2013
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069375
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Osteology of Huabeisaurus allocotus (Sauropoda: Titanosauriformes) from the Upper Cretaceous of China

Abstract: BackgroundThe Late Cretaceous titanosauriform sauropod Huabeisaurus allocotus Pang and Cheng is known from teeth and much of the postcranial skeleton. Its completeness makes it an important taxon for integrating and interpreting anatomical observations from more fragmentary Cretaceous East Asian sauropods and for understanding titanosauriform evolution in general.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe present a detailed redescription of Huabeisaurus allocotus and a suite of anatomical comparisons with other titanosa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
80
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
2
80
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Suteethorn et al 2013). Convergence in tooth Historical Biology 15 morphotypes has also been suggested for brachiosaurids and titanosaurs (Chure et al 2010) and both with euhelopodids (D'Emic et al 2013). The differences shown by the three proposed morphotypes can be explained by two different ways (or a combination of both): (i) the three morphotypes represents three distinct taxa (in generic or specific level) inside or outside the Turiasauria clade (this morphology could not be exclusive of the clade); or (ii) the three morphotypes belong to the same taxon and the variability is associated to a distinct position along the tooth row, as occurs in other sauropods such as Giraffatitan (Janensch 1936), Camarasaurus (Gilmore 1925), Abydosaurus (Chure et al 2010) or Euhelopus (Wiman 1929;Wilson and Upchurch 2009;Poropat and Kear 2013).…”
Section: Historical Biology 13mentioning
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Suteethorn et al 2013). Convergence in tooth Historical Biology 15 morphotypes has also been suggested for brachiosaurids and titanosaurs (Chure et al 2010) and both with euhelopodids (D'Emic et al 2013). The differences shown by the three proposed morphotypes can be explained by two different ways (or a combination of both): (i) the three morphotypes represents three distinct taxa (in generic or specific level) inside or outside the Turiasauria clade (this morphology could not be exclusive of the clade); or (ii) the three morphotypes belong to the same taxon and the variability is associated to a distinct position along the tooth row, as occurs in other sauropods such as Giraffatitan (Janensch 1936), Camarasaurus (Gilmore 1925), Abydosaurus (Chure et al 2010) or Euhelopus (Wiman 1929;Wilson and Upchurch 2009;Poropat and Kear 2013).…”
Section: Historical Biology 13mentioning
confidence: 88%
“…We also plotted the Log 10 SI for Sauropodomorpha, non-neosauropod eusauropods and five sauropod clades: Diplodocoidea, Brachiosauridae, Euhelopodidae and Lithostrotia (using Chure et al 2010;D'Emic et al 2013 data; see Appendix 2) versus the number of genera that have teeth included in our data (Figure 8). Turiasaurus riodevensis and the Portuguese Upper Jurassic heartshaped are plotted together and they show a narrow range (Martínez et al 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Euhelopus is a member of the Euhelopodidae, an exclusive group of the Early Cretaceous of Asia (D'Emic ; D'Emic et al . ). Nevertheless, new material is needed to improve the taxonomic assignation proposed herein.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…, b, ; D'Emic et al . ), such as the presence of parallel mesial and distal edges, a subcircular cross‐section at the base of the crown, and no lingual concavity. Nevertheless, lower SI values, the presence of well‐defined carinae with a markedly compressed apex, and the absence of oval wear facets on the labial/lingual face relates these teeth to the compressed cone‐chisel‐shaped morphology.…”
Section: Sauropod Tooth Morphotypesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All of these animals are considerably larger than the Late Cretaceous euhelopodid Huabeisaurus allocotus (Pang and Cheng, 2000), which has a femur only about 156cm long and a dorsal centrum just 28.6cm wide (D'Emic, et. al.…”
Section: So How Doesmentioning
confidence: 99%