identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03CC8791DC34C826FCDCF8C4FB25F888.text	03CC8791DC34C826FCDCF8C4FB25F888.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gigantosaurus robustus Fraas 1908	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Gigantosaurus robustus Fraas, 1908</p>
            <p> Tornieria robusta : Sternfeld, 1911 </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC34C826FCDCF8C4FB25F888	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC34C826FC06F934FAE3F8D3.text	03CC8791DC34C826FC06F934FAE3F8D3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Janenschia WILD 1991	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> JANENSCHIA WILD, 1991</p>
            <p> Type species:  Janenschia robusta (Fraas, 1908)</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC34C826FC06F934FAE3F8D3	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC33C821FF76FF22FAB2FC48.text	03CC8791DC33C821FF76FF22FAB2FC48.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gigantosaurus robustus Fraas 1908	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Gigantosaurus robustus : Janensch, 1922 </p>
            <p> Barosaurus robustus : Haughton, 1928 </p>
            <p> Tornieria robusta : Janensch, 1961 </p>
            <p>Holotype: SMNS 12144 – associated right hindlimb comprising the distal end of the femur, tibia, fibula, astragalus and complete pes.</p>
            <p>Topotypes: left pubis [MB.R.2090.2 (B8)], right ischium [MB.R.2090.4 (B13)] and distal half of left tibia [MB.R.2090.1 (B6)] from the same locality as the holotype (Janensch, 1914b; Bonaparte et al., 2000; Mannion et al., 2013). A second, slightly larger, right ischium [MB.R.2090.3 (B11)], indicates the presence of a second individual.</p>
            <p>Type locality and horizon: Quarry B, approximately 900 m southeast of Tendaguru Hill, Lindi District, southeastern Tanzania (Fig. 1); Upper Dinosaur Member (Upper Saurian Bed), Tendaguru Formation; Tithonian, Late Jurassic (Fraas, 1908; Janensch, 1914b, 1925b, 1929a; Wild, 1991; Bonaparte et al., 2000; Aberhan et al., 2002; Remes, 2006; Bussert et al., 2009).</p>
            <p>Referred material: All of the forelimb and hindlimb material from Quarry P (MB.R.2095 2245 and 2707), at Nterego, approximately 1.2 km northeast of Tendaguru Hill, Lindi District, southeastern Tanzania (Fig. 1); Upper Dinosaur Member (Upper Saurian Bed), Tendaguru Formation; Tithonian, Late Jurassic (Janensch, 1922, 1929a, 1961; Heinrich, 1999b; Bonaparte et al., 2000; Aberhan et al., 2002; Bussert et al., 2009). Note that a number of these elements are now lost (see below).</p>
            <p> Revised diagnosis:  Janenschia can be diagnosed by two autapomorphies (marked with an asterisk), as well as one local autapomorphy: (1) tibia with prominent tubercle (‘tuberculum fibularis’) on the posterior surface of the distal half of the cnemial crest; (2) extremely prominently developed projection posteromedial to the ascending process of the astragalus*; and (3) high metatarsal I to V length ratio (1.34)*. </p>
            <p> Additional comments: A sacrum and ilium were also apparently discovered at the type locality (Janensch, 1929a), but were either subsequently destroyed or were never collected. However, it is not entirely clear whether the missing sacrum and ilium are those discussed and photographed in Fraas (1908: pp. 126–128), or newly discovered elements. If the former is correct, as suggested in Janensch (1961: p. 201), then these elements did not come from the same locality as the holotype and the topotypic materials (Fraas, 1908), and cannot be confidently attributed to  Janenschia . Regardless, no anatomical information can be gleaned from these elements and thus we do not discuss them further. Bonaparte et al. (2000) noted that Janensch’s field catalogue also mentioned a partial forefoot from the type locality, but there is no further information on this material and it was presumably either destroyed or never collected. An alternative possibility is that this is MB.R.2093, a near complete, articulated right manus that was referred to  Janenschia (Janensch, 1922) . However, Janensch (1922, 1961) stated that this was collected from near to the  Janenschia type locality, rather than from the type locality itself. Furthermore, the surrounding area also yielded the type skeleton of  Tornieria , and so we cannot be certain that MB.R.2093 belongs to  Janenschia . As such, we exclude MB.R.2093 from  Janenschia and describe it separately (see below). Other previously referred remains also cannot unequivocally be assigned to  Janenschia and are treated separately too. </p>
            <p> DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISONS OF THE HOLOTYPE MATERIAL OF  JANENSCHIA ROBUSTA</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC33C821FF76FF22FAB2FC48	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC2BC839FF1BFAEBFA3DF9A2.text	03CC8791DC2BC839FF1BFAEBFA3DF9A2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tendaguria BONAPARTE	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> TENDAGURIA BONAPARTE ET AL., 2000 </p>
            <p> Type species:  Tendaguria tanzaniensis Bonaparte et al., 2000</p>
            <p> Gigantosaurus robustus : Janensch, 1929a </p>
            <p> Holotype: MB.R.2092.1–2 (NB4 and 5)– two associated anterior dorsal vertebrae.</p>
            <p>Type locality and horizon: Nambango (site NB), about 15 km south-east of Tendaguru Hill, Lindi District, south-eastern Tanzania (Fig. 1); probably from the Upper Dinosaur Member (Upper Saurian Bed), Tendaguru Formation; Tithonian, Late Jurassic (Janensch, 1929a; Bonaparte et al., 2000; Aberhan et al., 2002; Bussert et al., 2009).</p>
            <p> Revised diagnosis:  Tendaguria can be diagnosed by one autapomorphy (marked with an asterisk), as well as one local autapomorphy: (1) dorsal surface of anterior dorsal vertebral diapophyses excavated by two fossae (one posterolateral to the prezygapophyses, along the anterior half of the diapophysis, and one posterior to the prezygapophyses)*; and (2) prespinal midline ridge in anteriormost dorsal neural spines. </p>
            <p> Additional comments: These dorsal vertebrae were originally referred to  Janenschia robusta by Janensch (1929a), although no clear basis was given for this attribution. A sacrum and ilium were also found at this locality (Janensch, 1929a), but were never described or figured. These elements could not be located in the MfN collections and thus cannot be used to link  Tendaguria to  Janenschia because of a lack of overlapping material (see also: Bonaparte et al., 2000). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC2BC839FF1BFAEBFA3DF9A2	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC11C803FF44FCF9FB57FAB3.text	03CC8791DC11C803FF44FCF9FB57FAB3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gigantosaurus robustus Fraas 1908	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Gigantosaurus robustus : Janensch, 1929a </p>
            <p>Etymology: The genus name honours the Wamwera, the most populous tribe in the Lindi District, which includes the area of Tendaguru Hill, and caudia is derived from the Greek for tail, in reference to the elements comprising the holotype. The species name is in recognition of the efforts of Mohammadi Keranje, who supervised the excavation of the holotypic individual (Maier, 2003).</p>
            <p>Holotype: MB.R.2091.1–30, 3817.1 and 3817.2 (G1– 30) – a series of 30 articulated caudal vertebrae, two anterior caudal neural spines and two incomplete chevrons.</p>
            <p>Type locality and horizon: Quarry G, approximately 600 m south of Tendaguru Hill, Lindi District, south-eastern Tanzania (Fig. 1); Upper Dinosaur Member (Upper Saurian Bed), Tendaguru Formation; Tithonian, Late Jurassic (Janensch, 1929a; Bonaparte et al., 2000; Aberhan et al., 2002; Remes, 2007; Bussert et al., 2009).</p>
            <p>Referred material: MB.R.2094 (Oa12) – an isolated anterior caudal vertebra; Obolello, Quarry Oa, approximately 15 km south-west of Tendaguru Hill, Lindi District, south-eastern Tanzania (Fig. 1); Upper Dinosaur Member (Upper Saurian Bed), Tendaguru Formation; Tithonian, Late Jurassic (Janensch, 1925b, 1929a; Bonaparte et al., 2000; Aberhan et al., 2002; Bussert et al., 2009). Janensch (1929a) mentioned the existence of more than one anterior caudal vertebra from this locality, but only MB.R.2094 remains in the MfN collections (Bonaparte et al., 2000).</p>
            <p> Diagnosis:  Wamweracaudia can be diagnosed by four autapomorphies (marked with an asterisk), as well as two local autapomorphies: (1) anteriormost caudal ribs curve strongly anterolaterally; (2) dorsal surface of centrum posteriorly excavated in anterior– middle caudal vertebrae*; (3) paired tubercles present on lateral surface of prezygapophysis and on dorsal surface of caudal rib (situated an approximately equal distance between the prezygapophysis and the lateral tip of the caudal rib) in anterior caudal vertebrae; (4) rugosity along the dorsal third of the lateral surface of anterior caudal neural spines, separated from the postspinal rugosity by a vertical groove*; (5) ventral surface of middle–posterior caudal centra strongly constricted transversely to form a ridge rather than a distinct, transversely wide surface*; (6) anteroposteriorly elongate ridge on lateral surface of middle–posterior caudal neural spines, just above the level of the postzygapophyses*. </p>
            <p> Additional comments: These caudal vertebrae were originally referred to  Janenschia robusta by Janensch (1929a), although no basis was given for this attribution. We can only assume that this referral was based on comparisons with the now lost caudal vertebrae from Quarry P. However, it is impossible to discern the morphology of these vertebrae based on the surviving field map of Janensch (Fig. 10) and, as illustrated, they appear most likely to represent middle–posterior caudal centra, making the recognition of shared features difficult. As such, there is currently no basis for referring them to  Janenschia (see also: ‘Discussion – Oversplitting of Tendaguru sauropods?’). </p>
            <p> DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISONS OF HOLOTYPE MATERIAL OF  WAMWERACAUDIA KERANJEI GEN. ET SP. NOV.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC11C803FF44FCF9FB57FAB3	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC11C803FF2FFDA0FE3BFCD8.text	03CC8791DC11C803FF2FFDA0FE3BFCD8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Wamweracaudia keranjei gen. et 2019	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> WAMWERACAUDIA KERANJEI GEN. ET SP. NOV.</p>
            <p>(FIGS 24–31)</p>
            <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 4C62E4C7-84F9-44A6- 8E41-59158B1FC9DD urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 9FF6C6D3-1B24-4DEC-88AF-983E2909AACB</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC11C803FF2FFDA0FE3BFCD8	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC6EC87EFF4FFF06FA16FF0B.text	03CC8791DC6EC87EFF4FFF06FA16FF0B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii Mannion & Upchurch & Schwarz & Wings 2019	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii gen. n., sp. n. from the Upper  Cretaceous of Mongolia. Palaeontologica Polonica 37: 5–63. </p>
            <p>Britt BB, Scheetz RD, Whiting MF, Wilhite DR. 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.</p>
            <p>Broschinski A. 1999. Ein Lacertilier (Scincomorpha, Paramacellodidae) aus dem Oberen Jura von Tendaguru (Tansania). Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe 2: 155–158.</p>
            <p>Brusatte SL, Benton MJ, Ruta M, Lloyd GT. 2008. The first 50 Myr of dinosaur evolution: macroevolutionary pattern and morphological disparity. Biology Letters 4: 733–736.</p>
            <p>Buffetaut E. 2005. A new sauropod dinosaur with prosauropod-like teeth from the Middle Jurassic of Madagascar. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 176: 483–489.</p>
            <p>Buffetaut E. 2012. An early spinosaurid dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania) and the evolution of the spinosaurid dentition. Oryctos 10: 1–8.</p>
            <p>Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information‐ theoretic approach, 2nd edn. New York: Springer–Verlag, 488.</p>
            <p>Bussert R, Heinrich W-D, Aberhan M. 2009. The Tendaguru Formation (Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, Southern Tanzania): definition, palaeoenvironments, and sequence stratigraphy. Fossil Record 12: 141–174.</p>
            <p>Calvo JO. 1994. Jaw mechanics in sauropod dinosaurs. Gaia 10: 183–193.</p>
            <p>Calvo JO, Salgado L. 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.</p>
            <p>Calvo JO, Porfiri JD, González Riga BJ, Kellner AWA. 2008. Anatomy of Futalognkosaurus dukei Calvo, Porfiri, González Riga &amp; Kellner, 2007 (Dinosauria, Titanosauridae) from the Neuquén Group (Late Cretaceous), Patagonia, Argentina. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro 65: 511–526.</p>
            <p>Campione NE, Brink KS, Freedman EA, McGarrity CT, Evans DC. 2013. ‘ Glishades ericksoni ’, an indeterminate juvenile hadrosaurid from the Two Medicine Formation of Montana: implications for hadrosauroid diversity in the latest Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) of western North America. Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments 93: 65–75.</p>
            <p>Campos DA, Kellner AWA, Bertini RJ, Santucci RM. 2005. On a titanosaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) vertebral column from the Bauru Group, Late Cretaceous of Brazil. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro 63: 565–593.</p>
            <p>Canudo JI, Ruiz-Omeñaca JI, Barco JL, Royo-Torres R. 2002. ¿ Saurópodos asiáticos en el Barremiense inferior (Cretácico Inferior) de España? Ameghiniana 39: 443–452.</p>
            <p>Canudo JI, Royo-Torres R, Cuenca-Bescós G. 2008. A new sauropod: Tastavinsaurus sanzi gen. et sp. nov. from the Early Cretaceous (Aptian) of Spain. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28: 712–731.</p>
            <p>Canudo JI, Barco JL, Pereda−Suberbiola X, RuizOmeñaca JI, Salgado L, Torcida Fernández−Baldor F, Gasulla JM. 2009. What Iberian dinosaurs reveal about the bridge said to exist between Gondwana and Laurasia in the Early Cretaceous. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 180: 5–11.</p>
            <p>Canudo JI, Gasca JM, Moreno-Azanza M, Aurell M. 2012. New information about the stratigraphic position and age of the sauropod Aragosaurus ischiaticus from the Early Cretaceous of the Iberian Peninsula. Geological Magazine 149: 252–263.</p>
            <p>Carballido JL, Sander PM. 2014. Postcranial axial skeleton of Europasaurus holgeri (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Jurassic of Germany: implications for sauropod ontogeny and phylogenetic relationships of basal Macronaria. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 12: 335–387.</p>
            <p>Carballido JL, Garrido AC, Canudo JI, Salgado L. 2010. Redescription of Rayososaurus agrioensis Bonaparte (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea), a rebbachisaurid from the early Late Cretaceous of Neuquén. Geobios 43: 493–502.</p>
            <p>Carballido JL, Rauhut OWM, Pol D, Salgado L. 2011. Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Tehuelchesaurus benitezii (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Jurassic of Patagonia. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 163: 605–662.</p>
            <p>Carballido JL, Salgado L, Pol D, Canudo JI, Garrido A. 2012. A new basal rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from the Early Cretaceous of the Neuquén Basin; evolu - tion and biogeography of the group. Historical Biology 24: 631–654.</p>
            <p>Carballido JL, Pol D, Parra Ruge ML, Padilla Bernal S, Páramo-Fonseca ME, Etayo-Serna F. 2015. A new Early Cretaceous brachiosaurid (Dinosauria, Neosauropoda) from north-western Gondwana (Villa de Leiva, Colombia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 35: e980505.</p>
            <p>Carballido JL, Pol D, Otero A, Cerda IA, Salgado L, Garrido AC, Ramezani J, Cúneo NR, Krause JM. 2017. A new giant titanosaur sheds light on body mass evolution among sauropod dinosaurs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 284: 20171219.</p>
            <p>Carvalho IS, Avilla LS, Salgado L. 2003. Amazonsaurus maranhensis gen. et sp. nov. (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian–Albian) of Brazil. Cretaceous Research 24: 697–713.</p>
            <p>Carvalho IS, Salgado L, Lindoso RM, Araújo-Júnior HID, Nogueira FCC, Soares JA. 2017. A new basal titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Lower Cretaceous of Brazil. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 75: 74–84.</p>
            <p>Casanovas ML, Santafe JV, Sanz JL. 2001. Losillasaurus giganteus, un nuevo sauropodo del transito JurasicoCretacico de la cuenca de ‘Los Serranos’ (Valencia, España). Paleontologia i Evolucio 32 –33: 99–122.</p>
            <p>Cerda IA, Salgado L, Powell JE. 2012. Extreme postcranial pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs from South America. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 86: 441–449.</p>
            <p>Chure D, Britt BB, Whitlock JA, Wilson JA. 2010. First complete sauropod dinosaur skull from the Cretaceous of the Americas and the evolution of sauropod dentition. Naturwissenschaften 97: 379–391.</p>
            <p>Cohen KM, Finney SC, Gibbard PL, Fan J-X. 2013. The ICS international chronostratigraphic chart. Episodes 36: 199–204.</p>
            <p>Cooper MR. 1981. The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia, Series B, Natural Sciences 6: 689–840.</p>
            <p>Coria RA, Filippi LS, Chiappe LM, García R, Arcucci AB. 2013. Overosaurus paradasorum gen. et sp. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur (Titanosauria: Lithostrotia) from the Late Cretaceous of Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina. Zootaxa 3683: 357–376.</p>
            <p>Costa FR, Kellner AWA. 2009. On two pterosaur humeri from the Tendaguru beds (Upper Jurassic, Tanzania). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 81: 813–818.</p>
            <p>Cúneo R, Ramezani J, Scasso R, Pol D, Escapa I, Zavattieri AM, Bowring SA. 2013. High-precision U-Pb geochronology and a new chronostratigraphy for the Cañadón Asfalto Basin, Chubut, central Patagonia: implications for terrestrial faunal and floral evolution in Jurassic. Gondwana Research 24: 1267–1275.</p>
            <p>Currie PJ, Wilson JA, Fanti F, Mainbayar B, Tsogtbaatar K. 2018. Rediscovery of the type localities of the Late Cretaceous Mongolian sauropods Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis and Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii: stratigraphic and taxonomic implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 494: 5–13.</p>
            <p>Curry Rogers K. 2005. Titanosauria: a phylogenetic overview. In: Curry Rogers K, Wilson JA, eds. The sauropods: evolution and paleobiology. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 50–103.</p>
            <p>Curry Rogers K. 2009. The postcranial osteology of Rapetosaurus krausei (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29: 1046–1086.</p>
            <p>Curry Rogers K, Forster CA. 2001. The last of the dinosaur titans: a new sauropod from Madagascar. Nature 412: 530–534.</p>
            <p>Curry Rogers K, Forster C. 2004. The skull of Rapetosaurus krausei (Sauropoda:Titanosauria) from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24: 121–144.</p>
            <p>Curtice BD, Stadtman KL. 2001. The demise of Dystylosaurus edwini and a revision of Supersaurus vivianae. Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin 8: 33–40.</p>
            <p>Dal Sasso C, Pierangelini G, Famiani F, Cau A, Nicosia U. 2016. First sauropod bones from Italy offer new insights on the radiation of Titanosauria between Africa and Europe. Cretaceous Research 64: 88–109.</p>
            <p>Dalla Vecchia FM. 1998. Remains of Sauropoda (Reptilia, Saurischia) in the lower Cretaceous (upper Hauterivian/ lower Barremian) limestones of SW Istria (Croatia). Geologia Croatica 51: 105–134.</p>
            <p>Dalla Vecchia FM. 1999. Atlas of the sauropod bones from the upper Hauterivian–lower Barremian of Valle/Bale (SW Istria, Croatia). Natura Nacosta 18: 6–41.</p>
            <p>Dalla Vecchia FM. 2005. Between Gondwana and Laurasia: Cretaceous sauropods in an intraoceanic carbonate platform. In: Tidwell V, Carpenter K, eds. Thunder-lizards: the sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 395–429.</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD. 2012. The early evolution of titanosauriform sauropod dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166: 624–671.</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD. 2013. Revision of the sauropod dinosaurs of the Lower Cretaceous Trinity Group, Southern USA, with the description of a new genus. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 11: 707–726</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD, Foreman BZ. 2012. The beginning of the sauropod dinosaur hiatus in North America: insights from the Lower Cretaceous Cloverly Formation of Wyoming. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32: 883–902.</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD, Foster JR. 2016. The oldest Cretaceous North American sauropod dinosaur. Historical Biology 28: 470–478.</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD, Wilson JA. 2011. New remains attributable to the holotype of Neuquensaurus australis (Dinosauria: Sauropoda): implications for saltasaurine systematics. Acta Palaeontologia Polonica 56: 61–73.</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD, Wilson JA, Williamson TE. 2011. A sauropod dinosaur pes from the latest Cretaceous of North America and the validity of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis (Sauropoda, Titanosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31: 1072–1079.</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD, Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Benson RBJ, Pang Q, Cheng Z. 2013. Osteology of Huabeisaurus allocotus (Sauropoda: Titanosauriformes) from the Upper Cretaceous of China. PLoS ONE 8: e69375.</p>
            <p>D’Emic MD, Foreman BZ, Jud NA. 2016. Anatomy, systematics, paleoenvironment, growth, and age of the sauropod dinosaur Sonorasaurus thompsoni from the Cretaceous of Arizona, USA. Journal of Paleontology 90: 102–132.</p>
            <p>Dong Z. 1990. On remains of the sauropods from Kelamaili region, Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 28: 43–58.</p>
            <p>Ezcurra MD, Agnolín FL. 2012. A new global palaeobiogeographical model for the late Mesozoic and early Tertiary. Systematic Biology 61: 553–566.</p>
            <p>Fanti F, Cau A, Hassine M, Contessi M. 2013. A new sauropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Tunisia with extreme avian-like pneumatization. Nature Communications 4: 1–7.</p>
