and Q. - M. Fu. 2001. New material of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis from Zigong, Sichuan. Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 39: 266 - 271.","Barrett, P. M., and P. Upchurch. 2005. Sauropodomorph diversity through time: paleoecological and macroevolutionary implications: pp. 125 - 151 in K. A. Curry Rogers and J. A. Wilson (eds.), The Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. University of California Press, Berkeley.","Upchurch, P., P. M. Barrett, X. - J. Zhao, and X. Xu. 2007 b. A re-evaluation of Chinshakiangosaurus chunghoensis Ye vide Dong 1992 (Dinosauria, Sauropodomorpha): implications for cranial evolution in basal sauropod dinosaurs. Geological Magazine 144: 247 - 262.","Whitlock, J. A. 2011. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 872 - 915.","Mannion, P. D., R. Allain, and O. Moine. 2017. The earliest known titanosauriform sauropod dinosaur and the evolution of Brachiosauridae. PeerJ 5: e 3217. doi. org / 10.7717 / peerj. 3217","Zhao, X. - J. 1993. [A new mid-Jurassic sauropod (Klamelisaurus gobiensis gen. et sp. nov.) from Xinjiang, China]. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 31: 132 - 138. [In Chinese with English summary]","Upchurch, P., P. D. Mannion, and P. M. Barrett. 2011. Sauropod dinosaurs; pp. 476 - 525 In D. J. Batten (ed.), English Wealden Fossils. Palaeontology Association Field Guides to Fossils 14, Palaeontological Association, London.","Wilson, J. A. 2002. Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny: critique and cladistic analysis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136: 217 - 276.","D' Emic, M. D. 2012. The early evolution of titanosauriform sauropod dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166: 624 - 671.","Gorscak, E. and P. M. O' Connor. 2019. A new African Titanosaurian Sauropod Dinosaur from the middle Cretaceous Galula Formation (Mtuka Member), Rukwa Rift Basin, Southwestern Tanzania. PLoS ONE 14: e 0211412.","Carballido, J. L., M. Scheil, N. Knotschke, and P. M. Sander. 2020. The appendicular skeleton of the dwarf macronarian sauropod Europasaurus holgeri from the Late Jurassic of Germany and a re-evaluation of its systematic affinities. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 18: 739 - 781.","Canudo, J. I., J. I. Ruiz-Omenaca, J. L. Barco, and R. Royo-Torres. 2002. Sauropodos asiaticos en el Barremiense inferior (Cretacico inferior) de Espana. Ameghiniana 39: 443 - 452.","Barrett, P. M., and X. - L. Wang. 2007. Basal titanosauriform (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) teeth from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Liaoning Province, China. Palaeoworld 16: 265 - 271.","Suteethorn, S., J. Le Loeuff, E. Buffetaut, V. Suteethorn, and K. Wongko. 2013. First evidence of a mamenchisaurid dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous Phu Kradung Formation of Thailand. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 58: 459 - 469.","Li, L. - G., D. - Q. Li, H. - L. You, and P. Dodson. 2014. A new titanosaurian sauropod from the Hekou Group (Lower Cretaceous) of the Lanzhou-Minhe Basin, Gansu Province, China. PLoS ONE 9: e 85979. doi. org / 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0085979","Mannion, P. D., P. Upchurch, X. Jin, and W. Zheng. 2019 b. New information on the Cretaceous sauropod dinosaurs of Zhejiang Province, China: impact on Laurasian titanosauriform phylogeny and biogeography. Royal Society Open Science 6: 191057. doi. org / 10.1098 / rsos. 191057","Wilson, J. A., and P. Upchurch, 2003. A revision of Titanosaurus Lydekker (Dinosauria - Sauropoda), the first dinosaur genus with a \" Gondwanan \" distribution. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 1: 125 - 160."]}

HUDIESAURUS SINOJAPANORUM Dong, 1997 (Figs. 2–4) Original Diagnosis — Re-written from Dong (1997:102): (1) top of neural spine of anterior dorsal vertebra forms a ‘U’-shaped shallow cleft; (2) wing-like process between bases of postzygapophyses and lateral margin of neural spine; (3) anteriorly directed laterally compressed ‘sword-like’ process on anterior face of neural spine; (4) deep pleurocoels on lateral faces of the centrum; (5) midline keel on the ventral surface of the centrum. Comments on Original Diagnosis — The original diagnosis provided by Dong (1997) can now be shown to be inadequate. Putative autapomorphies 1, 4, and 5 are present in several other sauropod genera. For example, shallow ‘U’-shaped bifurcation of the posterior cervical and anterior dorsal neural spines also occurs in Mamenchisaurus (Young and Chao, 1972), Klamelisaurus (Zhao, 1993; Moore et al., 2020), Euhelopus (Wiman, 1929; Wilson and Upchurch, 2009), several turiasaurians (Royo-Torres et al., 2006, 2017; Britt et al., 2017), Camarasaurus (Osborn and Mook, 1921; Gilmore, 1925), and Opisthocoelicaudia (Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977), among others. Deep lateral pneumatic openings (= ‘pleurocoels’) are widespread in the presacral centra of many eusauropods (Upchurch et al., 2004a), and a ventral keel is also present in the cervicodorsal region of several other taxa, including Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401; PU and PMB pers. observ. 