Sauropodomorpha Huene, 1932
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3382576 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5123147 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/77323C29-FFD6-B420-FF18-9D0CFCB7F5F4 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Sauropodomorpha Huene, 1932 |
| status |
|
Included taxa. Saturnalia, prosauropods, sauropods, and all dinosaurs that are more closely related to these taxa than to theropods.
Temporal range. Camian-Maastrichtian.
Distribution. Global.
Diagnosis. Relatively small skull (about 5 per cent of body length); lanceolate teeth with coarsely serrated crowns; at least ten elongate cervical vertebrae; very large pollex with enlarged ungual; fused, deep, apron-like pubes that are twisted proximally.
Remarks. Huene (1932) proposed the Sauropodomorpha to include those members of the Saurischia that are more closely related to the Sauropoda than to the Camosauria. In his phylogenetic scheme, sauropodomorphs and camosaurs were grouped together as Pachypodosauria and seen as the sister group to coelurosaurs. The supposedly close relationships between camosaurs and prosauropods was based on the association of remains of certainly carnivorous archosaurs (see e.g. Huene 1932). Although they accepted the association of cranial remains of carnivorous archosaurs and prosauropod-like postcrania, Colbert (1964) and Charig et al. (1965) argued that coelurosaurs and camosaurs formed a monophyletic Theropoda and concluded that all prosauropods were more closely related to the Sauropoda than to the Theropoda . This view has since been accepted and was supported by more recent cladistic analyses ( Gauthier 1986; Benton 1990). Galton (1 985a, b) and Benton (1986) argued that the association of cranial remains of carnivorous archosaurs with prosauropod postcrania is either erroneous or not demonstrable, and Galton (1985 b) made a strong argument that all prosauropods for which clearly referable cranial material is known were herbivorous.
The interrelationships of taxa within Sauropodomorpha are still problematic. While the monophyly of the Sauropoda is generally accepted ( Gauthier 1986; Benton 1990; Upchurch 1995, 1998; Wilson and Sereno 1998), the relationships between basal taxa are poorly understood. Sereno (1989), Galton (1990), and Upchurch (1995) argued for a monophyletic Prosauropoda to include all known basal forms, whereas Benton (1990) regarded prosauropods as paraphyletic. A solution to this problem will have to come from a more detailed analysis of basal sauropodomorph relationships.
The character codings in this analysis are mainly based on the Late Triassic taxon Plateosaurus ( Text-fig. 4c View text ), with additional information taken from Thecodontosaurus , Sellosaurus , and Massospondylus . Sauropodomorphs form the immediate outgroup to theropods, but they are also an important terminal taxon in this analysis in the light of the problematical phylogenetic position of Eoraptor , Herrerasaurus , and Staurikosaurus .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.