            <p>Fanti F, Cau A, Cantelli L, Hassine M, Auditore M. 2015. New information on Tataouinea hannibalis from the Early Cretaceous of Tunisia and implications for the tempo and mode of rebbachisaurid sauropod evolution. PLoS ONE 10: e0123475.</p>
            <p>Ford D, Golonka J. 2003. Phanerozoic paleogeography, paleoenvironment and lithofacies maps of the circum-Atlantic margins. Marine and Petroleum Geology 20: 249–285.</p>
            <p>Fraas E. 1908. Ostafrikanische Dinosaurier. Palaeontographica 55: 105–144.</p>
            <p>Gaetano LC, Rougier GW. 2012. First Amphilestid from South America: a Molariform from the Jurassic Cañadón Asfalto Formation, Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 19: 235–248.</p>
            <p>Gallina PA. 2011. Notes on the axial skeleton of the titanosaur Bonitasaura salgadoi (Dinosauria-Sauropoda). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 83: 235–245.</p>
            <p>Gallina PA. 2016. Reappraisal of the Early Cretaceous sauropod dinosaur Amargatitanis macni (Apesteguía, 2007), from north-western Patagonia, Argentina. Cretaceous Research 64: 79–87.</p>
            <p>Gallina PA, Apesteguía S. 2005. Cathartesaura anaerobica gen. et sp. nov., a new rebbachisaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Huincul Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Río Negro, Argentina. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales n.s. 7: 153–166.</p>
            <p>Gallina PA, Apesteguía S. 2011. Cranial anatomy and phylogenetic position of the titanosaurian sauropod Bonitasaura salgadoi. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 56: 45–60.</p>
            <p>Gallina PA, Apesteguía S, Haluza A, Canale JI. 2014. A diplodocid sauropod survivor from the Early Cretaceous of South America. PLoS ONE 9: e97128.</p>
            <p>Galton PM. 1977. The ornithopod dinosaur Dryosaurus and a Laurasia-Gondwanaland connection in the Upper Jurassic. Nature 268: 230–232.</p>
            <p>Galton PM. 1982. The postcranial anatomy of stegosaurian dinosaur Kentrosaurus from the Upper Jurassic of Tanzania, East Africa. Geologica et Palaeontologica 15: 139–160.</p>
            <p>Gauthier J. 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. Memoirs of the Californian Academy of Sciences 8: 1–55.</p>
            <p>Gheerbrant E, Rage J-C. 2006. Paleobiogeography of Africa: how distinct from Gondwana and Laurasia? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 241: 224–246.</p>
            <p>Ghilardi AM, Aureliano T, Duque RRC, Fernandes MA, Barreto AMF, Chinsamy A. 2016. A new titanosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Brazil. Cretaceous Research 67: 16–24.</p>
            <p>Gilmore CW. 1932. On a newly mounted skeleton of Diplodocus in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 81: 1–21.</p>
            <p>Gilmore CW. 1936. Osteology of Apatosaurus with special reference to specimens in the Carnegie Museum. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 11: 175–300.</p>
            <p>Gnaedinger S, Coria RA, Koppelhus E, Casadío S, Tunik M, Currie P. 2017. First Lower Cretaceous record of Podocarpaceae wood associated with dinosaur remains from Patagonia, Neuquén Province, Argentina. Cretaceous Research 78: 228–239.</p>
            <p>Goloboff PA. 2014. Extended implied weighting. Cladistics 30: 260–272.</p>
            <p>Goloboff PA, Catalano SA. 2016. TNT version 1.5, including a full implementation of phylogenetic morphometrics. Cladistics 32: 221–238.</p>
            <p>Goloboff PA, Farris JS, Nixon KC. 2008. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 24: 1–13.</p>
            <p>Gomani EM. 2005. Sauropod dinosaurs from the Early Cretaceous of Malawi. Palaeontologia Electronica 8: 1–37.</p>
            <p>González Riga BJ. 2003. A new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mendoza Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 40: 155–172.</p>
            <p>González Riga BJ. 2 0 0 5. Nuevos restos fósiles de</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC6EC87EFF4FFF06FA16FF0B	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC6CC840FCD8FF06FCEDF88E.text	03CC8791DC6CC840FCD8FF06FCEDF88E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mendozasaurus neguyelap (Gonzalez Riga 2003)	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Mendozasaurus neguyelap (Sauropoda,  Titanosauridae ) del Cretácico tardío de Patagonia.  Ameghiniana 43: 535–548. </p>
            <p>González Riga BJ, Ortiz David L. 2014. A new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous (Cerro Lisandro Formation) of Mendoza Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 51: 3–25.</p>
            <p>González Riga BJ, Calvo JO, Porfiri J. 2008. An articulated titanosaur from Patagonia (Argentina): new evidence of neosauropod pedal evolution. Palaeoworld 17: 33–40.</p>
            <p>González Riga BJ, Previtera E, Pirrone CA. 2009. Malarguesaurus florenciae gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosauriform (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mendoza, Argentina. Cretaceous Research 30: 135–148.</p>
            <p>González Riga BJ, Lamanna MC, Ortiz David LD, Calvo JO, Coria JP. 2016. A gigantic new dinosaur from Argentina and the evolution of the sauropod hind foot. Scientific Reports 6: 19165.</p>
            <p>González Riga BJ, Mannion PD, Poropat SF, Ortiz David L, Coria JP. 2018. Osteology of the Late Cretaceous Argentinean sauropod dinosaur Mendozasaurus neguyelap: implications for basal titanosaur relationships. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 184: 136–181.</p>
            <p>Gorscak E, O’Connor PM. 2016. Time-calibrated models support congruency between Cretaceous continental rifting and titanosaurian evolutionary history. Biology Letters 12: 20151047.</p>
            <p>Graham SA, Hendrix MS, Barsbold R, Badamgarav D, Sjostrom D, Kirschner W, McIntosh JS. 1997. Stratigraphic occurrence, paleoenvironment, and description of the oldest known dinosaur (Late Jurassic) from Mongolia. Palaios 12: 292–297.</p>
            <p>Haluza A, Canale JI, Otero A, Peréz LM, Scanferla CA. 2012. Changes in vertebral laminae across the cervicodorsal transition of a well-preserved rebbachisaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Cenomanian of Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32: 219–224.</p>
            <p>Harris JD. 2006 a. The axial skeleton of the dinosaur Suuwassea emilieae (Sauropoda: Flagellicaudata) from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA. Palaeontology 49: 1091–1121.</p>
            <p>Harris JD. 2006 b. The significance of Suuwassea emilieae (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) for flagellicaudatan intrarelationships and evolution. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 4: 185–198.</p>
            <p>Harris JD. 2006 c. Cranial osteology of Suuwassea emilieae (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea: Flagellicaudata) from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26: 88–102.</p>
            <p>Harris JD. 2007. The appendicular skeleton of Suuwassea emilieae (Sauropoda: Flagellicaudata) from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana (USA). Geobios 40: 501–522.</p>
            <p>Harris JD, Dodson P. 2004. A new diplodocoid sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Montana, USA. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49: 197–210.</p>
            <p>Hasegawa Y, Manabe M, Hanai T, Kase T, Oji T. 1991. A diplodocoid dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous Miyako Group of Japan. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, Series C 17: 1–9.</p>
            <p>Hatcher JB. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the skeleton. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 1: 1–63.</p>
            <p>Hatcher JB. 1903. Osteology of Haplocanthosaurus, with description of a new species, and remarks on the probable habits of the Sauropoda and the age and origin of the Atlantosaurus beds. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2: 1–72.</p>
            <p>Haughton SH. 1928. On some reptilian remains from the Dinosaurian Beds of Nyasaland. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 16: 67–75.</p>
            <p>He X-L, Li K, Cai K-J. 1988. The Middle Jurassic dinosaur fauna from Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan, Vol IV. Sauropod dinosaurs (2). Omeisaurus tianfuensis. Chengdu, China: Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, 143. [In Chinese, English summary.]</p>
            <p>Heinrich W-D. 1998. Late Jurassic mammals from Tendaguru, Tanzania, East Africa. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 5: 269–290.</p>
            <p>Heinrich W-D. 1999 a. First haramiyid (Mammalia, Allotheria) from the Mesozoic of Gondwana. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe 2: 159–170.</p>
            <p>Heinrich W-D. 1999 b. The taphonomy of dinosaurs from the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania) based on field sketches of the German Tendaguru Expedition (1909–1913). Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Geowissenschaften Reihe 2: 25–61.</p>
            <p>Heinrich W-D. 2001. New records of Staffia aenigmatica (Mammalia, Allotheria, Haramiyida) from the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru in ern Tanzania, East Africa. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe 4: 239–255.</p>
            <p>Heinrich W-D, Bussert R, Aberhan M, Hampe O, Kapilima S, Schrank E, Schultka S, Maier G, Msaky E, Sames B, Chami R. 2001. The German–Tanzanian Tendaguru Expedition 2000. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe 4: 223–237.</p>
            <p>Hennig E. 1915. Kentrosaurus aethiopicus, der Stegosauridae des Tendaguru. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1915: 219–247.</p>
            <p>Holwerda FM, Pol D, Rauhut OWM. 2015. Using dental enamel wrinkling to define sauropod tooth morphotypes from the Cañadón Asfalto Formation, Patagonia, Argentina. PLoS ONE 10: e0118100.</p>
            <p>Huang J-D, You H-L, Yang J-T, Ren X-X. 2014. A new sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Huangshan, Anhui Province. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 52: 390–400.</p>
            <p>Hübner TR, Rauhut OWM. 2010. A juvenile skull of Dysalotosaurus lettowvorbecki (Ornithischia: Iguanodontia), and implications for cranial ontogeny, phylogeny, and taxonomy in ornithopod dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 160: 366–396.</p>
            <p>Ibiricu LM, Casal GM, Lamanna MC, Martínez RD, Harris JD, Lacovara KJ. 2012. The southernmost records of Rebbachisauridae (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea), from early Late Cretaceous deposits in central Patagonia. Cretaceous Research 34: 220–232.</p>
            <p>Ibiricu LM, Casal GA, Martínez RD, Lamanna MC, Luna M, Salgado L. 2013. Katepensaurus goicoecheai, gen. et sp. nov., a Late Cretaceous rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from central Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 33: 1351–1366.</p>
            <p>Ibiricu LM, Casal GA, Martínez RD, Lamanna MC, Luna M, Salgado L. 2015. New material of Katepensaurus goicoecheai (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea) and its significance for the morphology and evolution of Rebbachisauridae. Ameghiniana 52: 430–446.</p>
            <p>Iturralde-Vinent M. 2006. Meso-Cenozoic Caribbean paleogeography: implications for the historical biogeography of the region. International Geology Review 48: 791–827.</p>
            <p>Jacobs LL, Winkler DA, Downs WR, Gomani EM. 1993. New material of an Early Cretaceous titanosaurid sauropod dinosaur from Malawi. Palaeontology 36: 523–534.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1914 a. Übersicht über der Wirbeltierfauna der Tendaguru-Schichten nebst einer kurzen Charakterisierung der neu aufgefuhrten Arten von Sauropoden. Archiv für Biontologie 3: 81–110.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1914 b. Bericht über den Verlauf der Tendaguru-Expedition. Archiv für Biontologie 3: 17–58.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1920. Ueber Elaphrosaurus bambergi und die Megalosaurier aus den Tendaguru-Schichten Deutsch-Ostafrikas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1920: 225–235.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1922. Das Handskelett von Gigantosaurus robustus u. Brachiosaurus Brancai aus den Tendaguru-Schichten Deutsch-Ostafrikas. Centralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie 15: 464–480.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1925 a. Die Coelurosaurier und Theropoden der Tendaguru-Schichten Deutsch-Ostafrikas. Palaeontographica (Supplement VII) 1: 1–100.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1925 b. Die Grabungsstellen der Tendaguru- Gegend. Palaeontographica (Supplement VII) 1: 17–19.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1929 a. Material und Formegehalt der Sauropoden in der Ausbeute der Tendaguru-Expedition, 1909–1912. Palaeontographica (Supplement VII) 2: 3–34.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1929 b. Die Wirbelsäule der Gattung Dicraeosaurus. Palaeontographica (Supplement VII) 2: 37–133.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1950. Die wirbelsäule von Brachiosaurus brancai. Palaeontographica (Supplement VII) 3: 27–93.</p>
            <p>Janensch W. 1961. Die Gliedmaszen und Gliedmaszengürtel der Sauropoden der Tendaguru-Schichten. Palaeontographica (Supplement VII) 3: 177–235.</p>
            <p>Jensen JA. 1985. Three new sauropod dinosaurs from the Upper Jurassic of Colorado. The Great Basin Naturalist 45: 697–709.</p>
            <p>Kellner AWA, Campos DA, Trotta MNF. 2005. Description of a titanosaurid caudal series from the Bauru Group, Late Cretaceous of Brazil. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro 63: 529–564.</p>
            <p>Ksepka DT, Norell MA. 2010. The illusory evidence for Asian Brachiosauridae: new material of Erketu ellisoni and a phylogenetic reappraisal of basal Titanosauriformes. American Museum Novitates 3700: 1–27.</p>
            <p>Läng E, Mahammed F. 2010. New anatomical data and phylogenetic relationships of Chebsaurus algeriensis (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of Algeria. Historical Biology 22: 142–164.</p>
            <p>Lapparent AF. 1955. Étude paléontologique des vertébrés du Jurassique d’El Mers (Moyen Atlas). Notes et Mémoires du Service Géologique du Maroc 124: 1–36.</p>
            <p>Lapparent AF. 1960. Les dinosauriens du ‘Continental Intercalaire’ du Sahara central. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France 88 A: 1–56.</p>
            <p>Li K, Yang C-Y, Liu J, Wang Z-X. 2010. A new sauropod from the Lower Jurassic of Huili, Sichuan, China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 48: 185–202.</p>
            <p>Loewen MA, Irmis RB, Sertich JJW, Currie PJ, Sampson SD. 2013. Tyrant dinosaur evolution tracks the rise and fall of Late Cretaceous oceans. PLoS ONE 8: e79420.</p>
            <p>Lovelace DM, Hartman SA, Wahl WR. 2008. Morphology of a specimen of Supersaurus (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Morrison Formation of Wyoming, and a re-evaluation of diplodocoid phylogeny. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro 65: 527–544.</p>
            <p>Lü J, Xu L, Zhang X, Hu W, Wu Y, Jia S, Ji Q. 2007. A new gigantic sauropod dinosaur with the deepest known body cavity from the Cretaceous of Asia. Acta Geologica Sinica 81: 167–176.</p>
            <p>Lü J, Li T, Zhong S, Ji Q, Li S. 2008. A new mamenchisaurid dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Yuanmou, Yunnan Province, China. Acta Geologica Sinica 82: 17–26.</p>
            <p>Lü J, Xu L, Jiang X, Jia S, Li M, Yuan C, Zhang X, Ji Q. 2009. A preliminary report on the new dinosaurian fauna from the Cretaceous of the Ruyang Basin, Henan Province of Central China. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea 25: 43–56.</p>
            <p>Lydekker R. 1888. Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. Containing the orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. London: British Museum (Natural History), 1–309.</p>
            <p>Madsen J, McIntosh JS, Berman DS. 1995. Skull and atlas– axis complex of the Upper Jurassic sauropod Camarasaurus Cope (Reptilia: Saurischia). Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 31: 1–115.</p>
            <p>Mahammed F, Läng E, Mami L, Mekahli L, Benhamou M, Bouterfa B, Kacemi A, Chérief S, Chaouati H, Taquet P. 2005. The ‘Giant of Ksour’, a Middle Jurassic sauropod dinosaur from Algeria. Comptes Rendus Palevol 4: 707–714.</p>
            <p>Maier G. 2003. African dinosaurs unearthed: the Tendaguru expeditions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 380.</p>
            <p>Manning PL, Egerton VM, Romano M. 2015. A New Sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE 10: e0128107.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD. 2009. A rebbachisaurid sauropod from the lower Cretaceous of the Isle of Wight, England. Cretaceous Research 30: 521–526.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD. 2010. A revision of the sauropod dinosaur genus ‘ Bothriospondylus ’ with a redescription of the type material of the Middle Jurassic form ‘ B. madagascariensis ’. Palaeontology 53: 277–296.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD. 2011. A reassessment of Mongolosaurus haplodon Gilmore, 1933, a titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Inner Mongolia, People’s Republic of China. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 9: 355–378.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD, Barrett PM. 2013. Additions to the sauropod dinosaur fauna of the Cenomanian (early Late Cretaceous) Kem Kem beds of Morocco: palaeobiogeographical implications of the mid-Cretaceous African sauropod fossil record. Cretaceous Research 45: 49–59.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD, Calvo JO. 2011. Anatomy of the basal titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) Andesaurus delgadoi from the mid-Cretaceous (Albian-early Cenomanian) Río Limay Formation, Neuquén Province, Argentina: implications for titanosaur systematics. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 163: 155–181.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD, Otero A. 2012. A reappraisal of the Late Cretaceous Argentinean sauropod dinosaur Argyrosaurus superbus, with a description of a new titanosaur genus. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32: 614–638.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Hutt S. 2011. New rebbachisaurid (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) material from the Wessex Formation (Barremian, Early Cretaceous), Isle of Wight, United Kingdom. Cretaceous Research 32: 774–780.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Mateus O, Barnes R, Jones MEH. 2012. New information on the anatomy and systematic position of Dinheirosaurus lourinhanensis (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea) from the Late Jurassic of Portugal, with a review of European diplodocoids. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 10: 521–551.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Barnes RN, Mateus O. 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.</p>
            <p>Mannion PD, Allain R, Moine O. 2017. The earliest known titanosauriform sauropod dinosaur and the evolution of Brachiosauridae. PeerJ 5: e3217.</p>
            <p>Marpmann JS, Carballido JL, Sander PM, Knötschke N. 2015. Cranial anatomy of the Late Jurassic dwarf sauropod Europasaurus holgeri (Dinosauria, Camarasauromorpha): ontogenetic changes and size dimorphism. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 13: 221–263.</p>
            <p>Marsh OC. 1878. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs. Part I. American Journal of Science 16: 411–416.</p>
            <p>Martínez RD, Giménez O, Rodríguez J, Luna M, Lamanna MC. 2004. An articulated specimen of the basal titanosaurian (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) Epachthosaurus sciuttoi from the early Late Cretaceous Bajo Barreal Formation of Chubut province, Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24: 107–120.</p>
            <p>Mateus O. 2006. Late Jurassic dinosaurs from the Morrison Formation (USA), the Lourinhã and Alcobaça formations (Portugal), and the Tendaguru Beds (Tanzania): a comparison. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 36: 223–231.</p>
            <p>Mateus O, Mannion PD, Upchurch P. 2014. Zby atlanticus, a new turiasaurian sauropod (Dinosauria, Eusauropoda) from the Late Jurassic of Portugal. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 34: 618–634.</p>
            <p>Matzke NJ. 2013. Probabilistic historical biogeography: new models for founder-event speciation, imperfect detection, and fossils allow improved accuracy and model-testing. Frontiers of Biogeography 5: 242–248.</p>
            <p>Matzke NJ. 2014. Model selection in historical biogeography reveals that founder-event speciation is a crucial process in island clades. Systematic Biology 63: 951–970.</p>
            <p>McIntosh JS. 1981. Annotated catalogue of the dinosaurs (Reptilia, Archosauria) in the collections of Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 18: 1–67.</p>
            <p>McIntosh JS. 1990. Sauropoda. In: Weishampel DB, Dodson P, Ósmolska H, eds. The Dinosauria, 1st edn. Berkeley, CA: University California Press, 345–401.</p>
            <p>McIntosh JS. 2005. The genus Barosaurus Marsh (Sauropoda, Diplodocidae). In: Tidwell V, Carpenter K, eds. Thunder-lizards: the sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 38–77.</p>
            <p>McIntosh JS, Williams ME. 1988. A new species of sauropod dinosaur, Haplocanthosaurus delfsi sp. nov., from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Colorado. Kirtlandia 43: 3–26.</p>
            <p>McIntosh JS, Coombs WP, Russell DA. 1992. A new diplodocid sauropod (Dinosauria) from Wyoming, USA. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12: 158–167.</p>
            <p>McIntosh JS, Miller WE, Stadtman KL, Gillette DD. 1996. The osteology of Camarasaurus lewisi (Jensen, 1988). Brigham Young University Geology Studies 41: 73–115.</p>
            <p>McPhee BW, Mannion PD, de Klerk WJ, Choiniere JN. 2016. High diversity in the sauropod dinosaur fauna of the Lower Cretaceous Kirkwood Formation of South Africa: implications for the Jurassic–Cretaceous transition. Cretaceous Research 59: 228–248.</p>
            <p>Migeod FWH. 1931. British Museum East Africa expedition. Account of the work done in 1930. Natural History Magazine 3: 87–103.</p>
            <p>Mo J. 2013. Bellusaurus sui. Zhengzhou, China: Henan Science and Technology Press, 154.</p>
            <p>Mocho P, Royo-Torres R, Ortega F. 2014. Phylogenetic reassessment of Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis, a basal Macronaria (Sauropoda) from the Upper Jurassic of Portugal. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 170: 875–916.</p>