2010), Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020), and Euhelopus (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009). It is not entirely clear what Dong (1997) meant by the ‘wing-like’ processes (putative autapomorphy ‘2’), as their location was neither fully described nor annotated in his figures. However, it seems likely that these are merely the typical posterolateral projection of the postzygapophyses, rather than unusual processes. Finally, the ‘sword-like’ anterior process is not part of a novel articulation with the hyposphene of a preceding vertebra (contra Dong, 1997: see Description, below); rather, it appears to be a transversely compressed sheet of ossified intervertebral ligament. Ossification of such ligaments and tendons is rare, but not unheard of, among sauropods (e.g., Camarasaurus [= ‘ Cathetosaurus ’] lewisi [Jensen, 1988]; Diplodocus [USNM 10865; Gilmore, 1932; PU pers. observ., 1991]; see also Cerda, 2009; Klein et al., 2012; Cerda et al., 2015). Thus, the presence of such a feature is more likely to represent individual variation, pathology, and/or unusual preservation, rather than an autapomorphy. If this feature is to be accepted as having some diagnostic value, this must wait until it is found repeatedly in other individuals of Hudiesaurus. Revised Diagnosis —Hudiesaurus can be diagnosed on the basis of the following autapomorphies: (1) small projection on neurocentral junction above lateral pneumatic opening; (2) ACDL splits into upper and lower branches (the former extends to anterodorsal margin of the diapophysis, and the latter to posteroventral margin of the diapophysis, where it meets the anterior end of the PCDL); (3) approximately transverse row of 5–6 small coels on dorsal surface of prezygapophyseal process, immediately posterior to articular facet; (4) SPRLs bifurcate close to the base of the metapophysis, with one branch extending up anterior surface and fading out before reaching the summit, and the other branch forming a thin sheet that extends along the anterolateral margin of the metapophysis to the summit; and (5) SPOL bifurcates into two distinct ridges immediately above postzygapophysis (or this could be described as a short lamina extending dorsomedially from the PODL to the SPOL). N.B., portions of the PRDLs and diapophyses have been heavily restored with plaster, so autapomorphy 2 should be treated with caution. Holotype — A nearly complete vertebra from the cervicodorsal region (estimated to be the last cervical vertebra; IVPP V11120) (Figs. 2–4; Table 1). N.B., Dong (1997) identified this specimen as an anterior dorsal vertebra, but we regard it as being more probably a posterior cervical vertebra (see below). Locality and Horizon — Lower part of the Kalazha Formation (Upper Jurassic: upper Kimmeridgian–Tithonian) of Qiketai, Shanshan County, Turpan Basin, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China (Dong, 1997; Deng et al., 2015; Fang et al., 2016; Fig. 1). Description and Comparisons Dong (1997) identified the holotype of Hudiesaurus as an anterior dorsal vertebra; however, it also resembles a posteriormost cervical vertebra in several features. Even with well-preserved presacral series, it is often difficult to define the point where the neck meets the trunk in sauropods: this is because the morphology of the posterior cervical vertebrae gradually transforms into that of the most anterior dorsal vertebrae (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009; Moore et al., 2020). Despite some occasional doubts and apparent inconsistencies, we have generally accepted the identifications of the cervical-dorsal junction proposed by previous workers for other taxa. However, in the case of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401), we note that the suggested 19 cervical and 12 dorsal vertebrae (Young and Chao, 1972) is likely to be incorrect. This is because ‘Dv2’ possesses a hyposphene (PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010), which would be atypical for such an anterior dorsal vertebra: a hyposphene does not usually appear until Dv3 or Dv4 in sauropods (Upchurch et al., 2004a). We therefore propose provisionally that Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis had 18 cervical and 13 dorsal vertebrae. Given the difficulties of pinpointing the cervical-dorsal junction in even well preserved and complete presacral series, identifying the precise position of an isolated vertebra (such as Hudiesaurus) is even more problematic. Below, we compare the Hudiesaurus vertebra with both the posterior cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of other sauropods. The majority of features support a position as either the last cervical or the first dorsal vertebra, with the former being more probable based on some features that are uniquely shared by Hudiesaurus and the last cervical vertebra (Cv18) of Xinjiangtitan. This identification, of course, depends on the assumption that Zhang et al. (2020) were correct when they placed the cervical-dorsal junction of Xinjiangtitan between the 18th and 19th presacral vertebrae (counting from the head). The Hudiesaurus vertebra is relatively complete, although the PRDLs and transverse processes have been partly reconstructed (see also Dong, 1997). As in the cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of most eusauropods, it has a strongly opisthocoelous centrum (Dong, 1997) (Fig. 2), differing from the amphiplatyan/amphicoelous presacral vertebrae of most non-gravisaurian sauropodomorphs (Upchurch, 1995; Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2007a; Yates, 2007; Allain and Aquesbi, 2008; McPhee et al., 2014). In anterior or posterior view, the centrum is subcircular in outline, being slightly wider transversely than dorsoventrally (Table 1), as is typical for the cervicodorsal vertebrae of neosauropods (Mannion et al., 2019a) and some earlier-branching forms such as Qijianglong, Mamenchisaurus youngi, and Bellusaurus (Moore et al., 2020 and references therein). This contrasts with the transversely compressed middle–posterior cervical centra of many other East Asian eusauropods, including Shunosaurus, Erketu, Euhelopus, Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401), and Xinjiangtitan (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010), as well as most rebbachisaurids (Mannion et al., 2019a). The Functional (i.e., excluding the anterior convexity) Average Elongation Index (FAEI) is 1.0 in the Hudiesaurus vertebra. FAEIs tend to decrease towards the cervical-dorsal junction compared with those for middle cervical vertebrae, and a value close to 