            <p>Mocho P, Royo-Torres R, Malafaia E, Escaso F, Silva B, Ortega F. 2016. Turiasauria-like teeth from the Upper Jurassic of the Lusitanian Basin, Portugal. Historical Biology 28: 861–880.</p>
            <p>Mocho P, Royo-Torres R, Malafaia E, Escaso F, Ortega F. 2017 a. First occurrences of non-neosauropod eusauropod procoelous caudal vertebrae in the Portuguese Upper Jurassic record. Geobios 50: 23–36.</p>
            <p>Mocho P, Royo-Torres R, Ortega F. 2017 b. New data of the Portuguese brachiosaurid Lusotitan atalaiensis (Sobral Formation, Upper Jurassic). Historical Biology 29: 789–817.</p>
            <p>Monbaron M, Russell DA, Taquet P. 1999. Atlasaurus imelakei n.g., n.sp., a brachiosaurid-like sauropod from the Middle Jurassic of Morocco. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences: Science de la Terre and des Planetes 329: 519–526.</p>
            <p>Moore AJ, Mo J, Clark J, Xu X. 2015. New cranial material of Bellusaurus sui (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Middle-Late Jurassic Shishugou Formation of China supports neosauropod affinities. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (Supplement) 35: 183A.</p>
            <p>Moore AJ, Xu X, Clark J. 2017. Anatomy and systematics of Klamelisaurus gobiensis, a mamenchisaurid sauropod from the Middle-Late Jurassic Shishugou Formation of China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (Supplement) 37: 165A.</p>
            <p>Nair JP, Salisbury SW. 2012. New anatomical information on Rhoetosaurus brownei Longman, 1926, a gravisaurian sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Queensland, Australia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32: 369–394.</p>
            <p>Naish D, Martill DM. 2001. Saurischian dinosaurs 1: Sauropods. In: Martill DM, Naish D, eds. Dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight. London: Palaeontological Association, 185–241.</p>
            <p>Naish D, Martill DM. 2007. Dinosaurs of Great Britain and the role of the Geological Society of London in their discovery: basal Dinosauria and Saurischia. Journal of the Geological Society, London 164: 493–510.</p>
            <p>Néraudeau D, Allain R, Ballèvre M, Batten DJ, Buffetaut E, Colin JP, Dabard MP, Daviero-Gomez V, El Albani A, Gomez B, Grosheny D, Le Loeuff J, Leprince A, Martín- Closas C, Masure E, Mazin J-M, Phillipe M, Pouech J, Tong H, Tournepiche JF, Vullo R. 2012. The Hautevarian– Barremian lignitic bone bed of Angeac (Charente, South-West France): stratigraphical, palaeobiological and palaeogeographical implications. Cretaceous Research 37: 1–14.</p>
            <p>Nicholl CSC, Mannion PD, Barrett PM. 2018. Sauropod dinosaur remains from a new Early Jurassic locality in the Central High Atlas of Morocco. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 63: 147–157.</p>
            <p>Nopcsa F. 1902. Notizen uber Cretacischen Dinosaurier. Pt. 3. Wirbel eines sudamerikanischen Sauropoden. Akademie der Wissenschaften 3: 108–114.</p>
            <p>Novas FE, Salgado L, Calvo J, Agnolin F. 2005. Giant titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. Revisto del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, n.s. 7: 37–41.</p>
            <p>Osborn HF, Mook CC. 1921. Camarasaurus, Amphicoelias, and other sauropods of Cope. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History New Series 3: 247–387.</p>
            <p>Otero A. 2010. The appendicular skeleton of Neuquensaurus, a Late Cretaceous saltasaurine sauropod from Patagonia, Argentina. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 55: 399–426.</p>
            <p>Ouyang H, Ye Y. 2002. The first mamenchisaurian skeleton with complete skull: Mamenchisaurus youngi. Chengdu, China: Sichuan Science and Technology Press, 111.</p>
            <p>Parrish J. 1993. Climate of the supercontinent Pangea. Journal of Geology 101: 215–233.</p>
            <p>Paulina Carabajal A. 2012. Neuroanatomy of titanosaurid dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of Patagonia, with comments on endocranial variability within Sauropoda. The Anatomical Record 295: 2141–2156.</p>
            <p>Paulina Carabajal A, Coria RA, Currie PJ, Koppelhus EB. 2018. A natural cranial endocast with possible dicraeosaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) affinities from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia. Cretaceous Research 84: 437–441.</p>
            <p>Pereda-Suberbiola X, Torcida F, Izquierdo LA, Huerta P, Montero D, Perez G. 2003. First rebbachisaurid dinosaur (Sauropoda, Diplodocoidea) from the early Cretaceous of Spain: palaeobiogeographical implications. Bulletin de la Societie Géologiques de France 174: 471–479.</p>
            <p>Peters SE, Heim NA. 2010. The geological completeness of paleontological sampling in North America. Paleobiology 36: 61–79.</p>
            <p>Pindell JL, Kennan L. 2009. Tectonic evolution of the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and northern South America in the mantle reference frame: an update. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 328: 1–55.</p>
            <p>Pol D, Rauhut OWM. 2012. A Middle Jurassic abelisaurid from Patagonia and the early diversification of theropod dinosaurs. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 279: 3170–3175.</p>
            <p>Pol D, Rauhut O, Carballido JL. 2009. Skull anatomy of a new basal eusauropod from the Middle Jurassic of Patagonia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29 (supplement to no. 3): 165A.</p>
            <p>Pol D, Rauhut OWM, Becerra M. 2011. A Middle Jurassic heterodontosaurid dinosaur from Patagonia and the evolution of heterodontosaurids. Naturwissenschaften 98: 369–379.</p>
            <p>Poropat SF, Upchurch P, Mannion PD, Hocknull SA, Kear BP, Sloan T, Sinapius GHK, Elliott DA. 2015 a. Revision of the sauropod dinosaur Diamantinasaurus matildae Hocknull et al. 2009 from the middle Cretaceous of Australia: implications for Gondwanan titanosauriform dispersal. Gondwana Research 27: 995–1033.</p>
            <p>Poropat SF, Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Hocknull SA, Kear BP, Elliott DA. 2015 b. Reassessment of the non-titanosaurian somphospondylan Wintonotitan wattsi (Dinosauria: Sauropoda: Titanosauriformes) from the mid-Cretaceous Winton Formation, Queensland, Australia. Papers in Palaeontology 1: 59–106.</p>
            <p>Poropat SF, Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Hocknull SA, Kear BP, Kundrát M, Tischler TT, Sloan T, Sinapius GHK, Elliott JA, Elliott DA. 2016. New Australian sauropods shed light on Cretaceous dinosaur palaeobiogeography. Scientific Reports 6: 34467.</p>
            <p>Poropat SF, Nair JP, Syme CE, Mannion PD, Upchurch P, Hocknull SA, Cook AG, Tischler TR, Holland T. 2017. Reappraisal of Austrosaurus mckillopi Longman, 1933 from the Allaru Mudstone of Queensland, Australia’s first named Cretaceous sauropod dinosaur. Alcheringa 41: 543–580.</p>
            <p>Powell JE. 1986. Revision de los Titanosauridos de America del Sur. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina.</p>
            <p>Powell JE. 1992. Osteologia de Saltasaurus loricatus (Sauropoda-Titanosauridae) del Cretacico Superior del Noroeste argentino. In: Sanz JL, Buscalioni AD, eds. Los dinosaurios y su entorno biotico. Cuenca: Instituto Juan de Valdes, Serie Actas Academicas, 165–230.</p>
            <p>Powell JE. 2003. Revision of South American titanosaurid dinosaurs: palaeobiological, palaeobiogeographical and phylogenetic aspects. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 111: 1–173.</p>
            <p>R Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. v. 3.3. 2. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project. org/.</p>
            <p>Raath MA, McIntosh JS. 1987. Sauropod dinosaurs from the central Zambesi valley, Zimbabwe, and the age of the Kadzi Formation. South African Journal of Geology 90: 107–119.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM. 2003. A dentary of Patagosaurus (Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of Patagonia. Ameghiniana 40: 425–432.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM. 2005. Post-cranial remains of ‘coelurosaurs’ (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Late Jurassic of Tanzania. Geological Magazine 142: 97–107.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM. 2006. A brachiosaurid sauropod from the Late Jurassic Cañadón Calcàreo Formation of Chubut, Argentina. Fossil Record 9: 226–237.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM. 2011. Theropod dinosaurs from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania). Special Papers in Palaeontology 86: 195–239.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM, Carrano MT. 2016. The theropod dinosaur Elaphrosaurus bambergi Janensch, 1920, from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru, Tanzania. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 178: 546–610.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM, López-Arbarello A. 2008. Archosaur evolution during the Jurassic: a Southern perspective. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina 63: 557–585.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM, López-Arbarello A. 2009. Considerations on the age of the Tiouaren Formation (Iullemmeden Basin, Niger, Africa): implications for Gondwanan Mesozoic terrestrial vertebrate faunas. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 271: 259–267.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM, Remes K, Fechner R, Cladera G, Puerta P. 2005. Discovery of a short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period of Patagonia. Nature 435: 670–672.</p>
            <p>Rauhut OWM, Carballido JL, Pol D. 2015. A diplodocid sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Cañadón Calcáreo Formation of Chubut, Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 35: e982798.</p>
            <p>Remes K. 2006. Revision of the Tendaguru sauropod Tornieria africana (Fraas) and its relevance for sauropod paleobiogeography. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26: 651–669.</p>
            <p>Remes K. 2007. A second Gondwanan diplodocid dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic Tendaguru Beds of Tanzania, East Africa. Palaeontology 50: 653–667.</p>
            <p>Remes K. 2009. Taxonomy of Late Jurassic diplodocid sauropods from Tendaguru (Tanzania). Fossil Record 12: 23–46.</p>
            <p>Remes K, Ortega F, Fierro I, Joger U, Kosma R, Ferrer JMM, Paldes SNHM, Ide OA, Maga A. 2009. A new basal sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Niger and the early evolution of Sauropoda. PLoS ONE 4: e6924.</p>
            <p>Rose PJ. 2007. A new titanosauriform sauropod (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Early Cretaceous of central Texas and its phylogenetic relationships. Palaeontologica Electronica 10: 1–65.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R. 2009. El saurópodo de Peñarroya de Tastavins. Instituto de Estudios Turolenses-Fundación Conjunto Paleontológico de Teruel-Dinópolis, Monografías Turolenses 6: 1–548.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Cobos A. 2009. Turiasaur sauropods in the Tendaguru Beds of Tanzania. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29 (supplement to no. 3): 173A.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Upchurch P. 2012. The cranial anatomy of the sauropod Turiasaurus riodevensis and implications for its phylogenetic relationships. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 10: 553–583.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Cobos A, Alcalá L. 2006. A giant European dinosaur and a new sauropod clade. Science 314: 1925–1927.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Cobos A, Luque L, Aberasturi A, Espílez E, Fierro I, González ANA, Mampel L, Alcalá L. 2009. High European sauropod dinosaur diversity during Jurassic–Cretaceous transition in Riodeva (Teruel, Spain). Palaeontology 52: 1009–1027.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Alcalá L, Cobos A. 2012. A new specimen of the Cretaceous sauropod Tastavinsaurus sanzi from El Castellar (Teruel, Spain), and a phylogenetic analysis of the Laurasiformes. Cretaceous Research 34: 61–83.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Upchurch P, Mannion PD, Mas R, Cobos A, Gascó F, Alcalá L, Sanz JL. 2014. The anatomy, phylogenetic relationships and stratigraphic position of the Tithonian–Berriasian Spanish sauropod dinosaur Aragosaurus ischiaticus. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 171: 623–655.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Upchurch P, Kirkland JI, DeBlieux DD, Foster JR, Cobos A, Alcalá L. 2017 a. Descendants of the Jurassic turiasaurs from Iberia found refuge in the Early Cretaceous of western USA. Scientific Reports 7: 14311.</p>
            <p>Royo-Torres R, Fuentes C, Meijide M, Meijide-Fuentes F, Meijide-Fuentes M. 2017 b. A new Brachiosauridae Sauropod dinosaur from the lower Cretaceous of Europe (Soria Province, Spain). Cretaceous Research 80: 38–55.</p>
            <p>Russell DA. 1993. The role of central Asia in dinosaurian biogeography. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 30: 2002–2012.</p>
            <p>Russell DA, Zheng Z. 1993. A large mamenchisaurid from the Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 30: 2082–2095.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Bonaparte JF. 1991. Un nuevo saurópodo Dicraeosauridae, Amargasaurus cazaui gen. et sp. nov., de la Formacion La Amarga, Neocomiano de la provincia del Neuquen, Argentina. Ameghiniana 28: 333–346.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Calvo JO. 1992. Cranial osteology of Amargasaurus cazaui Salgado and Bonaparte (Sauropoda, Dicraeosauridae) from the Neocomian of Argentina. Ameghiniana 29: 337–346.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Calvo JO. 1997. Evolution of titanosaurid sauropods. II: the cranial evidence. Ameghiniana 34: 33–47.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Carvalho IS. 2008. Uberabatitan ribeiroi, a new titanosaur from the Marília Formation (Bauru Group, Upper Cretaceous), Minas Gerais, Brazil. Palaeontology 51: 881–901.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Powell JE. 2010. Reassessment of the vertebral laminae in some South American titanosaurian sauropods. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30: 1760–1772.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Coria RA, Calvo JO. 1997. Evolution of titanosaurid sauropods. I: phylogenetic analysis based on the postcranial evidence. Ameghiniana 34: 3–32.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Garrido AC, Cocca SE, Cocca JR. 2004. Lower Cretaceous rebbachisaurid sauropods from Cerro Aguada del León, Neuquén Province, north-western Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24: 903–912.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Apesteguía S, Heredia SE. 2005. A new specimen of Neuquensaurus australis, a Late Cretaceous saltasaurine titanosaur from north Patagonia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25: 623–634.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Carvalho IS, Garrido AC. 2006. Zapalasaurus bonapartei, a new sauropod dinosaur from La Amarga Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Northwestern Patagonia, Neuquén Province, Argentina. Geobios 39: 695–707.</p>
            <p>Salgado L, Novas FE, Suarez M, Cruz R, Isasi M, Rubilar- Rogers D, Vargas A. 2015. Late Jurassic sauropods in Chilean Patagonia. Ameghiniana 52: 418–429.</p>
            <p>Sander PM, Mateus O, Laven T, Knötschke N. 2006. Bone histology indicates insular dwarfism in a new Late Jurassic sauropod dinosaur. Nature 441: 739–741.</p>
            <p>Santucci RM, Bertini RJ. 2006. A new titanosaur from western São Paulo State, Upper Cretaceous Bauru Group, South-East Brazil. Palaeontology 49: 59–66.</p>
            <p>Santucci RM, Arruda-Campos AC. 2011. A new sauropod (Macronaria, Titanosauria) from the Adamantina Formation, Bauru Group, Upper Cretaceous of Brazil and the phylogenetic relationships of Aeolosaurini. Zootaxa 3085: 1–33.</p>
            <p>Sanz JL, Buscalioni AD, Casanovas ML, Santafé JV. 1987. Dinosaurios del Cretacico Inferior de Galve (Teruel, España). Estudios Geológicos Volumen Extraordinario, Galve-Tremp 45–64.</p>
            <p>Sanz JL, Powell JE, Le Loueff J, Martinez R, Pereda Suberbiola X. 1999. Sauropod remains from the Upper Cretaceous of Laño (northcentral Spain). Titanosaur phylogenetic relationships. Estudios del Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Alava 14: 235–255.</p>
            <p>Schwarz D, Fritsch G. 2006. Pneumatic structures in the cervical vertebrae of the Late Jurassic (Kimmerigian- Tithonian) Tendaguru sauropods Brachiosaurus brancai and Dicraeosaurus. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 99: 65–78.</p>
            <p>Schwarz D, Frey E, Meyer CA. 2007. Pneumaticity and soft-tissue reconstructions in the neck of diplodocid and dicraeosaurid sauropods. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 52: 167–188.</p>
            <p>Schwarz-Wings D, Böhm N. 2014. A morphometric approach to the specific separation of the humeri and femora of Dicraeosaurus from the Late Jurassic of Tendaguru/ Tanzania. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59: 81–98.</p>
            <p>Scotese CR, Boucot AJ, McKerrow WS. 1999. Gondwanan paleogeography and paleoclimatology. Journal of African Earth Sciences 28: 99–114.</p>
            <p>Seeley HG. 1869. Index to the fossil remains of Aves, Ornithosauria and Reptilia, from the secondary system of strata arranged in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cambridge. With a prefatory notice by the Rev. Adam Sedgwick. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 143.</p>
            <p>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.</p>
            <p>Sellwood BW, Valdes PJ. 2008. Jurassic climates. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 119: 5–17.</p>
            <p>Sereno PC, Forster CA, Rogers RR, Monetta AM. 1993. Primitive dinosaur skeleton from Argentina and the early evolution of Dinosauria. Nature 361: 64–66.</p>
            <p>Sereno PC, Wilson JA, Larsson HCE, Dutheil DB, Sues HD. 1994. Early Cretaceous dinosaurs from the Sahara. Science 265: 267–271.</p>
            <p>Sereno PC, Beck AL, Dutheil DB, Larsson HCE, Lyon GH, Moussa B, Sadleir RW, Sidor CA, Varricchio DJ, Wilson GP, Wilson JA. 1999. Cretaceous sauropods from the Sahara and the uneven rate of skeletal evolution among dinosaurs. Science 286: 1342–1347.</p>
            <p>Sereno PC, Wilson JA, Witmer LM, Whitlock JA, Maga A, Ide O, Rowe TA. 2007. Structural extremes in a Cretaceous dinosaur. PLoS ONE 2: e1230.</p>
            <p>Seton M, Müller RD, Zahirovic S, Gaina C, Torsvik T, Shepard G, Talsma A, Gurnis M, Turner M, Maus S, Chandler M. 2012. Global continental and ocean basin reconstructions since 200 Ma. Earth-Science Reviews 113: 212–270.</p>
            <p>Smith AG, Smith DG, Funnell BM. 1994. Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic coastlines. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</p>
            <p>Smith JB, Lamanna MC, Lacovara KJ, Dodson P, Smith JR, Poole JC, Giegengack R, Attia Y. 2001. A giant sauropod dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous mangrove deposit in Egypt. Science 292: 1704–1706.</p>
            <p>Souto PRF, Fernandes MA. 2017. Paleobiogeographical significance of the Late Jurassic continental fauna from western Gondwana. Palaeoworld 26: 230–240.</p>
            <p>Starrfelt J, Liow LH. 2016. How many dinosaur species were there? Fossil bias and true richness estimated using a Poisson sampling model. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 371: 20150219.</p>
            <p>Sternfeld R. 1911. Zur Nomenklatur der Gattung Gigantosaurus Fraas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1911: 398.</p>
            <p>Suñer M, Santisteban C, Galobart À. 2009. Direct evidence of Titanosauriformes found in a Upper Jurassic site of Alpuente (Los Serranos, Valencia, Spain). In: Delgado- Buscalioni A, Fregenal-Martínez M, eds. Abstracts of the Tenth International Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biota. UAM Ediciones, 139–140.</p>
            <p>Suteethorn S, Le Loeuff J, Buffetaut E, Suteethorn V. 2010. Description of topotypes of Phuwiangosaurus sirindhornae, a sauropod from the Sao Khua Formation (Early Cretaceous) of Thailand, and their phylogenetic implications. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie – Abhandlungen 256: 109–121.</p>
            <p>Suteethorn S, Loeuff JL, Buffetaut E, Suteethorn V, Wongko K. 2013. First evidence of a mamenchisaurid dinosaur from the Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous Phu Kradung Formation of Thailand. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 58: 459–469.</p>
            <p>Taylor MP. 2009. A re-evaluation of Brachiosaurus altithorax Riggs 1903 (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) and its generic separation from Giraffatitan brancai (Janensch 1914). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29: 787–806.</p>
            <p>Taylor MP. 2018. Xenoposeidon is the earliest known rebbachisaurid sauropod dinosaur. PeerJ 6: e5212.</p>
            <p>Taylor MP, Naish D. 2007. An unusual new neosauropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Hastings Beds Group of East Sussex, England. Palaeontology 50: 1547–1564.</p>
            <p>Tidwell V, Carpenter K, Brooks W. 1999. New sauropod from the Lower Cretaceous of Utah, USA. Oryctos 2: 21–37.</p>
            <p>Tidwell V, Carpenter K, Meyer S. 2001. New titanosauriform (Sauropoda) from the Poison Strip Member of the Cedar Mountain Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Utah. In: Tanke DH, Carpenter K, ed. Mesozoic vertebrate life. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 139–165.</p>
            <p>Torcida Fernández-Baldor F. 2012. Sistemática, filogenia y análisis paleobiogeográfico de Demandasaurus darwini (Sauropoda, Rebbachisauridae) del Barremiense Superior– Aptiense de Burgos (España). Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Zaragoza, Spain.</p>
            <p>Torcida Fernández-Baldor F, Canudo JI, Huerta P, Montero D, Pereda Suberbiola X, Salgado L. 2011. Demandasaurus darwini, a new rebbachisaurid sauropod from the Early Cretaceous of the Iberian Peninsula. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 56: 535–552.</p>
            <p>Torcida Fernández-Baldor F, Canudo JI, Huerta P, Moreno-Azanza M, Montero D. 2017. Europatitan eastwoodi, a new sauropod from the Lower Cretaceous of Iberia in the initial radiation of somphospondylans in Laurasia. PeerJ 5: e3409.</p>
            <p>Tortosa T, Buffetaut E, Vialle N, Dutour Y, Turini E, Cheylan G. 2014. A new abelisaurid dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of southern France: palaeobiogeographical implications. Annales de Paléontologie 100: 63–86.</p>
            <p>Tschopp E, Mateus O. 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.</p>