1.0 is compatible with a position either as the last cervical or one of the first two dorsal vertebrae of a non-diplodocine sauropod (Table S1 in Supplemental Data 1). As in Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401; PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010), Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020; contra Zhao, 1993), Euhelopus (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009), and many flagellicaudatans (Upchurch et al., 2004a), the ventral surface of the Hudiesaurus centrum is strongly concave transversely as well as anteroposteriorly over its whole length, and is bounded by ventrolaterally directed ridges (Dong, 1997). A prominent midline ridge is present within the ventral concavity, as also found in dicraeosaurids (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002), Cv17–Dv1 of Euhelopus (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009), posterior cervicals to Dv2 in Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020), Cv13–18 in Xinjiangtitan (Zhang et al., 2020), and Dv1 (= ‘Cv19’) in Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401; PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010). The parapophysis is located at the anteroventral corner of the lateral surface of the centrum (Fig. 2). This position is typical for sauropod cervical vertebrae, although it also occurs in Dv1 in most taxa (Upchurch et al., 2004a), including Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020), Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401; PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010), and Xinjiangtitan (Zhang et al., 2020), and in Dv1 and 2 in Euhelopus (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009) and Apatosaurus ajax (Upchurch et al., 2004b). In Hudiesaurus, there is no indication that the shallowly concave articular surface of the parapophysis was fused to a rib: this is more consistent with this specimen being a dorsal, rather than cervical, vertebra (Hatcher, 1901; Gilmore, 1936; McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004a; Zhang et al., 2020). However, rib–vertebra fusion is not an infallible indicator that a vertebra is a cervical (Moore et al., 2020): for example, the ribs of Cv17 and 18 of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401) are not fused to the parapophyses (PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010). The dorsal surface of the parapophysis is excavated in Hudiesaurus, and this depression is continuous with the lateral pneumatic opening, as seen in the cervical vertebrae of many non-neosauropod eusauropods, such as Cetiosaurus and Chebsaurus (Upchurch and Martin, 2002, 2003; Upchurch et al., 2004a; Mahammed et al., 2005). Many neosauropods also have dorsally excavated cervical parapophyses, but such taxa typically possess a ridge that divides this depression from the lateral pneumatic opening (Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch and Martin, 2002, 2003). The lateral pneumatic opening of Hudiesaurus is small and deep, with a rounded, wide anterior margin that is positioned dorsal to the parapophysis (Fig. 2). Posteriorly, this opening is bounded dorsally by a sharp ridge that runs posteroventrally, giving the posterior margin an acute profile. Such a ridge is unusual in sauropods, only being reported previously in Cv17 and 18 of Xinjiangtitan (Zhang et al., 2020:figs. 15, 16, and 18), and confirmed as absent in Mamenchisaurus youngi by the latter study. Dorsal vertebrae 1 and 2 of Apatosaurus ajax have a ridge bounding the lateral pneumatic opening dorsally (Upchurch et al., 2004b), but this differs from the condition in Hudiesaurus and Xinjiangtitan by extending further anteriorly (i.e., to the anterior end of the opening) and being horizontal rather than posteroventrally inclined. In Hudiesaurus, this ridge merges into the centrum-arch junction, where there is a small, laterally extending projection on each side (Fig. 2): the latter is unique and is regarded as an autapomorphy. The presence of lateral pneumatic openings with oval outlines (i.e., strongly rounded and dorsoventrally wide anterior margins and acute posterior ends) in anterior dorsal vertebrae has frequently been regarded as a derived character state uniting Macronaria or a slightly less inclusive clade (e.g., Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013). However, they are also seen in Dv1 and 2 of Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020), the anterior dorsal vertebrae of Bellusaurus and Haplocanthosaurus priscus (Mannion et al., 2019a), and indeterminate cervicodorsal vertebrae from the Late Jurassic Shishugou Formation of China (Moore et al., 2020). In Hudiesaurus, the lateral pneumatic opening is not as elongate as those found in either the cervical centra of Cetiosaurus (Upchurch and Martin, 2002) or several Jurassic Chinese taxa (such as Dashanpusaurus and Daanosaurus; Peng et al., 2005; Ye et al., 2005). Indeed, Hudiesaurus possesses a lateral pneumatic opening that is largely restricted to the anterior two-thirds of the centrum (excluding the anterior articular convexity), a derived condition seen in the cervical vertebrae of many CMTs (e.g., Klamelisaurus, Mamenchisaurus youngi, Qijianglong, Xinjiangtitan), Euhelopus, and several titanosauriforms (Whitlock, 2011; Moore et al., 2020). However, the relatively small size and anterior location of the lateral pneumatic opening is also consistent with the Hudiesaurus vertebra being from the anterior dorsal region. The oblique accessory lamina that divides the lateral pneumatic opening into anterior and posterior sections in the cervical vertebrae of several non-neosauropod eusauropods (e.g., Mamenchisaurus, Klamelisaurus, Xinjiangtitan) and many neosauropods (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004a; Moore et al., 2020) is not present in Hudiesaurus (Fig. 2). While its absence is more compatible with an