            <p>Tschopp E, Mateus O. 2017. Osteology of Galeamopus pabsti sp. nov. (Sauropoda: Diplodocidae), with implications for neurocentral closure timing, and the cervico-dorsal transition in diplodocids. PeerJ 5: e3179.</p>
            <p>Tschopp E, Mateus O, Benson RBJ. 2015 a. A specimenlevel phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda). PeerJ 3: e857.</p>
            <p>Tschopp E, Wings O, Frauenfelder T, Brinkmann W. 2015 b. Articulated bone sets of manus and pedes of Camarasaurus (Sauropoda, Dinosauria). Palaeontologia Electronica 18: 1–65.</p>
            <p>Tsuihiji T, Watabe M, Tsogtbaatar K, Tsubamoto T, Barsbold R, Suzuki S, Lee AH, Ridgely RC, Kawahara Y, Witmer LM. 2011. Cranial osteology of juvenile spacimens of Tarbosaurus bataar (Theropoda, Tyrannosauridae) from the Nemegt Formation (Upper Cretaceous of Bugin Tzav, Mongolia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31: 497–517.</p>
            <p>Turner AH, Smith ND, Callery JA. 2009. Gauging the effects of sampling failure in biogeographic analysis. Journal of Biogeography 36: 612–625.</p>
            <p>Unwin DM, Heinrich W-D. 1999. On a pterosaur jaw from the Upper Jurassic of Tendaguru (Tanzania). Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Geowissenschaftliche Reihe 2: 121–134.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P. 1995. The evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 349: 365–390.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P. 1998. The phylogenetic relationships of sauropod dinosaurs. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 124: 43–103.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P. 1999. The phylogenetic relationships of the Nemegtosauridae (Saurischia, Sauropoda). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 106–125.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P. 2008. Gondwanan break-up: legacies of a lost world? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 229–236.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Mannion PD. 2009. The first diplodocid from Asia and its implications for the evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. Palaeontology 52: 1195–1207.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Martin J. 2002. The Rutland Cetiosaurus: the anatomy and relationships of a Middle Jurassic British sauropod dinosaur. Palaeontology 45: 1049–1074.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Martin J. 2003. The anatomy and taxonomy of Cetiosaurus (Saurischia: Sauropoda) from the Middle Jurassic of England. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23: 208–231.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Hunn CA, Norman DB. 2002. An analysis of dinosaurian biogeography: evidence for the existence of vicariance and dispersal patterns caused by geological events. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 269: 613–621.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Barrett PM, Dodson P. 2004. Sauropoda. In: Weishampel DB, Dodson P, Osmólska H, eds. The Dinosauria, 2nd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press, 259–324.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Barrett PM, Galton PM. 2007. The phylogenetic relationships of basal sauropodomorphs: implications for the origin of sauropods. Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 57–90.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Mannion PD, Barrett PM. 2011 a. Sauropod dinosaurs. In: Batten DJ, ed. Field guide to English Wealden fossils. London: Palaeontological Association, 476–525.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Mannion PD, Butler RJ, Benson RBJ, Carrano MT. 2011 b. Geological and anthropogenic controls on the sampling of the terrestrial fossil record: a case study from the Dinosauria. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 358: 209–240.</p>
            <p>Upchurch P, Mannion PD, Taylor MP. 2015. The anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of ‘ Pelorosaurus ’ becklesii (Neosauropoda, Macronaria) from the Early Cretaceous of England. PLoS ONE 10: e0125819.</p>
            <p>Virchow H. 1919. Atlas und epistropheus bei den Schildkröten. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 1919: 303–332.</p>
            <p>Volkheimer W. 1969. Palaeoclimatic evolution in Argentina and relations with other regions of Gondwana. In: Amos AJ, ed. Gondwana stratigraphy (1st IUGS Gondwana Symposium, Buenos Aires, 1967). Paris: UNESCO, 551–587.</p>
            <p>Volkheimer W, Rauhut OWM, Quattrocchio ME, Martinez MA. 2008. Jurassic Paleoclimates in Argentina, a review. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina 63: 549–556.</p>
            <p>Wang J, Ye Y, Pei R, Tian Y, Feng C, Zheng D, Chang S-C. 2018. Age of Jurassic basal sauropods in Sichuan, China: a reappraisal of basal sauropod evolution. Geological Society of America Bulletin 130: 1493–1500.</p>
            <p>Wedel MJ. 2003. The evolution of vertebral pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23: 344–357.</p>
            <p>Wedel MJ. 2005. Postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in sauropods and its implications for mass estimates. In: Curry Rogers KA, Wilson JA, eds. The sauropods: evolution and paleobiology. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 201–228.</p>
            <p>Wedel MJ, Cifelli RL, Sanders RK. 2000. Osteology, paleobiology, and relationships of the sauropod dinosaur Sauroposeidon. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 45: 343–388.</p>
            <p>Weishampel DB, Barrett PM, Coria RA, Le Loeuff J, Gomani ES, Zhao Z, Xu X, Sahni A, Noto C. 2004. Dinosaur distribution. In: Weishampel DB, Dodson P, Osmólska H, eds. The Dinosauria, 2nd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press, 517–606.</p>
            <p>Whiteside JH, Grogan DS, Olsen PE, Kent DV. 2011. Climatically driven biogeographic provinces of Late Triassic tropical Pangea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108: 8972–8977.</p>
            <p>Whitlock JA. 2011 a. A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 872–915.</p>
            <p>Whitlock JA. 2011 b. Re-evaluation of Australodocus bohetii, a putative diplodocoid sauropod from the Tendaguru Formation of Tanzania, with comment on Late Jurassic sauropod faunal diversity and palaeoecology. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 309: 333–341.</p>
            <p>Whitlock JA, Harris JD. 2010. The dentary of Suuwassea (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30: 1637–1641.</p>
            <p>Whitlock JA, Wilson JA, Lamanna MC. 2010. Description of a nearly complete juvenile skull of Diplodocus (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea) from the Late Jurassic of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30: 442–457.</p>
            <p>Wild R. 1991. Janenschia n. g. robusta (E. Fraas 1908) pro Tornieria robusta (E. Fraas 1908) (Reptilia, Saurischia, Sauropodomorpha). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie B (Geologie und Paläontologie) 173: 1–4.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA. 1999. A nomenclature for vertebral laminae in sauropods and other saurischian dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19: 639–653.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA. 2002. Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny: critique and cladistic analysis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136: 217–276.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA. 2005 a. Integrating ichnofossils and body fossil records to estimate locomotor posture and spatiotemporal distribution of early sauropod dinosaurs: a stratocladistic approach. Paleobiology 31: 400–423.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA. 2005 b. Redescription of the Mongolian sauropod Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis Nowinski (Dinosauria: Saurischia) and comments on Late Cretaceous sauropod diversity. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 3: 283–318.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA. 2012. New vertebral laminae and patterns of serial variation in vertebral laminae of sauropod dinosaurs. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 32: 91–110.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA, Allain R. 2015. Osteology of Rebbachisaurus garasbae Lavocat, 1954, a diplodocoid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the early Late Cretaceous-aged Kem Kem beds of South-eastern Morocco. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 35: e1000701.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA, Carrano MT. 1999. Titanosaurs and the origin of ‘wide-gauge’ trackways: a biomechanical and systematic perspective on sauropod locomotion. Paleobiology 25: 252–267.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA, Sereno PC. 1998. Early evolution and higherlevel phylogeny of sauropod dinosaurs. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoir 5: 1–68.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA, Upchurch P. 2003. A revision of Titanosaurus Lydekker (Dinosauria-Sauropoda), the first dinosaur genus with a ‘Gondwanan’ distribution. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 1: 125–160.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA, Upchurch P. 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.</p>
            <p>Wilson JA, D’Emic MD, Ikejiri T, Moacdieh EM, Whitlock JA. 2011. A nomenclature for vertebral fossae in sauropods and other saurischian dinosaurs. PLoS ONE 6: e17114.</p>
            <p>Wings O, Schwarz-Wings D, Fowler DW. 2011. New sauropod material from the Late Jurassic part of the Shishugou Formation (Junggar Basin, Xinjiang, NW China). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 262: 129–150.</p>
            <p>Wintrich T, Scaal M, Sander PM. 2017. Foramina in plesiosaur cervical centra indicate a specialized vascular system. Fossil Record 20: 279–290.</p>
            <p>Woodward AS. 1905. On parts of the skeleton of Cetiosaurus leedsi, a sauropodous dinosaur from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1905: 232–243.</p>
            <p>Woodward HN, Lehman TM. 2009. Bone histology and microanatomy of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the Maastrichtian of Big Bend National Park, Texas. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 29: 807–821.</p>
            <p>Wu W-H, Zhou C-F, Wings O, Sekiya T, Dong Z-M. 2013. A new gigantic sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Shanshan, Xinjiang. Global Geology 32: 437–446.</p>
            <p>Xing L, Miyashita T, Zhang J, Li D, Ye Y, Sekiya T, Wang F, Currie PJ. 2015. A new sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of China and the diversity, distribution, and relationships of mamenchisaurids. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 35: e889701.</p>
            <p>Xu J, Li Z. 2015. Middle–Late Mesozoic sedimentary provenances of the Luxi and Jiaolai areas: Implications for tectonic evolution of the North China Block. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 111: 284–301.</p>
            <p>Xu X, Clark JM, Mo J, Choiniere J, Forster CA, Erickson GM, Hone DWE, Sullivan C, Eberth DA, Nesbitt S, Zhao Q, Hernandez R, Jia C-K, Han F-L, Guo Y. 2009. A Jurassic ceratosaur from China helps clarify avian digital homologies. Nature 459: 940–944.</p>
            <p>Xu X, Upchurch P, Mannion PD, Barrett PM, Regalado- Fernandez OR, Mo J, Ma J, Liu H. 2018. A new Middle Jurassic diplodocoid suggests an earlier dispersal and diversification of sauropod dinosaurs. Nature Communications 9: 2300.</p>
            <p>Yates AM. 2007. The first complete skull of the Triassic dinosaur Melanorosaurus Haughton (Sauropodomorpha: Anchisauria). Special Papers in Palaeontology 77: 9–55.</p>
            <p>Yates AM, Kitching J. 2003. The earliest known sauropod dinosaur and the first steps towards sauropod locomotion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 270: 1753–1758.</p>
            <p>Ye Y, Gao Y-H, Jiang S. 2005. A new genus of sauropod from Zigong, Sichuan. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 43: 175–181.</p>
            <p>You H-L, Li D-Q. 2009. The first well-preserved Early Cretaceous brachiosaurid dinosaur in Asia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 276: 4077–4082.</p>
            <p>You H-L, Tang F, Luo Z. 2003. A new basal titanosaur (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Early Cretaceous of China. Acta Geologica Sinica 77: 424–429.</p>
            <p>Young CC. 1954. On a new sauropod from Yiping, Szechuan, China. Acta Paleontologica Sinica 2: 355–369.</p>
            <p>Young CC. 1958. New sauropods from China. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 2: 1–28.</p>
            <p>Young CC, Zhao X-J. 1972. Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis sp. nov. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Monographs (Series A) 8: 1–30.</p>
            <p>Zaher H, Pol D, Carvalho AB, Nascimento PM, Riccomini C, Larson P, Juarez-Valieri R, Pires-Domingues R, Silva NJ, Campos DA. 2011. A complete skull of an Early Cretaceous sauropod and the evolution of advanced titanosaurians. PLoS ONE 6: e16663.</p>
            <p>Zhang Y-H. 1988. The Middle Jurassic dinosaur fauna from Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan. Sauropod dinosaurs. Shunosaurus. Chengdu, China: Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, 106.</p>
            <p>APPENDIX 1 – REVISED CHARACTERS AND SCORES</p>
            <p>We realized that two characters (C84, C300) from previous iterations of our data matrix are problematic, and thus they have been replaced, as follows:</p>
            <p>Character 84, pertaining to whether or not the parietal has an elongate posterolateral process, does not seem to truly capture any genuine morphological variation and is replaced with the following character:</p>
            <p>C84. Frontal, position of parietal suture relative to supratemporal fenestra: close to anterior margin of the fenestra (0); at approximately the centre of the fenestra or more posteriorly (1) (Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013).</p>
            <p>Character 300 is a near-duplication of C88 (both pertaining to the relative positions of the orbit and lateral temporal fenestra). As such, we have replaced our existing C300 with the following character:</p>
            <p>C300. External nares, position: retracted to level of orbit, facing laterally (0); retracted to position between orbits, facing dorsally or dorsolaterally (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995; Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>We have also revised 21 of the characters from previous iterations of the matrix, as follows:</p>
            <p> C26. Anteriormost caudal centra, lowest average Elongation  Index [aEI; centrum anteroposterior length (excluding articular ball) divided by the mean average value of the anterior surface mediolateral width and dorsoventral height] value of: less than 0.6 (0); 0.6 or greater (1) (Gauthier, 1986; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to only include the anteriormost caudal vertebrae). </p>
            <p>C27. Anterior caudal centra, anteroposterior length of posterior condylar ball to mean average radius [(mediolateral width + dorsoventral height) divided by 4] of anterior articular surface of centrum ratio: zero (posterior articular surface of centrum is flat or concave) (0); less than or equal to 0.3 (posterior articular surface of centrum is mildly convex) (1); greater than 0.3 (posterior articular surface of centrum is strongly convex) (2); greater than 0.6 (posterior articular surface of centrum is very strongly convex) (3) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Salgado et al., 1997; Wilson, 2002; Whitlock et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013; note that the highest value for a taxon is always used; revised here by adding an extra state to characterize taxa with extremely prominent posterior condyles) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C33. Anterior caudal neural spines, mediolateral width to anteroposterior length ratio at base of spine (dorsal to zygapophyses): less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here so that mediolateral width is measured at the same point as anteroposterior length).</p>
            <p>C40. Humerus to femur proximodistal length ratio: 0.7 or less (0);&gt;0.7 to &lt;0.8 (1); 0.8 to &lt;0.9 (2); 0.9–0.95 (3);&gt;0.95 (4) (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004; Tschopp et al., 2015a; Poropat et al., 2016; Mannion et al., 2017; an additional state has been added for taxa with ratios of 0.7 or less) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C56. Manual ungual on digit I to metacarpal I proximodistal length ratio: 0.5 or greater (0); less than 0.5 (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here so that taxa that have lost their manual phalanges [derived state for C242] are scored as a ‘?’).</p>
            <p>C98. Basioccipital, foramen or pit on the posterior surface of the basal tubera: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to clarify character statement following Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C100. Basal tubera, posterior surface bordered laterally and ventrally by a raised, thickened lip: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002, 2005b; modified based on Mannion, 2011).</p>
            <p>C140. Cervical ribs, longest shafts extend beneath: fewer than 3 vertebrae (0); 3 vertebrae or more (1) (Wedel et al., 2000; Mannion et al., 2013); revised here so that taxa with short ribs [scored with the plesiomorphic state for C139] are scored as a ‘?’).</p>
            <p>C160. Anterior dorsal neural spines, orientation of anterior margin in lateral view: inclined anteriorly or vertical (0); posterodorsally inclined (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to clarify character statement).</p>
            <p>C163. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, with triangular aliform processes: weakly developed aliform processes (0); strongly developed triangular aliform processes so that the lateral tips of these processes extend further laterally than the postzygapophyses (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004; revised here so that only taxa with aliform processes scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C177. Anterior caudal centra with posterior convexity: convex in anteriormost caudal vertebrae, changing to flat or concave in more distal anterior caudal vertebrae (0); convex throughout all anterior caudal vertebrae with ribs (1) (Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to only include taxa with some procoely in the anterior caudal sequence – taxa lacking procoelous anterior caudal vertebrae are scored as a ‘?’).</p>
            <p>C181. Anterior caudal centra (excluding the anteriormost caudal vertebrae), ventral longitudinal hollow: absent (0); present (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson, 2002; revised here to separate anterior and middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C182. Anterior caudal centra (excluding the anteriormost caudal vertebrae), distinct ventrolateral ridges, extending the full length of the centrum: absent (0); present (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to separate anterior and middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C198. Anterior caudal neural spines, spinoprezygapophyseal lamina (SPRL)–spinopostzygapophyseal lamina (SPOL) contact: absent (0); present, forming a prominent lateral lamina on the neural spine (1) (Wilson, 1999, 2002; revised here so that only taxa in which the SPRL extends onto the lateral surface are scored).</p>
            <p>C206. Anterior caudal ribs: do not extend beyond posterior end of centrum (excluding posterior ball) (0); extend beyond posterior end of centrum (excluding posterior ball) (1) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here so that only taxa with posterolaterally directed caudal ribs are scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C254. Ischium, long-axis of shaft, if projected upwards/proximally: passes through the lower part of the acetabular margin or the upper part of the pubic articular surface (i.e. it is approximately 60° to the horizontal in lateral view) (0); passes through the upper part of the acetabular margin or even approaches the rim of the iliac articulation (i.e. the shaft is at approximately 80° to the horizontal) (1); passes through the lower part of the pubic articular surface (i.e. it is approximately horizontally oriented), such that the posterior margin of the iliac peduncle and the dorsal margin of the shaft form a right angle in lateral view (2) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; revised here to add an extra state) [unordered].</p>
            <p>C266. Astragalus, ascending process: limited to anterior two-thirds of astragalus (0); extends beyond anterior two-thirds of astragalus (usually to the posterior margin) (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; revised here following Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C297. Frontal, anteroposterior length to transverse width ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 and&gt; 0.5 (1); 0.5 or less (2) (Whitlock, 2011a; Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013; Poropat et al., 2016; revised here to add an extra state) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C348. Sacral neural spines, all fused, forming a dorsal ‘platform’: absent (0); present (1) (Martínez et al., 2004; Poropat et al., 2016; revised here so that only taxa with the derived state for C174 are scored).</p>
            <p>C350. Anterior–middle caudal centra (excluding Cd1), comparison of anterior and posterior articular faces of amphicoelous centra: anterior face more concave than posterior one, or these two faces are equally concave (0); posterior face more deeply concave than anterior face (1) (González Riga et al., 2009; Carballido et al., 2012; D’Emic et al., 2013; Poropat et al., 2016; revised here to only score for taxa with at least some amphicoelous caudal centra in the anterior–middle caudal sequence).</p>
            <p>C373. Metacarpals, longest metacarpal to radius proximodistal length ratio: less than 0.50 (0); 0.50 or greater (1) (Poropat et al., 2016; revised here so that only taxa scored as a ‘1’ for C52 are scored).</p>
            <p> Taxon scores for C1–423 follow those in the data matrix of González Riga et al. (2018), whilst scores for C1–416 for  Moabosaurus ,  Mierasaurus and  Soriatitan follow those of Royo-Torres et al. (2017a, b), with the following changes made (the first number denotes the character and the number/symbol in parentheses denotes the new score): </p>
            <p> Shunosaurus : 140 (?); 163 (?); 177 (?); 198 (?); 206 (?); 348 (?); 373 (?) </p>
            <p> Omeisaurus : 40 (2); 163 (?); 177 (?); 198 (?); 348 (?); 373 (?) </p>
            <p> Mamenchisaurus : 27 (3); 40 (1); 177 (1); 198 (?); 206 (?); 212 (1); 233 (1) </p>
            <p> Camarasaurus : 11 (0/1); 33 (0); 40 (1); 118 (0/1); 177 (?); 198 (?); 206 (?); 254 (2); 300 (0); 348 (?) </p>
            <p> Nigersaurus : 16 (0); 140 (?); 149 (0); 150 (0); 180 (0); 181 (?); 182 (?); 249 (1); 313 (0) </p>
            <p> Apatosaurus : 3 (0); 140 (?); 163 (?); 177 (0); 206 (?); 258 (0); 348 (?) </p>
            <p> Diplodocus : 99 (0); 140 (?); 163 (?); 177 (0); 206 (?); 348 (?); 373 (?) </p>
            <p> Abydosaurus : 177 (?) </p>
            <p> Alamosaurus : 27 (3); 56 (?); 177 (1); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Andesaurus : 163 (?); 177 (0); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Aragosaurus : 40 (2); 177 (?); 198 (?); 206 (?) </p>
            <p> Astrophocaudia : 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Atlasaurus : 40 (4); 373 (?) </p>
            <p> Baotianmansaurus : 177 (?) </p>
            <p> Brachiosaurus : 40 (4); 177 (?); 198 (?); 206 (?); 348 (?) </p>
            <p> Cedarosaurus : 40 (4); 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Chubutisaurus : 40 (2); 177 (?) </p>
            <p>Cloverly titanosauriform: 163 (?)</p>
            <p> Daxiatitan : 27 (3); 198 (?); 206 (?) </p>
            <p> Dongbeititan : 27 (3); 163 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Dongyangosaurus : 163 (?); 177 (0); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Euhelopus : 300 (0); 348 (?) </p>
            <p> Europasaurus : 177 (?); 198 (?); 348 (?) </p>
            <p> Vouivria : 40 (3); 177 (?) </p>
            <p> Galveosaurus : 177 (?) </p>
            <p> Giraffatitan : 40 (4); 177 (?); 198 (?); 300 (0); 348 (?) </p>
            <p> Wamweracaudia : 27 (3); 177 (0); 198 (?); 206 (?) </p>
            <p> Huanghetitan : 177 (?) </p>
            <p> Huanghetitan ruyangensis : 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Janenschia : 60 (0) </p>
            <p> Jiangshanosaurus : 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Lapparentosaurus : 163 (?); 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Ligabuesaurus : 40 (2); 163 (?) </p>
            <p> Lusotitan : 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Malarguesaurus : 26 (?); 177 (?); 180 (0); 181 (0); 198 (?) </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC6CC840FCD8FF06FCEDF88E	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
03CC8791DC51C858FF5CFF21FD4BFBFA.text	03CC8791DC51C858FF5CFF21FD4BFBFA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Malawisaurus Jacobs, Winkler, Downs & Gomani 1993	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Malawisaurus : 27 (3); 33 (0); 163 (?); 177 (1); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Opisthocoelicaudia : 40 (1); 56 (?); 160 (1); 177 (?); 198 (?); 259 (0); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Paluxysaurus : 40 (2); 50 (?); 51 (?); 148 (1/2); 163 (?); 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Phuwiangosaurus : 40 (1); 100 (1); 177 (?); 198 (?); 348 (?) </p>
            <p> Rapetosaurus : 26 (?); 27 (3); 40 (1); 56 (?); 177 (1); 182 (1); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Saltasaurus : 27 (3); 177 (1); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Sonorasaurus : 177 (?) </p>
            <p> Tangvayosaurus : 163 (?); 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Tastavinsaurus : 25 (1); 27 (0); 60 (0/1); 61 (0/1); 71 (0/1); 163 (?); 177 (?); 178 (0/1); 179 (0); 180 (0); 195 (1/2); 198 (?); 249 (0); 256 (0) </p>
            <p> Tehuelchesaurus : 40 (1); 163 (?) </p>
            <p> Tendaguria : 17 (?); 18 (?); 118 (?); 119 (?); 120 (?); 121 (?); 122 (?); 123 (?); 124 (?); 125 (?); 126 (?); 127 (?); 128 (?); 129 (?); 130 (?); 131 (?); 135 (?) </p>
            <p> Venenosaurus : 36 (?); 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Xianshanosaurus : 27 (3); 177 (1); 198 (?); 206 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Epachthosaurus : 27 (3); 40 (2); 56 (?); 177 (1); 181 (1); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Nemegtosaurus : 25 (1); 65 (1); 66 (1); 68 (0); 71 (1); 256 (1); 258 (0); 259 (0); 265 (1); 268 (1); 269 (1); 388 (1); 389 (0); 393 (0); 394 (1) </p>
            <p> Tapuiasaurus : 163 (?) </p>
            <p>Diamantinsaurus: 40 (1)</p>
            <p> Savannasaurus : 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Wintonotitan : 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Futalognkosaurus : 27 (3); 40 (1); 163 (?); 177 (1); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Muyelensaurus : 27 (3); 33 (0); 100 (1); 177 (1); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Aeolosaurus : 27 (3); 177 (1); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Isisaurus : 27 (3); 163 (?); 177 (1); 198 (?); 206 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Jobaria : 40 (1); 64 (1); 163 (?); 177 (?); 181 (1); 182 (1); 198 (?); 348 (?); 373 (?) </p>
            <p> Padillasaurus : 177 (?); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Losillasaurus : 49 (0); 100 (1); 132 (0); 141 (0); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Turiasaurus : 18 (0); 19 (1); 44 (0); 72 (1); 134 (0); 141 (0); 174 (0); 193 (?); 300 (0); 348 (?); 373 (?) </p>
            <p> Zby : 373 (?) </p>
            <p> Mendozasaurus : 27 (3); 177 (1); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Notocolossus : 27 (3); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Pitekunsaurus : 27 (3); 160 (1); 163 (?); 177 (1); 198 (?); 350 (?) </p>
            <p> Rinconsaurus : 27 (3); 177 (0); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Patagotitan : 27 (3); 177 (0); 198 (?) </p>
            <p> Soriatitan : 30 (?); 31 (?); 33 (0); 40 (?); 44 (?); 66 (0); 108 (1); 114 (?); 173 (1); 177 (?); 178 (1); 179 (0); 181 (1); 185 (?); 193 (0); 195 (0/1); 198 (?); 231 (?); 232 (?); 353 (?); 410 (1) </p>
            <p> Moabosaurus : 3 (1); 9 (?); 16 (0/1); 22 (0/1); 27 (3); 28 (0); 30 (0); 33 (0); 35 (0); 43 (1); 83 (0); 85 (0); 87 (1); 98 (0); 100 (0/1); 106 (0); 116 (0/1); 120 (0/1); 122 (1/2); 133 (0); 150 (1); 151 (0); 155 (0/1); 167 (0/1); 168 (0); 170 (0); 177 (1); 183 (0); 194 (0); 201 (0); 203 (0); 205 (1/2); 206 (0); 210 (0); 211 (0); 221 (0); 224 (1); 228 (0); 230 (0); 233 (1); 255 (1); 256 (0); 257 (0); 280 (?); 281 (?); 299 (1); 302 (0); 303 (0); 304 (0); 308 (0); 309 (1); 311 (0); 312 (0); 313 (0); 314 (1); 315 (0); 316 (0); 317 (1); 318 (0); 321 (0); 322 (1); 329 (1); 333 (0); 340 (0); 344 (0/1); 345 (1); 346 (1); 349 (0); 351 (0); 352 (0); 354 (0); 355 (0); 356 (0); 357 (0); 369 (0); 398 (0); 399 (1); 402 (0/1); 405 (1); 408 (0)  Mierasaurus : 13 (1); 21 (1); 25 (1); 26 (0); 27 (3); 30 (0); 33 (0); 34 (0); 37 (1); 52 (0); 54 (?); 59 (0); 67 (1); 68 (1); 70 (0); 71 (1); 79 (?); 85 (0); 101 (0); 108 (0/1); 117 (?); 120 (1); 121 (1); 133 (?); 138 (?); 151 (0); 155 (0); 170 (0); 171 (?); 177 (?); 183 (1); 184 (0); 186 (?); 194 (0); 195 (0); 197 (0); 199 (0); 200 (1); 214 (1); 236 (0); 244 (1); 250 (1); 255 (1); 258 (?); 259 (2); 260 (?); 261 (?); 266 (1); 271 (?); 272 (0); 274 (0); 280 (?); 281 (?); 284 (0); 297 (1); 298 (0); 299 (0); 300 (0); 303 (0); 304 (0); 311 (0); 314 (1); 315 (0); 316 (0); 317 (1); 318 (0); 329 (1); 333 (0); 340 (0); 344 (1); 345 (1); 348 (?); 351 (?); 352 (0); 353 (0); 357 (0); 383 (0); 388 (0); 396 (0); 397 (1); 402 (0/1); 409 (1); 410 (0); 411 (0) </p>
            <p>APPENDIX 2 – CHARACTER LIST</p>
            <p>Characters 1–423 are the same as those presented in González Riga et al. (2018), except for replaced and revised characters (see Appendix 1). Characters 424– 542 are newly added to this matrix.</p>
            <p>C1. Premaxillary anterior margin, shape: without step or with anteroposteriorly short ‘muzzle’, less than 0.25 of skull length (measured up to the anterior point of the ascending process of premaxilla) (0); elongate, boot-shaped snout, equal to or greater than 0.25 of skull length (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C2. External naris, greatest diameter to greatest diameter of orbit ratio: greater than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or less (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C3. Parietal occipital process, dorsoventral height to greatest diameter of foramen magnum ratio: greater than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or less (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C4. Parietal, distance separating supratemporal fenestrae to long axis of supratemporal fenestra ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C5. Quadratojugal, anterior process to dorsal process length ratio: 1.3 or less (0); greater than 1.3 (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C6. Supraoccipital, dorsoventral height to foramen magnum dorsoventral height ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C7. Occipital condyle, dorsoventral height to combined occipital condyle + basal tubera dorsoventral height ratio: less than 0.6 (0); 0.6 or greater (1) (Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C8. Basal tubera, mediolateral width to occipital condyle mediolateral width: less than 1.5 (0); 1.5 or greater (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C9. Basipterygoid processes, length to basal diameter ratio: less than 3.0 (0); 3.0 or greater (1) (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; length is measured up to the base of the basal tubera).</p>
            <p>C10. Surangular, dorsoventral height to maximum dorsoventral height of angular ratio: 2.0 or greater (0); less than 2.0 (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p> C11. Tooth crowns, Slenderness  Index (SI) values (apicobasal length of the tooth crown divided by its maximum mesiodistal width): less than 2.0 (0); 2.0 to &lt;4.0 (1); 4.0 or greater (2) (Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013) [ordered]. </p>
            <p>C12. Maxillary teeth, number: 17 or more (0); fewer than 17 (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C13. Dentary teeth, number: greater than 15 (0); 15 or fewer (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C14. Cervical vertebrae, number: 13 or fewer (0); 14–15 (1); more than 15 (2) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013) [ordered].</p>
            <p> C15. Cervical centra, highest average Elongation  Index value [aEI; centrum anteroposterior length (excluding articular ball) divided by the mean average value of the posterior articular surface mediolateral width and dorsoventral height] of: less than 3.0 (0); between 3.0 and &lt;4.0 (1); greater than 4.0 (2) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Chure et al., 2010) [ordered]. </p>
            <p>C16. Anterior cervical centra, posterior articular face dorsoventral height to mediolateral width ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C17. Middle–posterior cervical centra, posterior articular face dorsoventral height to mediolateral width ratio: 1.0 or less (0); greater than 1.0 (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C18. Posterior cervical neural arch to centrum dorsoventral height ratio, measured on anterior face of vertebra (arch height measured from dorsal surface of centrum to base of prezygapophyses): 0.5 or greater (0); less than 0.5 (1) (Bonaparte et al., 2006; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C19. Posteriormost cervical and anteriormost dorsal neural spines, dorsoventral height divided by posterior centrum height: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C20. Dorsal vertebrae, number: 13 or more (0); 12 or fewer (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C21. Anterior dorsal centra, posterior articular face mediolateral width to dorsoventral height ratio: less than 1.3 (0); 1.3 or greater (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C22. Middle–posterior dorsal centra, posterior articular face mediolateral width to dorsoventral height ratio: less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C23. Posterior dorsal neural spines, dorsoventral height divided by posterior centrum dorsoventral height: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C24. Sacral vertebrae, number: 5 or fewer (0); 6 or more (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C25. Anterior caudal centra, mediolateral width to dorsoventral height (excluding chevron facets) of anterior surface ratio: less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p> C26. Anteriormost caudal centra, lowest average Elongation  Index [aEI; centrum anteroposterior length (excluding articular ball) divided by the mean average value of the anterior surface mediolateral width and dorsoventral height] value of: less than 0.6 (0); 0.6 or greater (1) (Gauthier, 1986; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to only include the anteriormost caudal vertebrae). </p>
            <p>C27. Anterior caudal centra, anteroposterior length of posterior condylar ball to mean average radius [(mediolateral width + dorsoventral height) divided by 4] of anterior articular surface of centrum ratio: zero (posterior articular surface of centrum is flat or concave) (0); less than or equal to 0.3 (posterior articular surface of centrum is mildly convex) (1); greater than 0.3 (posterior articular surface of centrum is strongly convex) (2); greater than 0.6 (posterior articular surface of centrum is very strongly convex) (3) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Salgado et al., 1997; Wilson, 2002; Whitlock et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013; note that the highest value for a taxon is always used; revised here by adding an extra state to characterize taxa with extremely prominent posterior condyles) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C28. Middle caudal centra, mediolateral width to dorsoventral height (excluding chevron facets) of anterior surface ratio: less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p> C29. Middle caudal centra, average Elongation  Index [aEI; centrum anteroposterior length (excluding articular ball) divided by the mean average value of the anterior surface mediolateral width and dorsoventral height (excluding chevron facets)] value: less than 1.4 (0); 1.4 or higher (1) (Upchurch &amp; Martin, 2003; Upchurch et al., 2004; Whitlock, 2011a; Mannion et al., 2013). </p>
            <p>C30. Posterior caudal centra, mediolateral width to dorsoventral height (excluding chevron facets) of anterior surface ratio: less than 1.2 (0); 1.2 or greater (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p> C31. Posterior caudal centra, average Elongation  Index [aEI; centrum anteroposterior length (excluding articular ball) divided by the mean average value of the anterior surface mediolateral width and dorsoventral height (excluding chevron facets)] value: less than 1.7 (0); 1.7 or higher (1) (Upchurch &amp; Martin, 2003; Upchurch et al., 2004; Whitlock, 2011a; Mannion et al., 2013). </p>
            <p>C32. Anteriormost caudal neural spines, dorsoventral height divided by centrum height: 1.2 or greater (0); less than 1.2 (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C33. Anterior caudal neural spines, mediolateral width to anteroposterior length ratio at base of spine (dorsal to zygapophyses): less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here so that mediolateral width is measured at the same point as anteroposterior length).</p>
            <p>C34. Anterior caudal neural spines, maximum mediolateral width to minimum mediolateral width ratio: less than 2.0 (0); 2.0 or greater (spines expand dorsally, forming ‘club’- or ‘mace’-shaped spinous processes) (1) (Canudo et al., 2008; Taylor, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C35. Anterior chevrons (excluding first chevron), dorsoventral height of haemal canal divided by total chevron height: less than 0.40 (0); 0.40 or greater (1) (Curry Rogers &amp; Forster, 2001; Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013; note that dorsoventral height of the haemal canal is measured from the proximal tip of the chevron down to the distal tip of the haemal canal, regardless of whether the chevron is dorsally bridged).</p>
            <p>C36. Scapular acromion process, dorsoventral height to minimum dorsoventral height of scapular blade ratio: less than 3.0 (0); 3.0 or greater (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013; dorsoventral height is measured perpendicular to long-axis of scapular blade).</p>
            <p>C37. Scapular blade, maximum (measured at or close to distal end) to minimum dorsoventral height ratio: 2.0 or greater (0); less than 2.0 (1) (Wilson, 2002; Rose, 2007; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C38. Coracoid, anteroposterior length to dorsoventral height of scapular articulation ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C39. Sternal plate, maximum length divided by humerus proximodistal length: less than 0.65 (0); 0.65 or greater (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C40. Humerus to femur proximodistal length ratio: 0.7 or less (0);&gt;0.7 to &lt;0.8 (1); 0.8 to &lt;0.9 (2); 0.9–0.95 (3);&gt;0.95 (4) (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004; Tschopp et al., 2015a; Poropat et al., 2016; Mannion et al., 2017; an additional state has been added for taxa with ratios of 0.7 or less) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C41. Humerus, maximum mediolateral width of proximal end divided by proximodistal length: 0.4 or greater (0); less than 0.4 (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C42. Humerus, minimum mediolateral width divided by proximodistal length: 0.15 or greater (0); less than 0.15 (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C43. Humerus shaft eccentricity, mediolateral to anteroposterior width ratio at midshaft: greater than 1.5 (usually close to 1.8) (0); 1.5 or lower (usually close to 1.3) (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2012, 2013).</p>
            <p>C44. Radius to humerus proximodistal length ratio: 0.65 or greater (0); less than 0.65 (1) (Yates &amp; Kitching, 2003; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C45. Radius, maximum diameter of the proximal end divided by proximodistal length: less than 0.3 (0); 0.3 or greater (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C46. Radius, mediolateral width of proximal to distal end ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013; note that in taxa with a twisted radius, the dimension of the long axis of the distal end is used).</p>
            <p>C47. Radius, distal end mediolateral width to midshaft mediolateral width ratio: less than 2.0 (0); 2.0 or greater (1) (Wilson, 2002; Rose, 2007; Mannion et al., 2013; note that in taxa with a twisted radius, the dimension of the long axis of the distal end is used).</p>
            <p>C48. Radius, distal end mediolateral to anteroposterior width ratio: 1.5 or greater (0); less than 1.5 (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C49. Radius, distal condyle orientation: perpendicular or bevelled less than 20° to long axis of shaft (0); bevelled at least 20° to long axis of shaft (1) (Curry Rogers &amp; Forster, 2001; Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013; note that in most taxa only the lateral half of the distal end is bevelled, but this is used as the measurement in those instances).</p>
            <p>C50. Ulna, ratio of maximum mediolateral width of proximal end to ulna length: gracile, ratio is less than 0.4 (0); stout, ratio is 0.4 or greater (1) (Wilson, 2002; Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C51. Ulna, ratio of mediolateral width of proximal end (equivalent to anteromedial arm) to anteroposterior width of proximal end (equivalent to anterolateral arm): less than 1.4 (0); 1.4 to &lt;2.0 (1); 2.0 or greater (2) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013; Upchurch et al., 2015; the long-axes of the anteromedial and anterolateral processes are extrapolated posteriorly so that they intersect close to the position of the olecranon, and each process length is then measured from this intersection to the tip of each process) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C52. Metacarpals, longest metacarpal to radius proximodistal length ratio: less than 0.40 (0); 0.40 or greater (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C53. Metacarpals, metacarpal I proximal end dorsoventral height to mediolateral width ratio: less than 1.8 (0); 1.8 or greater (1) (Apesteguía, 2005a; Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013; note that the metacarpal is measured with the flat surface of the ‘D’ shape facing laterally, such that the long axis is dorsoventrally aligned).</p>
            <p>C54. Metacarpals, metacarpal I to metacarpal II or III proximodistal length ratio: less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Upchurch, 1998; note that an average is taken when both metacarpals II and III are preserved).</p>
            <p>C55. Metacarpals, metacarpal I to metacarpal IV proximodistal length ratio: less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C56. Manual ungual on digit I to metacarpal I proximodistal length ratio: 0.5 or greater (0); less than 0.5 (1) [Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here so that taxa that have lost their manual phalanges (derived state for C242) are scored as a ‘?’].</p>