identification of the Hudiesaurus specimen as being an anterior dorsal vertebra, the oblique lamina is also sometimes absent in posterior-most cervical vertebrae, such as Cv18 of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401; PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010), Cv17 and 18 of Xinjiangtitan (Zhang et al., 2020), and Cv17 of Euhelopus (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009). The lateral pneumatic opening becomes shallower posteriorly in Hudiesaurus, as is typical for most sauropod cervical vertebrae (e.g., Cetiosaurus, Patagosaurus, and the CCG V 20401 specimen of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis: Bonaparte, 1986; Upchurch and Martin, 2002, 2003; PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010). Measured on the anterior surface, the ratio of the dorsoventral height of the neural arch (from the dorsal surface of the centrum to the ventromedial tips of the prezygapophyses) to centrum height is low (∼0.35) in Hudiesaurus. With the exception of comparably low neural arches in some somphospondylans and Omeisaurus tianfuensis, this ratio is ≥0.5 in the posterior cervical vertebrae of other eusauropods (Bonaparte et al., 2006; Mannion et al., 2013). In Hudiesaurus, the prezygapophyses project forward to a point beyond the anterior end of the condyle (Fig. 2). Such projection is typical for the posterior cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of many sauropods: for example, in Klamelisaurus it is only posterior to Dv5 that the prezygapophyses no longer project beyond the anterior articulation of the centrum (Moore et al., 2020). However, this contrasts with the condition in taxa like Apatosaurus ajax, where the prezygapophyses no longer project beyond the anterior end of the centrum from Cv12 rearwards (Upchurch et al., 2004b). In Hudiesaurus, the prezygapophyses are large and broad, with transversely convex articular surfaces (Fig. 3A). Sauropods typically have flat prezygapophyseal articular surfaces plesiomorphically, but the derived, strongly convex condition is also present in the cervical vertebrae of diplodocines (Upchurch, 1995; Tschopp et al., 2015a) and the CMTs Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020) and Xinjiangtitan (Zhang et al., 2020), as well as the anterior dorsal vertebrae of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (CCG V 20401; PU and PMB pers. observ., 2010). The zygapophyses have several small, irregularly shaped coels on their dorsal surfaces (Dong, 1997). In the case of the prezygapophyses, these coels form a line of 5–6 adjacent pits, separated from each other by small anteroposteriorly directed ridges, located immediately posterior to the articular facet (Fig. 3A). These might represent a pneumatized internal tissue structure that has been revealed by erosion of the surface bone: however, their presence in the same position on both prezygapophyses suggests that they are not taphonomic artifacts. We therefore regard these coels as external pneumatic features and as autapomorphic for Hudiesaurus. The thin, medial edges of the prezygapophyses descend steeply to meet each other on the midline and form a single lamina extending down to the top of the small, subcircular neural canal (Fig. 2C); this is probably the “well developed medial lamina” of Dong (1997:103), here termed the interprezygapophyseal lamina (TPRL) according to a revised version of Wilson’ s (1999) system (see Tschopp and Mateus, 2013). This TPRL partially subdivides the centroprezygapophyseal fossa (CPRF) into left and right subfossae. A TPRL is absent from the posterior cervical vertebrae of Euhelopus (Wilson and Upchurch, 2009) and Xinjiangtitan (Zhang et al., 2020), and the anterior dorsal vertebrae of Klamelisaurus and Mamenchisaurus youngi (Moore et al., 2020), although it is present in several other sauropods (e.g., there is a short, stout version on the posterior cervical vertebrae of Apatosaurus ajax; Upchurch et al., 2004b). The centroprezygapophyseal laminae (CPRLs) of Hudiesaurus are large and stout (as in Cetiosaurus; Upchurch and Martin, 2003) and do not bifurcate at their dorsal ends, unlike those of the cervical vertebrae of several diplodocids (Upchurch, 1998) and many non-neosauropod eusauropods (Moore et al., 2020), such as those on Cv18 in Xinjiangtitan (Zhang et al., 2020). The stout, single CPRLs of Hudiesaurus more closely resemble those of anterior dorsal vertebrae in taxa such as Klamelisaurus, although the former lacks the accessory laminae seen in the PRCDF of the latter taxon (Moore et al., 2020). In lateral view, the CPRLs slope anterodorsally and are subparallel with the PCDLs (Fig. 2A, B), a configuration also seen in the cervical and anterior-most dorsal vertebrae (i.e., Dv1 and 2) of many sauropods. By contrast, in Dv3 and 4 of most taxa, these laminae become more vertical, and are fully vertical from around Dv5 onwards, as seen in Klamelisaurus (Moore et al., 2020). Thus, the orientation of the CPRLs further supports the view that the Hudiesaurus vertebra is either a cervical or one of the most anterior dorsal vertebrae. As in the cervical vertebrae of some non-neosauropod eusauropods (including Shunosaurus, Omeisaurus tianfuensis, Chuanjiesaurus, and Cetiosaurus) and many diplodocoids, pre-epipophyses are absent in Hudiesaurus. This contrasts with most CMTs, such as Klamelisaurus and Mamenchisaurus youngi, as well as Bellusaurus, Euhelopus, and many other neosauropods, in which these projections ar, Published as part of Upchurch, Paul, Mannion, Philip D., Xu, Xing & Barrett, Paul M., 2021, Re-assessment of the Late Jurassic eusauropod dinosaur Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum Dong, 1997, from the Turpan Basin, China, and the evolution of hyper-robust antebrachia in sauropods, pp. 1-31 in Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (e 1994414) (e 1994414) 41 (4) on pages 3-9, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2021.1994414, http://zenodo.org/record/5839134, {"references":["Dong, Z. 1997. A gigantic sauropod (Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum, gen. et sp. nov.) from the Turpan Basin, China; pp. 102 - 110 in Z. Dong (ed.), Sino-Japanese Silk Road Dinosaur Expedition. China Ocean Press, Beijing.","Young, C. C., and X. - J. Chao. 1972. Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis sp. nov. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Monographs (Series A) 8: 1 - 30.","Zhao, X. - J. 1993. [A new mid-Jurassic sauropod (Klamelisaurus gobiensis gen. et sp. nov.) from Xinjiang, China]. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 31: 132 - 138. [In Chinese with English summary]","Moore, A. J., P. Upchurch, P. M. Barrett, J. M. Clark, and X. Xu. 2020. Osteology of Klamelisaurus gobiensis (Dinosauria: Eusauropoda) and the evolutionary history of Middle - Late Jurassic Chinese sauropods. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 18: 1299 - 1393.","Wiman, C. 1929. Die Kriede-Dinosaurier aus Shantung. Palaeontologia Sinica Series C 6: 1 - 67.","Wilson, J. A., and P. Upchurch. 2009. Redescription and reassessment of the phylogenetic affinities of Euhelopus zdanskyi (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Early Cretaceous of China. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 7: 199 - 239.","Royo-Torres, R., A. Cobos, and L. Alcala. 2006. A giant European dinosaur and a new sauropod clade. Science 314: 1925 - 1927.","Royo-Torres, R., P. Upchurch, J. I. Kirkland, D. D. DeBlieux, J. R. Foster, A. Cobos, and L. Alcala. 2017. Descendants of the Jurassic turiasaurs from Iberia found refuge in the Early Cretaceous of western USA. Scientific Reports 7: 14311. doi. org / 10.1038 / s 41598 - 017 - 14677 - 2","Britt, B. B., R. D. Scheetz, M. F. Whiting, and D. R. Wilhite. 2017. Moabosaurus utahensis, n. gen., n. sp., a new sauropod from the Early Cretaceous (Aptian) of North America. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 32: 189 - 243.","Osborn, H. F., and C. C. Mook. 1921. Camarasaurus, Amphicoelias, and other sauropods of Cope. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, New Series 3: 247 - 387.","Gilmore, C. W. 1925. A nearly complete articulated skeleton of Camarasaurus, a saurischian dinosaur from the Dinosaur National Monument. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 10: 347 - 384.","Upchurch, P., P. M. Barrett, and P. Dodson. 2004 a. Sauropoda; pp. 259 - 324 in D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, and H. Osmolska, (eds.), The Dinosauria (Second Edition). University of California Press, Berkeley.","Jensen, J. A. 1988. A fourth new sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic of the Colorado Plateau and sauropod bipedalism. Great Basin Naturalist 48: 121 - 145.","Gilmore, C. W. 1932. On a newly mounted skeleton of Diplodocus in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 81: 1 - 21.","Cerda, I. A. 2009. Consideraciones sobre la histogenesis de las costillas cervicales en los dinosaurios sauropodos. Ameghiniana 46: 193 - 198.","Klein, N., A. Christian, and P. M. Sander. 2012. Histology shows that elongated neck ribs in sauropod dinosaurs are ossified tendons. Biology Letters 8: 1032 - 1035.","Cerda, I. A., G. A. Casal, R. D. Martinez, and L. M. Ibiricu. 2015. Histological evidence for a supraspinous ligament in sauropod dinosaurs. Royal Society Open Science 2: 150369. doi. org / 10.1098 / rsos. 150369","Deng, S., S. Wang, Z. Yang, Y. Lu, X. Li, Q. Hu, C. An, D. Xi, and X. Wan. 2015. Comprehensive study of the Middle-Upper Jurassic strata in the Junggar Basin, Xinjiang. Acta Geoscientia Sinica 36: 559 - 574.","Fang, Y., C. Wu, Y. Wang, L. Wang, Z. Guo, and H. Hu. 2016. Stratigraphic and sedimentary characteristics of the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous strata in the Junggar Basin, Central Asia: tectonic and climate implications. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 129: 294 - 308.","Zhang, X. - Q., D. - Q. Li, Y. Xie, and H. - L. You. 2020. Redescription of the cervical vertebrae of the mamenchisaurid sauropod Xinjiangtitan shanshanesis Wu et al. 2013. Historical Biology 32 (6): 802 - 822.","Upchurch, P. 1995. The evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 349: 365 - 390.","Wilson, J. A. 2002. Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny: critique and cladistic analysis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136: 217 - 276.","Upchurch, P., P. M. Barrett, and P. M. Galton. 2007 a. A phylogenetic analysis of basal sauropodomorph relationships: implications for the origin of sauropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 57 - 90.","Yates, A. M. 2007. The first complete skull of the Triassic dinosaur Melanorosaurus Haughton (Sauropodomorpha: Anchisauria). Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 9 - 55.","Allain, R., and N. Aquesbi. 2008. Anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of Tazoudasaurus naimi (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the late Early Jurassic of Morocco. Geodiversitas 30: 345 - 424.","McPhee, B. W., A. M. Yates, J. N. Choiniere, and F. Abdala, 2014. The complete anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of Antetonitrus ingenipes (Sauropodiformes, Dinosauria): implications for the origins of Sauropoda. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 171: 151 - 205.","Mannion, P. D., P. Upchurch, D. Schwarz, and O. Wings. 2019 a. Taxonomic affinities of the putative titanosaurs from the Late Jurassic Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania: phylogenetic and biogeographic implications for eusauropod dinosaur evolution. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 784 - 909.","Upchurch, P. 1998. The phylogenetic relationships of sauropod dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 124: 43 - 103.","Mannion, P. D., P. Upchurch, R. N. Barnes, and O. Mateus. 