            <p>C57. Ilium, pubic peduncle (measured at the articular surface), anteroposterior to mediolateral width ratio: greater than 0.5 (0); 0.5 or less (1) (Taylor, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C58. Pubis, iliac articular surface, anteroposterior to mediolateral width ratio: less than 2.0 (0); 2.0 or greater (1) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C59. Pubis, dorsoventral height of ischial articulation of the pubis divided by pubis proximodistal length is: 0.4 or greater (0); less than 0.4 (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C60. Ischium to pubis proximodistal length ratio: greater than 0.8 (0); 0.80 or less (1) (Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Salgado et al., 1997; Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C61. Ischium, ratio of anteroposterior length of proximal plate to ischium proximodistal length: greater than 0.25 (0); 0.25 or less (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C62. Ischium, ratio of anteroposterior length of iliac peduncle to anteroposterior length of proximal plate: less than 0.7 (large ischial contribution to acetabulum) (0); 0.7 or greater (small ischial contribution to acetabulum) (1) (Wilson, 2002; D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C63. Ischium, ratio of dorsoventral width across the distal shaft (mediolateral in taxa with fully coplanar shafts) to ischium proximodistal length: 0.2 or greater (0); less than 0.2 (1) (Jacobs et al., 1993; Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C64. Ischium, ratio of dorsoventral width of distal end of shaft to minimum shaft dorsoventral width (both dimensions are mediolateral in taxa with fully coplanar shafts): 1.5 or greater (0); less than 1.5 (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C65. Femur shaft eccentricity, mediolateral width to anteroposterior width ratio at midshaft: less than 1.85 (0); 1.85 or greater (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C66. Femoral distal condyles, tibial to fibular condylar anteroposterior length ratio: less than 1.2 (0); 1.2 or greater (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C67. Tibia, distal end mediolateral width to long-axis of a cross-section horizontally through the midshaft ratio: 2.0 or greater (0); less than 2.0 (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C68. Tibia, distal end, mediolateral to anteroposterior width ratio: 1.5 or greater (0); less than 1.5 (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C69. Fibula, mediolateral width of distal end to mediolateral width at midshaft ratio: 2.0 or greater (0); less than 2.0 (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C70. Astragalus, mediolateral width to maximum proximodistal height ratio: 1.8 or greater (0); less than 1.8 (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C71. Astragalus, mediolateral width to maximum anteroposterior length ratio: 1.5 or greater (0); less than 1.5 (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C72. Metatarsals, metatarsal I to metatarsal V proximodistal length ratio: less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C73. Metatarsals, metatarsal III to tibia proximodistal length ratio: less than 0.25 (0); 0.25 or greater (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C74. Metatarsals, metatarsal V proximal end to distal end maximum mediolateral width ratio: 1.6 or greater (0); less than 1.6 (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C75. Premaxilla, posterolateral processes and lateral processes of maxilla: without midline contact (0); with midline contact forming marked narial depression, subnarial foramen not visible laterally (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C76. Premaxillary anterior margin, shape: with step (0); without step (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C77. Premaxilla–maxilla sutural contact, shape in lateral view: straight (0); sinuous (1) (Chure et al., 2010).</p>
            <p>C78. Maxillary ascending process, medial plate-like projections: do not contact each other on the midline (0); contact each other on the midline (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C79. Maxilla, preantorbital fenestra: absent (0); present (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C80. Lacrimal, anterior process: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002; polarity reversed here).</p>
            <p>C81. Jugal–quadratojugal contact: articulation point includes the posterior margin of jugal (0); posterior margin of jugal excluded from articulation and only the ventral margin of the jugal contributes to articulation (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C82. Prefrontal, shape of posterior end in dorsal view: acute, with a subtriangular outline (0); broadly rounded or ‘square’ (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C83. Frontal, medial convexity in dorsal view: absent (0); present (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005).</p>
            <p>C84. Frontal, position of parietal suture relative to supratemporal fenestra: close to anterior margin of the fenestra (0); at approximately the centre of the fenestra or more posteriorly (1) (Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013).</p>
            <p>C85. Parietal, contribution to post-temporal fenestra: present (0); absent (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C86. Supratemporal fenestra, lateral exposure: visible laterally, temporal bar shifted ventrally (0); not visible laterally, obscured by temporal bar (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C87. Postorbital, ventral process: anteroposterior and mediolateral diameters equal, or mediolaterally compressed (0); anteroposteriorly compressed (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C88. Infratemporal (or laterotemporal) fenestra, anterior extension: reaching midpoint of orbit (0); reaching or surpassing anterior margin of orbit (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Ksepka &amp; Norell, 2010; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C89. Squamosal–quadratojugal contact: present (0); absent (1) (Gauthier, 1986; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C90. Quadratojugal, anterior ramus, ventral triangular projection (close to the anterior tip): absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C91. Quadrate, excavation in the posterior surface: absent or shallow (0); deep (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C92. Quadrate fossa, orientation: posterior (0); posterolateral (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C93. Palatobasal contact for basipterygoid articulation has a dorsomedially oriented ‘hook’- or ‘finger’-like projection which curves round to clasp the end of the basipterygoid process: present (0); absent (1) (Madsen et al., 1995; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C94. Palatine, dorsomedial blade (that articulates with maxilla), lateral margin: curved (0); straight (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C95. Vomer, anterior articulation with: maxilla (0); premaxilla (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C96. Paroccipital process, ventral non-articular process: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C97. Basal tubera, degree of divergence: no divergence, or restricted to ventral half of basal tubera (0); extends into dorsal half of basal tubera, usually fully divergent (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C98. Basioccipital, foramen or pit on the posterior surface of the basal tubera: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to clarify character statement following Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C99. Basioccipital, foramen/foramina between basal tubera and basipterygoid processes: present (0); absent (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C100. Basal tubera, posterior surface bordered laterally and ventrally by a raised, thickened lip: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002, 2005b; modified based on Mannion, 2011).</p>
            <p>C 101. Basipterygoid processes, shape in cross-section: elliptical or subtriangular (0); subcircular (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C102. External mandibular fenestra: present (0); absent (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C103. Dentary, posteroventral process, shape: single (0); forked (1) (Chure et al., 2010).</p>
            <p>C104. Tooth rows: restricted anterior to orbit (0); restricted anterior to antorbital fenestra (1); restricted anterior to external naris (2); restricted anterior to subnarial foramen (3) (Gauthier, 1986; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Chure et al., 2010; Mannion et al., 2013) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C105. Teeth, occlusal (wear) pattern: interlocking, V-shaped facets (0); high angled planar facets (1); low angled planar facets (2) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C106. Tooth crowns, orientation: aligned anterolingually, tooth crowns overlap (0); aligned along jaw axis, crowns do not overlap (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C107. Tooth crowns in upper and lower tooth rows, relative diameters: subequal (0); lower crowns smaller than upper crowns (1) (Chure et al., 2010).</p>
            <p>C108. Tooth crowns, shape in labial view: spatulate or ‘spoon’-like (i.e. constricted at the base relative to midheight of the crown) (0); parallel-sided (i.e. little expansion above the root) (1) (Calvo, 1994; Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C109. Tooth crowns, cross-sectional shape at midcrown: ‘D’-shaped (0); cylindrical (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C110. Tooth crowns, lingual surface: concave or flat (0); convex (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C111. Tooth crowns, apicobasally oriented lingual ridge: present (0); absent (1) (Barrett et al., 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C112. Tooth crowns, distinct mesial and distal carinae (labiolingually thinner than the rest of the tooth crown) along the full crown length: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C113. Tooth serrations/denticles: present (0); absent (1) (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C114. Maxillary teeth, shape: straight along axis (0); twisted axially through an arc of 30–45 degrees (1) (Chure et al., 2010; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C115. Cervical and anteriormost dorsal vertebrae, internal tissue structure: solid (0); camerate (1); camellate (2) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Carballido et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C116. Atlantal intercentrum, occipital facet shape: rectangular in lateral view, length of dorsal aspect subequal to that of ventral aspect (0); expanded anteroventrally in lateral view, anteroposterior length of dorsal aspect shorter than that of ventral aspect, producing an anteroventral lip (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C117. Cervical axis, midline ventral keel: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C118. Postaxial cervical centra, anterior half of ventral surfaces are: flat or mildly convex mediolaterally (0); concave mediolaterally (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C119. Postaxial cervical centra, posterior half of ventral surfaces are: flat or mildly convex mediolaterally (0); concave mediolaterally (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C120. Postaxial cervical centra, ventral midline keel: present (0); absent (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C121. Postaxial cervical centra, parapophyses dorsally excavated: absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C122. Postaxial cervical centra, lateral surfaces: lack an excavation or have a shallow fossa (0); possess a deep foramen that is not divided into portions by accessory laminae (1); have a deep foramen that is divided into separate portions by one prominent and occasionally several smaller accessory laminae (2) (McIntosh, 1990; Russell &amp; Zheng, 1993; Upchurch, 1995, 1998) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C123. Middle cervical centra, lateral pneumatic fossa/foramen extends almost to the posterior end of the centrum, leaving only a thin strip of bone: absent (0); present (1) (Wedel et al., 2000; D’Emic, 2013; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C124. Middle–posterior cervical centra, parapophyses, dorsal surfaces: face dorsally or slightly dorsolaterally (0); deflected to face strongly dorsolaterally, such that the cervical ribs are displaced ventrally at least the same height as the centrum (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C125. Middle–posterior cervical centra, parapophyses: restricted to anterior half of centrum (excluding condylar ball) (0); elongate, extending more than half of the centrum length (excluding condylar ball) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C126. Cervical neural arches, ‘pre-epipophyses’ present on prezygapophyses: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C127. Cervical neural arches, epipophyses present on postzygapophyses: absent (0); present (1) (Yates, 2007).</p>
            <p>C128. Cervical neural arches (post-Cv3), epipophyses: do not extend beyond the posterior margin of the postzygapophyses (0); extend beyond the posterior margin of the postzygapophyses (usually as prongs) (1) (Sereno et al., 1993; Yates, 2007; D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C129. Cervical neural arches, epipophyseal– prezygapophyseal lamina (EPRL): absent (0); present (1) (Sereno et al., 2007; Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009).</p>
            <p>C130. Middle–posterior cervical neural arches, centroprezygapophyseal lamina (CPRL): single (0); bifurcates into medial and lateral branches that both contact the prezygapophysis (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Whitlock 2011a; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C131. Middle–posterior cervical neural arches, intrapostzygapophyseal lamina (TPOL) projects beyond the posterior margin of the neural arch [including the centropostzygapophyseal laminae (CPOL)], forming a prominent subrectangular projection in lateral view: absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C132. Postaxial cervical and anterior dorsal neural spines: unbifurcated (0); bifurcated (1) (Gauthier, 1986; McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C133. Cervical bifurcated neural spines (excluding the posteriormost cervical vertebrae), median process at base of ‘notch’: absent (0); present (1) (Gauthier, 1986; McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C134. Middle cervical neural spines, abrupt increase in height (height approximately doubled), following low anterior cervical neural spines (occurs around CV6-8): absent (0); present (1) (Wedel et al., 2000; Rose, 2007; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C135. Middle cervical neural spines, dorsal surface with mediolaterally oriented midline ridge flanked by small fossae at its anterior and posterior ends: absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic, 2013; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C136. Posterioriormost cervical and anterior dorsal neural arches, spinodiapophyseal lamina (SPDL): single structure (0); divided into anterior and posterior spinodiapophyseal laminae (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Salgado &amp; Powell, 2010; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C137. Posteriormost cervical and anterior dorsal unbifurcated neural spines, prespinal lamina: absent (0); present (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C138. Posteriormost cervical and anterior dorsal bifurcated neural spines, ‘trifid’ with median tubercle at least as tall as metapophyses: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C139. Cervical ribs, longest shafts are: short and do not project far beyond the end of the centrum to which they attach (0); elongate and form overlapping bundles (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C140. Cervical ribs, longest shafts extend beneath: fewer than 3 vertebrae (0); 3 vertebrae or more (1) [Wedel et al., 2000; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here so that taxa with short ribs (scored with the plesiomorphic state for C139) are scored as a ‘?’].</p>
            <p>C141. Middle–posterior dorsal vertebrae, internal tissue texture: solid (0); camerate (1); camellate (2) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Carballido et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C142. Middle–posterior dorsal centra, ventral keel: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C143. Dorsal centra, lateral pneumatic foramen: absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C144. Dorsal centra, lateral pneumatic foramina are: shallow fossae or excavations that do not ramify throughout the centrum (0); deep excavations that ramify throughout the centrum and into the base of the neural arch, often leaving only a thin septum on the midline of the centrum (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C145. Dorsal centra, lateral pneumatic foramina: have margins which are flush with the lateral surface of the centrum (0); are set within a lateral fossa on the lateral surface of the centrum (1) (Bonaparte &amp; Coria, 1993; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C146. Anterior dorsal centra, lateral pneumatic foramina have: rounded posterior margins (0); acute posterior margins (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C147. Middle–posterior dorsal centra, anterior articular face shape: flat or concave (0); mildly convex, with degree of convexity notably reducing along the dorsal sequence (1); strongly convex, with degree of convexity approximately consistent along the dorsal sequence (2) (Salgado et al., 1997; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C148. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, posterior centroparapophyseal lamina (PCPL): absent (0); present as a single lamina (1); two parallel laminae (2) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002; D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C149. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, hyposphene–hypantrum system: present (0); absent (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C150. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, hyposphene shape: narrow, ventral end subequal to or only slightly wider than dorsal tip (0); wide, triangular shape, with ventral end at least twice width of dorsal tip (1) (Apesteguía, 2005b; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C151. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina (PCDL): has an unexpanded ventral tip (0); expands and bifurcates towards its ventral tip (1) (Salgado et al., 1997).</p>
            <p>C152. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, postzygodiapophyseal lamina (PODL): present (0); absent (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Sanz et al., 1999; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C153. Anterior dorsal diapophyses are: directed laterally or slightly upwards (0); directed strongly dorsolaterally at approximately 45° to the horizontal (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C154. Anterior–middle dorsal diapophyses: short and dorsoventrally tall (0); elongate and dorsoventrally narrow (1) (Janensch, 1950; Taylor, 2009; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C155. Middle–posterior dorsal diapophyses are: directed strongly dorsolaterally at approximately 45° to the horizontal (0); directed laterally or slightly upwards (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C156. Middle–posterior dorsal diapophyses, distal end: curves smoothly into the remaining dorsal surface of the process (0); is set off from the remaining dorsal surface by a lip, forming a distinct area (1) (Sanz et al., 1999; Upchurch et al., 2004; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C157. Posteriormost dorsal diapophyses lie: posterior or posterodorsal to the parapophysis (0); vertically above the parapophysis (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C158. Dorsal neural spines, height: anterior dorsal neural spines subequal to or dorsoventrally shorter than posterior dorsal neural spines (0); anterior dorsal neural spines dorsoventrally taller than posterior dorsal neural spines (1) (Wilson, 2002; Taylor, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C159. Dorsal neural spines, anteroposterior width: approximately constant along the height of the spine, with subparallel anterior and posterior margins (0); narrows dorsally to form a triangular shape in lateral view, with the base approximately twice the width as the dorsal tip (1) (Taylor, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C160. Anterior dorsal neural spines, orientation of anterior margin in lateral view: inclined anteriorly or vertical (0); posterodorsally inclined (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to clarify character statement).</p>
            <p>C161. Middle dorsal neural spines: unbifurcated (0); bifurcated (dorsal surface excavated transversely) (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C162. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines: tapering or not flaring distally (0); flared distally with triangular aliform processes projecting laterally from the top [formed primarily from the expansion of the spinopostzygapophyseal laminae (SPOLs)] (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C163. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, with triangular aliform processes: weakly developed aliform processes (0); strongly developed triangular aliform processes so that the lateral tips of these processes extend further laterally than the postzygapophyses (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004; revised here so that only taxa with aliform processes scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C164. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, orientation: vertical or slightly posterodorsal (0); strongly posterodorsal, oriented at 45° to the horizontal or greater (1) (Wilson 2002; Poropat et al., 2016; note that this excludes the posteriormost dorsal neural spines, which usually revert to being dorsally directed).</p>
            <p>C165. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, spinopostzygapophyseal lamina (SPOL) shape: single (0); divided into medial and lateral branches (1) (Wilson, 1999, 2002).</p>
            <p>C166. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, spinodiapophyseal lamina (SPDL): absent or restricted to posterior dorsals (0); present on middle and posterior dorsals (1) (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C167. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, prespinal and postspinal laminae: form mediolaterally wide surfaces, with little anterior relief, ‘infilling’ the prespinal and postspinal fossae (0); form distinct mediolaterally narrow ridges or laminae along the midline of the prespinal and postspinal fossae (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C168. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, midline prespinal lamina (forming distinct ridge) along proximal (lower) half of neural spine: present (0); absent (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013; note that taxa coded as ‘0’ for C167 are scored as a ‘?’ here).</p>
            <p>C169. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, postspinal lamina (forming distinct ridge) along proximal (lower) half of neural spine: present (0); absent (1) (Bonaparte, 1986b; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013; note that taxa coded as ‘0’ for C167 are scored as a ‘?’ here).</p>
            <p>C170. Thoracic (dorsal) ribs, pneumatized (with proximal pneumatocoels): absent (0); present (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C171. Anterior thoracic ribs, cross-sectional shape: subcircular (0); plank-like, anteroposterior breadth more than three times mediolateral breadth (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C172. Sacral vertebrae, camellate internal tissue structure: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C173. Sacral centra, lateral pneumatic foramina or very deep depressions: absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C174. Sacral neural spines, dorsal portions of at least sacral vertebrae 1–4 fused, forming a dorsal ‘platform’: absent (0); present (1) (Lü et al., 2007; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C175. Caudal vertebrae, number: more than 35 (0); 35 or fewer (1) (Wilson 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C176. Anteriormost caudal vertebrae, camellate internal tissue structure: absent (0); present (1) (Powell, 1986; Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C177. Anterior caudal centra with posterior convexity: convex in anteriormost caudal vertebrae, changing to flat or concave in more distal anterior caudal vertebrae (0); convex throughout all anterior caudal vertebrae with ribs (1) (Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to only include taxa with some procoely in the anterior caudal sequence – taxa lacking procoelous anterior caudal vertebrae are scored as a ‘?’).</p>
            <p>C178. Anterior caudal centra, lateral pneumatic fossae or foramina: absent (0); present, (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C179. Anterior caudal centra, lateral pneumatic fossae or foramina: without sharply defined margins (0); with sharply defined margins (1) (Tidwell et al., 2001; Whitlock et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C180. Anterior–middle caudal centra, small, shallow vascular foramina pierce the lateral and/or ventral surfaces: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C181. Anterior caudal centra (excluding the anteriormost caudal vertebrae), ventral longitudinal hollow: absent (0); present (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson, 2002; revised here to separate anterior and middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C182. Anterior caudal centra (excluding the anteriormost caudal vertebrae), distinct ventrolateral ridges, extending the full length of the centrum: absent (0); present (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to separate anterior and middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C183. Middle caudal centra, anteroposteriorly elongate ridge situated at approximately two-thirds o f t h e way u p t h e l a t e r a l s u r f a c e: a b s e n t (0); present (1) (Upchurch &amp; Martin, 2003; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C184. Middle–posterior caudal centra (at least some), posterior articular surface: flat or concave (0); convex (1) (Jacobs et al., 1993; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Salgado et al., 1997; Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C185. Middle–posterior caudal centra with convex posterior articular surface: condylar convexity merges smoothly into the lateral surface of the main body of the centrum (0); distinct rim rings the condyle, separating it from the lateral surface of the main body of the centrum (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C186. Distal caudal centra, biconvex: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C187. Anterior caudal neural arches, hyposphenal ridge: present (0); absent (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013; usually only present in the anteriormost region of the tail).</p>
            <p>C188. Anterior caudal neural arches, hyposphenal ridge shape: slender ridge (0); block-like hyposphene (1) (Taylor, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C189. Anterior caudal neural arches, distinct prezygodiapophyseal lamina (PRDL): absent (0); present (1) (Chure et al., 2010; usually only present in the anteriormost region of the tail).</p>
            <p>C190. Anterior caudal neural arches, sharp lipped lateral coel [postzygapophyseal centrodiapophyseal fossa (POCDF) of Wilson et al., 2011] bounded by posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina [PCDL (or caudal rib itself)], centropostzygapophyseal lamina (CPOL) and postzygodiapophyseal lamina (PODL): absent (0); present (1) (Lü et al., 2008; Whitlock et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C191. Anterior–middle caudal neural arches, prezygapophyses switch from projecting anterodorsally, anteriorly and back to anterodorsally along the sequence: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C192. Middle caudal neural arches: situated over the mid-point of the centrum with approximately subequal amounts of the centrum exposed at either end (0); located on the anterior half of the centrum (1) (Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Salgado et al., 1997).</p>
            <p>C193. Middle–posterior caudal neural arches, distance that prezygapophyses extend beyond the anterior margin of the centrum: less than 20% of centrum length (excluding ball), short prezygapophyses (0); 20% or greater of centrum length (excluding ball), elongate prezygapophyses (1) (González Riga, 2003; Mannion et al., 2013; note that in taxa without anteriorly biased neural arches this prezygapophyseal extension is extrapolated as if the arch was anteriorly positioned on the centrum).</p>
            <p>C194. Anteriormost caudal neural spines, sharp lipped lateral coel [spinodiapophyseal fossa (SDF) of Wilson et al., 2011] bounded by spinoprezygapophyseal lamina (SPRL), spinopostzygapophyseal lamina (SPOL) and postzygodiapophyseal lamina (PODL): absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002; Whitlock et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C195. Anterior caudal neural spines, project: posterodorsally (0); dorsally (sometimes with a subtle anterior deflection) (1); anterodorsally, such that the anterodorsal margin of the neural spine projects beyond the anterior margin of the centrum (2) (Gonzalez Riga et al., 2009; Mannion et al., 2013; Poropat et al., 2016) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C196. Anterior caudal neural spines, anterodorsal margin of neural spine: level with or posterior to posterior margin of postzygapophyses (0); situated anterior to posterior margin of postzygapophyses (usually does not even approach postzygapophyses) (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C197. Anterior caudal neural spines, prespinal and postspinal laminae: absent or form mediolaterally wide surfaces, with little anterior relief, ‘infilling’ the prespinal and postspinal fossae (0); form distinct mediolaterally narrow ridges or laminae along the midline of the prespinal and postspinal fossae (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C198. Anterior caudal neural spines, spinoprezygapophyseal lamina (SPRL)–spinopostzygapophyseal lamina (SPOL) contact: absent (0); present, forming a prominent lateral lamina on the neural spine (1) (Wilson, 1999, 2002; revised here so that only taxa in which the SPRL extends onto the lateral surface are scored).</p>
            <p>C199. Middle caudal neural spines, in lateral view, widen anteroposteriorly (approximately doubling) from their base to their summit: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C200. Middle caudal neural spines, extend posteriorly to the mid-point (or beyond) of the proceeding caudal centrum: present (0); absent (usually do not extend beyond the posterior margin of the centrum) (1) (Remes et al., 2009; Mannion et al., 2013; note that in taxa with anteriorly biased neural arches this posterior extension is extrapolated as if the arch was centrally positioned on the centrum).</p>
            <p>C201. Caudal ribs: present beyond approximately Cd10 (usually at least up to approximately Cd15) (0); only present through to approximately Cd10 (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C202. First caudal rib (transverse process), with prominent ventral bulge: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002; Chure et al., 2010; note that this feature is sometimes present in subsequent caudal vertebrae too: consequently, this character is coded as the derived state if present in any anterior caudal vertebrae, but coded as a ‘?’ if the first caudal vertebra is not preserved and the feature is absent in other anterior caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C203. First caudal rib, expands anteroposteriorly towards its distal end, forming an ‘anchor’ shape in dorsal view: absent (0); present (1) (Suteethorn et al., 2010; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C204. Anterior caudal ribs, shape in anterior view: triangular, tapering distally (0); wing-like, with a dorsolaterally oriented dorsal margin (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Whitlock et al., 2011).</p>
            <p>C205. Anterior caudal ribs: curve strongly anterolaterally (0); mainly laterally (1); curve strongly posterolaterally (2) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C206. Anterior caudal ribs: do not extend beyond posterior end of centrum (excluding posterior ball) (0); extend beyond posterior end of centrum (excluding posterior ball) (1) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here so that only taxa with posterolaterally directed caudal ribs are scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C207. First chevron, morphology: Y-shaped and does not differ notably from subsequent chevrons (0); anteroposteriorly flattened and V-shaped, with dorsoventrally reduced distal blade (1) (Gomani, 2005; Rauhut, 2006; Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C208. Anterior chevrons, proximal ends: open dorsally (0); bridged dorsally by a bar of bone (1) (Powell, 1992; Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C209. Anterior–middle chevrons, lateral bulges close to distal ends of chevron blades: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C210. Middle–posterior chevrons, with anterior expansion of distal blade: present (0); absent (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C211. Middle–posterior chevrons, with posterior expansion of distal blade (excluding the natural posteroventral curvature of many chevrons): present (0); absent (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C212. Scapular acromion (proximal plate), area situated posterior to the acromial ridge: flat or convex (0); forms a separate excavated area (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C213. Scapular glenoid surface, orientation: faces anteroventrally and/or slightly laterally (0); deflected to face anteroventrally and medially (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C214. Scapula, posterior margin of the dorsal part of the acromion: straight and oriented vertically, or sloping to face posterodorsally (0); concave, posterodorsal corner of acromion overhangs the dorsal surface of the scapular blade (1) (Rauhut et al., 2005; Mannion, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C215. Scapular acromion, subtriangular process at posteroventral corner: absent (0); present (1) (Smith et al., 2001; Bonaparte et al., 2006; Carballido et al., 2011; D’Emic et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C216. Scapular blade, subtriangular process at anteroventral corner: absent (0); present (1) (Carballido et al., 2011; D’Emic et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C217. Scapular blade, cross-sectional shape at base: rectangular (0); D-shaped (lateral surface is strongly convex dorsoventrally and medial surface flat) (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C218. Coracoid, anterior and dorsal margins in lateral view: merge smoothly into each other, giving a rounded profile (0); meet each other at an abrupt angle, making the coracoid quadrangular in outline (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C219. Coracoid, dorsal margin in lateral view: lies below the level of the scapular acromion plate (separated from the latter by a V-shaped notch) (0); reaches or surpasses the level of the dorsal margin of the scapular acromion plate (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C220. Coracoid, ventral margin in lateral view forms a notch anterior to the glenoid, resulting in an ‘infraglenoid lip’ anterior to the notch: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C221. Sternal plate, shape in dorsal view: subcircular or oval (0); triangular (created by an acute anterolateral projection) (1); elliptical with a mildly or strongly concave lateral margin (2) (Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C222. Sternal plate, prominent posterolateral expansion produces a ‘kidney’-shaped profile in dorsal view: absent (0); present (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C223. Humeral proximolateral corner, shape: rounded, surfaces merge smoothly into each other to produce a transversely rounded proximal end, with the proximalmost point of the lateral margin at a lower level than the remaining lateral half of the proximal surface (0); square, surfaces meet each other at an abrupt angle to produce a ‘squared’ proximal end in anterior view, with the proximalmost point of the lateral margin level with the remaining lateral half of the proximal surface (1) (Upchurch, 1999; Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004; Harris, 2006b; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C224. Humerus, shape of lateral margin of diaphysis (approximately the middle third of the humerus) in anterior view: concave (0); straight (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C225. Humeral deltopectoral crest, projection: anteriorly or anterolaterally (0); anteromedially, extending across the anterior face of the humerus (1) (Mannion et al., 2013; Upchurch et al., 2015; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C226. Humerus, strong bulge or tuberosity (site for M. latissimus dorsi) close to the lateral margin of the posterior surface, at approximately the level of the distal tip of the deltopectoral crest: absent (0); present (1) (Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977; Otero, 2010; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C227. Humerus, anterior surface of distal lateral condyle: divided by a notch, forming two ridges (0); undivided (1) (D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C228. Humerus, distal-most part of the posterior surface (supracondylar fossa) is: flat or shallowly concave (0); deeply concave between prominent lateral and medial vertical condylar ridges (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C229. Humeral distal condyles, articular surface: flat anteroposteriorly and restricted to distal portion of humerus (0); anteroposteriorly convex so that it curves up onto the anterior and posterior faces of the humerus (1) (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C230. Humeral distal articular surface, condyles: undivided (0); divided (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C231. Radius, strong twist in axis, such that the long-axes of the proximal and distal ends are not oriented in the same plane: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C232. Radius, well-developed interosseous ridge that extends along most of the radius length (at least along the distal two-thirds): absent (0); present (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C233. Ulnar olecranon process, development: absent or only rudimentary, i.e. projecting just above the proximal articulation (0); prominent, projecting well above proximal articulation (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C234. Ulna, articular surface of anteromedial process is: flat (0); concave along its length (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998).</p>
            <p>C235. Ulna, orientation of anteromedial process: flat or sloping downwards less than 40° (0); sloping downwards at an angle of at least 40° to the horizontal (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C236. Ulna, distal end: prominently expanded posteriorly (0); unexpanded (1) (D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C237. Carpal bones, number: 3 or more (0); fewer than 3 (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998).</p>
            <p>C238. Carpal bones: at least one carpal present (0); absent (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998).</p>
            <p>C239. Metacarpals, distal articular surfaces: extend onto dorsal/anterior surface of metacarpal (0); restricted to distal surface (except sometimes in metacarpal IV) (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C240. Metacarpals, metacarpal I distal end mediolateral axis orientation: approximately perpendicular (or only gently bevelled) to long axis of shaft (0); bevelled approximately 20° proximodistally with respect to axis of shaft (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C241. Metacarpals, metacarpal IV has a prominent proximolateral projection that wraps around the dorsal (anterior) face of metacarpal V (metacarpal IV often forms a chevron shape in proximal end view): absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C242. Manual digits: possess at least some phalanges (0); have lost the phalanges (1) (Wilson, 2002; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C243. Manual phalanx I.1, shape in dorsal view: rectangular (0); wedge-shaped (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C244. Ilium, preacetabular process in dorsal view: projects anteriorly (0); projects anterolaterally (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C245. Ilium, preacetabular process orientation: lies in an approximately vertical plane (0); turns laterally towards its ventral tip to form a horizontal portion (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Powell, 1992; Upchurch, 1995, 1998).</p>
            <p>C246. Ilium, preacetabular process shape: dorsoventrally tapers anteriorly to a point (0); semicircular, or rounded outline, such that it does not continue to taper along its anteriormost portion (1) (Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C247. Ilium, preacetabular process, bulge or ‘kink’ on ventral margin: absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C248. Ilium, highest point on the dorsal margin: occurs level with or posterior to the anterior margin of the base of the pubic process (0); occurs anterior to the anterior margin of the base of the pubic process (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C249. Ilium, pneumatized: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C250. Pubis, obturator foramen, in lateral view is: subcircular (0); oval or elliptical, with long axis oriented in same plane as long axis of pubis (1) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C251. Pubis, anterior margin of distal end strongly concave in lateral view, such that the distal end forms a prominent, anteriorly expanded boot: absent (0); present (1) (Naish &amp; Martill, 2001; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C252. Ischium, acetabular margin, in lateral view: flat or mildly concave (0); strongly concave, such that the pubic articular surface forms an anterodorsal projection (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C253. Ischium, symphysis between the ischia: terminates at the base of the proximal plates (emarginate distal to pubic articulation) (0); extends along the ventral edges of the proximal plates as well as the distal shafts, so that there is no V-shaped gap between the anterior ends of the ischia in dorsal view (no emargination distal to pubic articulation) (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C254. Ischium, long-axis of shaft, if projected upwards/proximally: passes through the lower part of the acetabular margin or the upper part of the pubic articular surface (i.e. it is approximately 60° to the horizontal in lateral view) (0); passes through the upper part of the acetabular margin or even approaches the rim of the iliac articulation (i.e. the shaft is at approximately 80° to the horizontal) (1); passes through the lower part of the pubic articular surface (i.e. it is approximately horizontally oriented), such that the posterior margin of the iliac peduncle and the dorsal margin of the shaft form a right angle in lateral view (2) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson and Sereno, 1998; revised here to add an extra state) [unordered].</p>
            <p>C255. Femur, proximolateral margin, above the lateral bulge: level with or lateral to the lateral margin of the distal half of the shaft (0); medial to the lateral margin of the distal half of the shaft (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Salgado et al., 1997; Royo-Torres, 2009; Royo-Torres et al., 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C256. Femur, anteroposterior thickness of lateral margin of proximal third: relatively constant with main body of femur (0); narrows to form a flange-like trochanteric shelf, forming a medially bounding vertical ridge along the posterior surface (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C257. Femur, proximodistally elongate midline ridge (linea intermuscularis cranialis) on anterior face, extending along most of shaft length: absent (0); present (1) (Otero, 2010; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C258. Femur, fourth trochanter: not visible in anterior view (0); visible in anterior view (1) (Gallina &amp; Apesteguía, 2005; Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C259. Femoral distal condyles, orientation relative to long axis of femoral shaft: bevelled dorsolaterally approximately 10° (tibial condyle extends further distally than fibular condyle) (0); perpendicular (tibial and fibular condyles extend approximately the same distance distally) (1); bevelled dorsomedially approximately 10° (fibular condyle extends further distally than tibial condyle) (2) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2013) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C260. Tibia, cnemial crest projects: laterally (0); anteriorly or anterolaterally (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Mannion et al., 2013; note that the tibia is oriented so that the flat, mediolaterally wide triangular surface of the distal end faces anteriorly).</p>
            <p>C261. Tibia, lateral edge of proximal end forms a pinched out projection, posterior to cnemial crest (the ‘second cnemial crest’ of Bonaparte et al., 2000): present (0); absent (1) (Bonaparte et al., 2000; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C262. Fibula, proximal end with anteromedialy directed crest extending into a notch behind the cnemial crest of the tibia: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C263. Fibula, lateral muscle scar is: oval in outline (0); formed from two vertically elongate, parallel ridges (1) (Powell, 1992; Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C264. Fibula, shaft in lateral view: straight (0); sigmoidal (1) (Canudo et al., 2008; Royo-Torres, 2009).</p>
            <p>C265. Astragalus, in dorsal (or proximal) view: rectangular, with anteroposterior lengths of medial and lateral margins subequal (or medial margin greater) (0); wedge-shaped, narrowing anteroposteriorly towards its medial end, such that it has a reduced anteromedial corner (1) (Cooper, 1981; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C266. Astragalus, ascending process: limited to anterior two-thirds of astragalus (0); extends beyond anterior two-thirds of astragalus (usually to the posterior margin) (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; revised here following Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C267. Astragalus, laterally-directed ventral shelf underlies the distal end of the fibula: present (0); absent (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C268. Astragalus: caps most, or all, of the distal end of the tibia (0); reduced so that medial edge of tibia is uncapped (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; Ksepka &amp; Norell, 2010).</p>