2013. Osteology of the Late Jurassic Portuguese sauropod dinosaur Lusotitan atalaiensis (Macronaria) and the evolutionary history of basal titanosauriforms. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 168: 98 - 206.","Upchurch, P., Y. Tomida, and P. M. Barrett. 2004 b. A new specimen of Apatosaurus ajax (Sauropoda: Diplodocidae) from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Wyoming, USA. National Science Museum Monographs 26: 1 - 108.","Hatcher, J. B. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1: 1 - 63.","Gilmore, C. W. 1936. Osteology of Apatosaurus with special reference to specimens in the Carnegie Museum. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 11: 175 - 300.","McIntosh, J. S. 1990. Sauropoda; pp. 345 - 401 in D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, and H. Osmolska (eds.), The Dinosauria (First Edition). University California Press, Berkeley.","Upchurch, P., and J. Martin, J. 2002. The Rutland Cetiosaurus: The anatomy and relationships of a Middle Jurassic British sauropod dinosaur. Palaeontology 45: 1049 - 1074.","Upchurch, P., and J. Martin. 2003. The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia: Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23: 208 - 231.","Mahammed, F., E. Lang, L. Mami, L. Mekahli, M. Benhamou, B. Bouterfa, A. Kacemi, S. Cherief, H. Chaouati, and P. Taquet. 2005. The \" Giant of Ksour \", a Middle Jurassic sauropod dinosaur from Algeria. Comptes Rendus Palevol 4: 707 - 714.","Peng, G., Y. Ye, Y. Gao, C. Shu, and S. Jiang. 2005. Jurassic dinosaur faunas in Zigong. Sichuan People' s Publishing House, Chengdu, 236 pp.","Ye, Y., Y. - H. Gao, and S. Jiang. 2005. A new genus of sauropod from Zigong, Sichuan. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 43: 175 - 181.","Whitlock, J. A. 2011. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 872 - 915.","Bonaparte, J. F. 1986. Les dinosaures (carnosaures, allosaurides, sauropodes, cetiosaurides) du Jurassique Moyen de Cerro Condor (Chubut, Argentine) (Part 2). Annales de Paleontologie (Vert. - Invert.) 72: 325 - 386.","Bonaparte J. F., B. J. Gonzalez Riga, and S. Apesteguia. 2006. Ligabuesaurus leanzai gen. et sp. nov. (Dinosauria, Sauropoda), a new titanosaur from the Lohan Cura Formation (Aptian, Lower Cretaceous) of Neuquen, Patagonia, Argentina. Cretaceous Research 27: 364 - 376.","Tschopp, E., O. Mateus, and R. B. J. Benson. 2015 a. A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda). PeerJ 3: e 857. doi. org / 10.7717 / peerj. 857","Tschopp, E., and O. Mateus. 2013. The skull and neck of a new flagellicaudatan sauropod from the Morrison Formation and its implication for the evolution and ontogeny of diplodocid dinosaurs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 11: 853 - 888.","Wu, W. - H., C. - F. Zhou, O. Wings, T. Sekiya, and Z. - M. Dong. 2013. A new gigantic sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Shanshan, Xinjiang. Global Geology 32: 437 - 446.","Wilson, J. A. 1999. A nomenclature for vertebral laminae in sauropods and other saurischian dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 639 - 653.","Xing, L, T. Miyashita, J. Zhang, D. Li, Y. Ye, T. Sekiya, F. Wang, and P. J. Currie. 2015. A new sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of China and the diversity, distribution, and relationships of mamenchisaurids. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 35: e 889701. doi. org / 10. 1080 / 02724634.2014.889701","He, X. - L., K. Li, and K. - J. Cai. 1988. The Middle Jurassic Dinosaur Fauna from Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan. Vol IV. Sauropod Dinosaurs (2). Omeisaurus tianfuensis. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, Chengdu. 143 pp. [In Chinese, English summary]","Ouyang, H., and Y. Ye. 2002. The first mamenchisaurian skeleton with complete skull: Mamenchisaurus youngi. Sichuan Science and Technology Press, Chengdu, 111 pp.","Sekiya, T. 2011. Re-examination of Chuanjiesaurus anaensis (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic Chuanjie Formation, Lufeng County, Yunnan Province, southwest China. Memoir of the Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum 10: 1 - 54.","Mannion, P. D., R. Allain, and O. Moine. 2017. The earliest known titanosauriform sauropod dinosaur and the evolution of Brachiosauridae. PeerJ 5: e 3217. doi. org / 10.7717 / peerj. 3217","Janensch, W. 1929. Die Wirbelsaule der Gattung Dicraeosaurus. Palaeontographica (Supplement VII) 2: 37 - 133.","Janensch, W. 1936. Ein aufgestelltes Skelett von Dicraeosaurus hansemanni. Palaeontographica (Supplement 7): 299 - 308.","Calvo, J. O., and L. Salgado. 1995. Rebbachisaurus tessonei sp. nov. a new Sauropoda from the Albian-Cenomanian of Argentina; new evidence on the origin of the Diplodocidae. GAIA 11: 13 - 33.","Poropat, S. F., P. D. Mannion, P. Upchurch, S. A. Hocknull, B. P. Kear, M. Kundrat, T. R. Tischler, T. Sloan, G. H. K. Sinapius, J. A. Elliott, and D. A. Elliott. 2016. New Australian sauropods shed light on Cretaceous dinosaur palaeobiogeography. Scientific Reports 6: 34467. doi. org / 10.1038 / srep 34467","Mannion, P. D. 2019. A turiasaurian sauropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous Wealden Supergroup of the United Kingdom. PeerJ 7: e 6348.","Carballido, J. L., D. Pol, A. Otero, I. A. Cerda, L. Salgado, A. C. Garrido, J. Ramezani, N. R. Cuneo, and J. M. Krause. 2017. A new giant titanosaur sheds light on body mass evolution among sauropod dinosaurs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 284: 20171219. doi. org / 10.1098 / rspb. 2017.1219","Young, C. C. 1954. On a new sauropod from Yiping, Szechuan, China. Acta Paleontologica Sinica 2: 355 - 369.","Borsuk-Bialynicka, M. 1977. A new camarasaurid sauropod Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii gen. n., sp. n. from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia. Palaeontologica Polonica 37: 5 - 63.","Harris, J. D., and P. Dodson. 2004. A new diplodocoid sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49: 197 - 210.","Ksepka, D. T., and M. A. Norell. 2006. Erketu ellisoni, a long-necked sauropod from Bor Guve (Dornogov Aimag, Mongolia). American Museum Novitates 3508: 1 - 16.","D' Emic, M. D., P. D. Mannion, P. Upchurch, R. B. J. Benson, Q. Pang, and Z. Cheng. 2013. Osteology of Huabeisaurus allocotus (Sauropoda: Titanosauriformes) from the Upper Cretaceous of China. PLoS ONE 8: e 69375. doi. org / 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0069375","Rauhut, O. W. M., K. Remes, R. Fechner, G. Cladera, and P. Puerta. 2005. Discovery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period of Patagonia. Nature 435: 670 - 672.","Xu, X., P. Upchurch, P. D. Mannion, P. M. Barrett, O. R. Regalado- Fernandez, J. Mo, J. Ma, and H. Liu. 2018. A new Middle Jurassic diplodocoid suggests an earlier dispersal and diversification of sauropod dinosaurs. Nature Communications 9: 2300. doi. org / 10. 1038 / s 41467 - 018 - 05128 - 1","Tsuihiji, T. 2004. The ligament system in the neck of Rhea americana and its implication for the bifurcated neural spines of sauropod dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24: 165 - 172.","Sereno, P. C., J. A. Wilson, L. M. Witmer, J. A. Whitlock, A. Maga, O. Ide, and T. A. Rowe. 2007. Structural extremes in a Cretaceous dinosaur. PLoS ONE 2: e 1230. doi. org / 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0001230","Wedel, M. J. 2003. The evolution of vertebral pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23: 344 - 357."]}

Upchurch, Paul, Mannion, Philip D., Xu, Xing, Barrett, Paul M. (2021): Re-assessment of the Late Jurassic eusauropod dinosaur Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum Dong, 1997, from the Turpan Basin, China, and the evolution of hyper-robust antebrachia in sauropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (e1994414) 41 (4): 1-31, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2021.1994414, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2021.1994414

There is significant geographic variation in species richness. However, the nature of the underlying relationships, such as that between species richness and environmental stability, remains unclear. The stability-time hypothesis suggests that environmental instability reduces species richness by suppressing speciation and increasing extinction risk. By contrast, the patch-mosaic hypothesis suggests that small-scale environmental instability can increase species richness by providing a steady supply of non-equilibrium environments. Although these hypotheses are often applied to different time scales, their core mechanisms are in conflict. Reconciling these apparently competing hypotheses is key to understanding how environmental conditions shape the distribution of biodiversity. Here, we use REvoSim, an individual-based, eco-evolutionary system, to model the evolution of sessile organisms in environments with varying magnitudes and scales of environmental instability. We demonstrate that when environments have substantial permanent heterogeneity, a high level of localized environmental instability reduces biodiversity, whereas in environments lacking permanent heterogeneity, high levels of localized instability increase biodiversity. By contrast, broad-scale environmental instability, acting on the same time scale, invariably reduces biodiversity. Our results provide a new view of the biodiversity–disturbance relationship that reconciles contrasting hypotheses within a single model and implies constraints on the environmental conditions under which those hypotheses apply. These constraints can inform attempts to conserve adaptive potential in different environments during the current biodiversity crisis.

Sauropod dinosaurs were an abundant and diverse component of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of the USA, with 24 currently recognized species. However, some authors consider this high diversity to have been ecologically unviable and the validity of some species has been questioned, with suggestions that they represent growth series (ontogimorphs) of other species. Under this scenario, high sauropod diversity in the Late Jurassic of North America is greatly overestimated. One putative ontogimorph is the enigmatic diplodocoid Amphicoelias altus, which has been suggested to be synonymous with Diplodocus. Given that Amphicoelias was named first, it has priority and thus Diplodocus would become its junior synonym. Here, we provide a detailed re-description of A. altus in which we restrict it to the holotype individual and support its validity, based on three autapomorphies. Constraint analyses demonstrate that its phylogenetic position within Diplodocoidea is labile, but it seems unlikely that Amphicoelias is synonymous with Diplodocus. As such, our re-evaluation also leads us to retain Diplodocus as a distinct genus. There is no evidence to support the view that any of the currently recognized Morrison sauropods are ontogimorphs. Available data indicate that sauropod anatomy did not dramatically alter once individuals approached maturity. Furthermore, subadult sauropod individuals are not prone to stemward slippage in phylogenetic analyses, casting doubt on the possibility that their taxonomic affinities are substantially misinterpreted. An anatomical feature can have both an ontogenetic and phylogenetic signature, but the former does not outweigh the latter when other characters overwhelmingly support the affinities of a taxon. Many Morrison Formation sauropods were spatio-temporally and/or ecologically separated from one another. Combined with the biases that cloud our reading of the fossil record, we contend that the number of sauropod dinosaur species in the Morrison Formation is currently likely to be underestimated, not overestimated.

Sauropod dinosaurs were an abundant and diverse component of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of the USA, with 24 currently recognized species. However, some authors consider this high diversity to have been ecologically unviable and the validity of some species has been questioned, with suggestions that they represent growth series (ontogimorphs) of other species. Under this scenario, high sauropod diversity in the Late Jurassic of North America is greatly overestimated. One putative ontogimorph is the enigmatic diplodocoid Amphicoelias altus, which has been suggested to be synonymous with Diplodocus. Given that Amphicoelias was named first, it has priority and thus Diplodocus would become its junior synonym. Here, we provide a detailed re-description of A. altus in which we restrict it to the holotype individual and support its validity, based on three autapomorphies. Constraint analyses demonstrate that its phylogenetic position within Diplodocoidea is labile, but it seems unlikely that Amphicoelias is synonymous with Diplodocus. As such, our re-evaluation also leads us to retain Diplodocus as a distinct genus. There is no evidence to support the view that any of the currently recognized Morrison sauropods are ontogimorphs. Available data indicate that sauropod anatomy did not dramatically alter once individuals approached maturity. Furthermore, subadult sauropod individuals are not prone to stemward slippage in phylogenetic analyses, casting doubt on the possibility that their taxonomic affinities are substantially misinterpreted. An anatomical feature can have both an ontogenetic and phylogenetic signature, but the former does not outweigh the latter when other characters overwhelmingly support the affinities of a taxon. Many Morrison Formation sauropods were spatio-temporally and/or ecologically separated from one another. Combined with the biases that cloud our reading of the fossil record, we contend that the number of sauropod dinosaur species in the Morrison Formation is currently likely to be underestimated, not overestimated.

Stage-level latitudinal biodiversity gradient plots

Sauropod dinosaurs were an abundant and diverse component of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of the USA, with 24 currently recognized species. However, some authors consider this high diversity to have been ecologically unviable and the validity of some species has been questioned, with suggestions that they represent growth series (ontogimorphs) of other species. Under this scenario, high sauropod diversity in the Late Jurassic of North America is greatly overestimated. One putative ontogimorph is the enigmatic diplodocoid Amphicoelias altus, which has been suggested to be synonymous with Diplodocus. Given that Amphicoelias was named first, it has priority and thus Diplodocus would become its junior synonym. Here, we provide a detailed re-description of A. altus in which we restrict it to the holotype individual and support its validity, based on three autapomorphies. Constraint analyses demonstrate that its phylogenetic position within Diplodocoidea is labile, but it seems unlikely that Amphicoelias is synonymous with Diplodocus. As such, our re-evaluation also leads us to retain Diplodocus as a distinct genus. There is no evidence to support the view that any of the currently recognized Morrison sauropods are ontogimorphs. Available data indicate that sauropod anatomy did not dramatically alter once individuals approached maturity. Furthermore, subadult sauropod individuals are not prone to stemward slippage in phylogenetic analyses, casting doubt on the possibility that their taxonomic affinities are substantially misinterpreted. An anatomical feature can have both an ontogenetic and phylogenetic signature, but the former does not outweigh the latter when other characters overwhelmingly support the affinities of a taxon. Many Morrison Formation sauropods were spatio-temporally and/or ecologically separated from one another. Combined with the biases that cloud our reading of the fossil record, we contend that the number of sauropod dinosaur species in the Morrison Formation is currently likely to be underestimated, not overestimated.

Supplementary tables and figures

Characters used for the phylogenetic analysis

The titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur Savannasaurus elliottorum is represented by a partial postcranial skeleton from the lower Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian–lowermost Turonian) Winton Formation of Queensland, northeast Australia. Here, we present a detailed description of this specimen, as well as an emended diagnosis for this titanosaur. Savannasaurus elliottorum displays numerous character states that are generally regarded as plesiomorphic for Titanosauria, as well as several traits that are often regarded as apomorphic of that clade or a less inclusive subset thereof. Several features of Savannasaurus support a close relationship with the coeval Diamantinasaurus matildae, and this clade appears to occupy an early-branching position within Titanosauria. Relative to body size, the thoracic and abdominal breadth of Savannasaurus is greater than that seen in giant titanosaurs such as the contemporaneous South American lognkosaurians; however, this relative breadth is not quite as extreme as that of the small-bodied latest Cretaceous saltasaurines, or Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii. The possible advantages engendered by the barrel-shaped thorax, robust limbs, wide-gauge gait, and lack of hyposphene-hypantrum articulations are explored, and it is hypothesized that these traits were positively selected by the wet, temperate floodplain environment in which Savannasaurus lived. Greater stability and flexibility might have reduced the risk of bogging, and/or facilitated more expedient self-extraction from muddy waterholes. Similar environmental pressures acting upon other titanosaurian taxa or clades elsewhere might have led to the repeated independent development, or accentuation, of the bauplan regarded as ‘typical’ for the clade Titanosauria. This would explain the many observed convergences between Savannasaurus and Diamantinasaurus, and Saltasauridae.

Additional information on the methods and results.

Spatiotemporal changes in fossil specimen completeness can bias our understanding of a group's evolutionary history. The quality of the sauropodomorph fossil record was assessed a decade ago, but the number of valid species has since increased by 60%, and 17% of the taxa from that study have since undergone taxonomic revision. Here, we assess how 10 years of additional research has changed our outlook on the group's fossil record. We quantified the completeness of all 307 sauropodomorph species currently considered valid using the skeletal completeness metric, which calculates the proportion of a complete skeleton preserved for each taxon. Taxonomic and stratigraphic age revisions, rather than new species, are the drivers of the most significant differences between the current results and those of the previous assessment. No statistical differences appeared when we use our new dataset to generate temporal completeness curves based solely on taxa known in 2009 or 1999. We now observe a severe drop in mean completeness values across the Jurassic–Cretaceous boundary that never recovers to pre‐Cretaceous levels. Explaining this pattern is difficult, as we find no convincing evidence that it is related to environmental preferences or body size changes. Instead, it might result from: (1) reduction of terrestrial fossil preservation space due to sea level rise; (2) ecological specificities and relatively high diagnosability of Cretaceous species; and/or (3) increased sampling of newly explored sites with many previously unknown taxa. Revisiting patterns in this manner allows us to test the longevity of conclusions made in previous quantitative studies.

Additional methods and results