            <p>C269. Astragalus, posterior margin bears a tonguelike projection posteromedial to the ascending process, which is separated from the latter by a groove: present (0); absent (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C270. Calcaneum: present (0); absent (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998).</p>
            <p>C271. Calcaneum, shape in proximal view: subcircular (0); subrectangular (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C272. Metatarsals, metatarsal I with a prominent ventrolateral expansion along its distal half, such that the distal end expands further laterally than the proximal end: absent (0); present (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; D’Emic et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C273. Metatarsals, lateral margin of metatarsal II in proximal view: concave (0); straight (1) (Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C274. Metatarsals, metatarsal II distal articular surface extends up on to the dorsal surface (extending proximally approximately 25% of metatarsal length and most prominently along medial half): absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic et al., 2011; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C275. Metatarsals, medial surface of the proximal portion of metatarsal IV concave (for reception of metatarsal III): absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic et al., 2011; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C276. Metatarsals, distal end orientation of metatarsal IV: perpendicular to long axis of bone (0); bevelled to face medially (1) (D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C277. Pedal digit IV: has at least three phalanges (0); has two phalanges or fewer (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C278. Pedal unguals, tuberosity on the ventral margin, along distal half: absent (0); present (1) (Canudo et al., 2008; Mannion et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C279. Osteoderms: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002; note that taxa are only coded as the plesiomorphic state when osteoderms are not found associated with a relatively complete postcranial skeleton or a specimen preserving numerous axial elements).</p>
            <p>C280. Humerus, strong bulge or tuberosity (site for M. scapulohumeralis anterior) on the lateral margin of the posterior surface (usually visible in anterior view), approximately level with the most prominently developed portion of the deltopectoral crest: absent or weakly developed, and not visible in anterior view (0); present, forms a distinct lateral bulge that interrupts the line of the lateral humeral margin in anterior view (1) (Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977; Upchurch et al., 2015).</p>
            <p>C281. Ulna, posterior process of proximal end: weakly developed, so that the proximal profile of the ulna is ‘V’-shaped (formed by the anteromedial and anterolateral processes) (0); strongly developed, so that the proximal profile of the ulna is ‘T’- or ‘Y’-shaped, and there is a deep fossa between the anteromedial and posterior processes, rivalling the radial fossa in depth (1) (Upchurch et al., 2015).</p>
            <p>C282. Ulna, shape of the distal end: comma-shaped, with tapering curved anterior process associated with an anteromedial fossa for reception of the radius (0); elliptical or oval in outline, with the anteromedial fossa strongly reduced or absent (1) (Upchurch et al., 2015).</p>
            <p>C283. Radius, profile of proximal end: ‘D’-shaped or elliptical (0); oval or subtriangular, with marked tapering towards the medial process (1) (Upchurch et al., 2015).</p>
            <p>C284. Radius, ridge or flange on medial margin, near proximal end, for attachment of the M. biceps brachii and M.brachialis inferior: absent or very weakly developed (0); present, projecting beyond the medial margin of the main radial shaft (1) (Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977; Upchurch et al., 2015).</p>
            <p>C285. Radius, posterior margin of distal end: lacks condylar-like processes and fossa (0); forms two low rounded processes (posteromedial and posterolateral), with a shallow fossa between them (1) (D’Emic, 2013; Upchurch et al., 2015).</p>
            <p> C286. Snout, shape in dorsal view, Premaxillary- Maxillary  Index (PMI) : 60% or less (0);&gt;60% to 75% (1); greater than 75% (2) (Upchurch, 1998; Whitlock, 2011a; Poropat et al., 2016; note that this can be calculated using the lower jaw when the skull is incomplete) [ordered]. </p>
            <p>C287. Premaxilla, shape of ascending process in lateral view: convex (0); concave, with a large dorsal projection (1); sub-rectilinear and directed posterodorsally (2) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C288. Maxilla, anterior (dentigerous) portion of lateral surface excavated by dorsoventrally elongate, deep vascular grooves: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002, 2005b).</p>
            <p>C289. Maxilla, foramen anterior to the preantorbital fenestra: absent (0); present (1) (Zaher et al., 2011).</p>
            <p>C290. Maxilla, position of external opening of the preantorbital fenestra: lies below antorbital fenestra (0); lies anterior to antorbital fenstra, with the posterior margin of the preantorbital fenestra lying entirely anterior to the anterior margin of the antorbital fenestra (1) (Marpmann et al., 2015; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C291. Maxilla, preantorbital fenestra development: weakly developed, shallow fossa (difficult to distinguish from posterior maxillary foramen) (0); deep, sharp-lipped fossa (1) (Zaher et al., 2011; Carballido et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C292. Maxilla, posterior extent of dorsal (ascending) process: anterior to, or level with, posterior end of main body (0); extending posterior to posterior end of main body (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C293. Maxilla, ventral margin of jugal process: reduced in dorsoventral height, such that the ventral margin is strongly emarginated relative to the remainder of the ventral margin of the maxilla (0); continuous with ventral margin of remainder of maxilla, or very gently emarginated (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C294. Maxilla, contact with quadratojugal: absent or small (i.e. no more than a point contact) (0); extensive (1) (Upchurch, 1995; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C295. Jugal, dorsal process: present (0); absent (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C296. Jugal, contact with ectopterygoid: present (0); absent, ectopterygoid contacts maxilla instead (1) (Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C297. Frontal, anteroposterior length to transverse width ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 and&gt;0.5 (1); 0.5 or less (2) (Whitlock, 2011a; Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013; Poropat et al., 2016; revised here to add an extra state) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C298. Frontal, lateral margin: expands posteriorly, orbital margin concave in dorsal view (0); unexpanded posteriorly, orbital margin straight or convex in dorsal view (1) (Whitlock et al., 2010; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C299. Frontal, contribution to margin of supratemporal fenestra: present (0); absent, frontal excluded from anterior margin of fenestra by a postorbital-parietal contact (1) (Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C300. External nares, position: retracted to level of orbit, facing laterally (0); retracted to position between orbits, facing dorsally or dorsolaterally (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995; Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C301. Lateral temporal fenestra, shape in lateral view: taller than wide anteroposteriorly and subtriangular (anteroposteriorly broader ventral margin and narrower dorsal apex) (0); linear, slit-like, crescentic (longer anteroposteriorly than high dorsoventrally) (1) (Harris, 2006b; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C302. Postorbital, posterior (squamosal) process: present as a distinct process (0); absent (1) (Wilson, 2002, 2005b).</p>
            <p>C303. Parietal, relative height of suture with frontal: lies level with or above the dorsal surfaces of the frontals and parietals (0); lies below the dorsal surfaces of the parietals and frontals (i.e. in a deep transverse trough) (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C304. Parietal, elevation of anterior margin creates a step-like curving crest transversely, where the parietal meets the frontal: absent (0); present (1) (Curry Rogers &amp; Forster, 2004; Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C305. Pterygoid, morphology: robust element (0); plate-like, with its three processes coplanar (1) (Curry Rogers &amp; Forster, 2004; Wilson, 2005a; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C306. Pterygoid, sutural contact with ectopterygoid: anteroposteriorly elongate, along the medial or lateral surface (0); anteroposteriorly short, restricted to the anterior tip of the pterygoid (1) (Zaher et al., 2011; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C307. Pterygoid, palatobasal contact for basipterygoid articulation with a convex, rocker-like articular surface: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C308. Supraoccipital, longitudinal groove along posterodorsal surface: absent (0); present (i.e. sagittal crest divided into two subparallel parasagittal crests with central groove) (1) (Curry Rogers &amp; Forster, 2004; Curry Rogers, 2005; González Riga et al., 2009).</p>
            <p>C309. Supraoccipital-exoccipital-opisthotic, paired facets for articulation with the proatlas: absent (0); present (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C310. Parasphenoid rostrum, cross-sectional shape: triangular (0); transversely thin, sheet-like (1) (Berman &amp; McIntosh, 1978; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Tschopp et al., 2015a; Poropat et al., 2016)</p>
            <p>C311. Basipterygoid processes, shape: widely diverging at 30° or more (0); narrowly diverging at less than 30° (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C312. Basipterygoid processes, orientation in lateral view: directed 80° or more to skull roof (normally perpendicular) (0); angled less than 80° to skull roof (anteroventrally directed) (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Wilson, 2002; Whitlock, 2011a; Mannion et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C313. Basioccipital, orientation of occipital condyle relative to the horizontal plane (in lateral view with supraoccipital held in a vertical plane): 60° or less (0); greater than 60° (typically close to 90°) (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998).</p>
            <p>C314. Basal tubera, angle of divergence in posterior view: less than 50° (0); more than or equal to 50° (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C315. Basisphenoid, relative position of the external opening for cranial nerve VI: lies ventral, and generally close, to the opening for cranial nerve III (0); lies anteroventral to, and more distant from, the opening for cranial nerve III (1) (Remes, 2009; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C316. Basisphenoid, opening for cranial nerve VI: penetrates the pituitary fossa (0); does not penetrate the pituitary fossa (1) (Paulina Carabajal, 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C317. Basioccipital+exoccipital-opisthotic, number of exits for cranial nerve XII: 2 (0); 1 (1) (Paulina Carabajal, 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C318. Basisphenoid, position of the external foramen of the internal carotid artery: lateral to basipterygoid process (0); medial to basipterygoid process (1) (Paulina Carabajal, 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C319. Dentary, angle between the long-axis of the anterior margin (mandibular symphysis) and the long-axis of the main body of the dentary, in lateral view: greater than 90°, with the dorsal margin of the dentary extending further anteriorly than the ventral margin (0); approximately 90°, with the dorsal and ventral margins extending an equal distance anteriorly (1) (Salgado &amp; Calvo, 1997; Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C320. Tooth crowns, longitudinal groove paralleling mesial and distal margins on the labial surface: labial grooves present (0); absent (1) (Upchurch, 1995; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C321. Atlantal intercentrum, ventral margin of posterior surface: straight or convex (0); concave, forming ventrolateral projections (1) (González Riga &amp; Ortíz David, 2014; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C322. Axis, aEI [average elongation index: anteroposterior length of centrum (excluding articular ball if present) divided by mean average value of the mediolateral width and dorsoventral height of posterior articular surface of centrum]: 2.0 or greater (0); less than 2.0 (1) (Upchurch et al., 2007; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C323. Postaxial cervical centra, pneumatization of lateral surface: lateral pneumatic opening occupies approximately anterior two-thirds of centrum or more (0); reduced and restricted to less than the anterior two-thirds of the centrum (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C324. Postaxial cervical centra, midline notch on the dorsal margin of the posterior articular surface: absent (0); present (1) (Carballido et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C325. Postaxial anterior cervical vertebrae, prezygapophyses: extend anterior to the anterior tip of the condyle (0); terminate level with or posterior to the anterior tip of the condyle (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005, 2009; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C326. Postaxial anterior cervical neural spines, orientation of posterior margin in lateral view: dorsal (vertical) or anterodorsal (0); posterodorsal (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005).</p>
            <p>C327. Middle cervical neural spines, height to arch height ratio: 2.0 or lower (0); greater than 2.0 (1) (Rauhut et al., 2005; Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C328. Posterior (usually just the posterior-most) cervical neural arches, postzygapophyses: terminate at or beyond the posterior edge of the centrum (0); terminate in front of the posterior edge of the centrum (1) (Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C329. Posterior cervical neural spines, horizontal, rugose ridge immediately below spine summit on lateral surface: absent, spinodiapophyseal fossa fades out gradually dorsally (0); present, serves as distinct dorsal edge of the spinodiapophyseal fossa (1) (Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013).</p>
            <p>C330. Posteriormost cervical and anteriormost dorsal neural spines, shape in anterior/posterior view: taper dorsally, or mediolateral width remains constant along length (0); expand dorsally, with a strongly convex dorsal margin (‘paddle-shaped’) (1) (González Riga, 2005; D’Emic, 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C331. Cervical ribs, dorsal surface of proximal portion of shaft: excavated, forming a longitudinal groove (0); unexcavated (1) (Poropat et al., 2015a, 2016).</p>
            <p>C332. Anterior dorsal centra, ventral keel on midline: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C333. Middle–posterior dorsal centra, ventral surface: flat or transversely convex (0); transversely concave, between ventrolateral ridges (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C334. Middle–posterior dorsal centra, lateral pneumatic foramina divided by internal ridge/s: absent (0); present (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C335. Anterior dorsal neural arches, shape of anterior neural canal opening: height greater than or equal to width (0); height is less than width (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C336. Anterior–middle dorsal neural arches, vertical midline ridge (‘median infrapostzygapophyseal lamina’) extending from roof of neural canal to ventral midpoint of postzygapophyses/intrapostzygapophyseal lamina (TPOL): absent (0); present (1) (González Riga, 2003; Curry Rogers, 2005, 2009; Gallina, 2011; Gallina &amp; Apesteguía, 2011).</p>
            <p>C337. Anterior–middle dorsal neural arches, zygapophyseal articulation angle: between horizontal and less than 40° to the horizontal (0); strongly dorsomedially oriented (40° or more) (1) (Carballido et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C338. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, neural canal in anterior view: entirely surrounded by the neural arch (0); enclosed in a deep fossa in the dorsal surface of the centrum (i.e. much of the canal is enclosed laterally by pedicels that are part of the centrum rather than the neural arch) (1) (Carballido et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C339. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, position of parapophysis: posterior to the vertical plane defined by the anterior margin of the centrum (excluding any convex articular condyle) (0); level with, or anterior to, the vertical plane defined by the margin of the centrum (excluding any convex articular condyle) (1) (Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013).</p>
            <p>C340. Middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, anterior centradiapophyseal lamina (ACDL): absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C341. Posterior dorsal neural arches, zygapophyseal articulation angle relative to horizontal line: less than 30°, usually close to horizontal (0); steeply oriented, 30° or greater (1) (Carballido et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C342. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines (single, not bifid), SPRLs: remain separate or converge at about spine midheight (or above) to form a dorsally restricted median composite lamina (SPRF well-developed and occupies the ventral half of the anterior spine surface) (0); SPRLs, if present, are short and merge into the PRSL close to the base of the spine (the PRSL may extend between the bases of the SPRLs to the top of the TPRL) (1) (Upchurch, 1995; Whitlock, 2011a; Carballido et al., 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C343. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, postspinal lamina: does not extend ventral to the neural spine (0); extends ventral to the neural spine, beyond the postzygapophyseal articular surfaces (1) (Poropat et al., 2016; note that only taxa scored as ‘0’ for C169 are scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C344. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, anterior spinodiapophyseal lamina (aSPDL): absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Poropat et al., 2016; note that the presence of an aSPDL can only be confirmed when a pSPDL is also present).</p>
            <p>C345. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, SPDL bifurcates at its dorsal end to create a SPDL-F: absent (0); present (1) (Poropat et al., 2016; note that this refers to a bifurcation of the posterior SPDL when there are two SPDLs, rather than just the presence of an aSPDL and pSPDL).</p>
            <p>C346. Sacrum, ratio of mediolateral width across sacral vertebrae and ribs (taken at midlength on the coossified sacrum) to average length of a sacral centrum: less than 4.0 (0); 4.0 or higher (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C347. Sacral centra, ratio of mediolateral width of middle sacral centra to first and last sacral centra: approximately constant, ratio less than 1.3 (0); 1.3 or greater (1) (Salgado et al., 2005; D’Emic &amp; Wilson, 2011; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C348. Sacral neural spines, all fused, forming a dorsal ‘platform’: absent (0); present (1) (Martínez et al., 2004; Poropat et al., 2016; revised here so that only taxa with the derived state for C174 are scored).</p>
            <p>C349. First caudal centrum, anterior articular face shape: flat or concave (0); convex (1) (Wilson, 2002; Whitlock, 2011a; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C350. Anterior–middle caudal centra (excluding Cd1), comparison of anterior and posterior articular faces of amphicoelous centra: anterior face more concave than posterior one, or these two faces are equally concave (0); posterior face more deeply concave than anterior face (1) (González Riga et al., 2009; Carballido et al., 2012; D’Emic et al., 2013; Poropat et al., 2016; revised here to only score for taxa with at least some amphicoelous caudal centra in the anterior–middle caudal sequence).</p>
            <p>C351. Middle caudal centra with convex posterior articular surface, condyle dorsally displaced: absent (0); present (1) (González Riga, 2003; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C352. Anteriormost caudal neural arches, prezygapophyses curve downwards (‘droop’) at their distal ends: absent (0); present (1) (Santucci &amp; Arruda-Campos, 2011).</p>
            <p>C353. Anterior caudal neural spines, anterior expansion of lower portion of spinoprezygapophyseal lamina (SPRL): absent (0); present (‘SPRL-process’) (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Mannion et al., 2012; note that this is best observed in lateral view).</p>
            <p>C354. First caudal rib, subtriangular process projects posteriorly at approximately midlength: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C355. Anteriormost caudal ribs, tubercle on dorsal surface at approximately midlength: absent (0); present (1) (Kellner et al., 2005; D’Emic et al., 2013; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C356. Anterior–middle chevrons, articular facet surface: flat or anteroposteriorly convex (0); divided into anterior and posterior facets by a furrow (1) (Powell, 1987, 2003; Santucci &amp; Arruda-Campos, 2011; D’Emic, 2012).</p>
            <p>C357. Anterior–middle chevrons, posteroventrally directed ridge or bulge on lateral surface of distal half of proximal ramus: absent (0); present (1) (Santucci &amp; Arruda-Campos, 2011; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C358. Scapula, ventrolateral margin of acromion, anteroposteriorly concave region posterior to glenoid, followed by a flattened area: absent (0); present (1) (Poropat et al., 2015a, 2016).</p>
            <p>C359. Scapular blade, ridge on medial surface, close to junction with acromial plate and near dorsal margin: absent (0); present (1) (Sanz et al., 1999; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C360. Scapular blade, orientation of blade long-axis with respect to coracoid articulation: more than 70° (usually approximately perpendicular) (0); 70° or less (1) (Wilson, 2002; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C361. Coracoid, glenoid: does not expand strongly laterally relative to the lateral surface of the coracoid (0); expands prominently laterally and curves dorsolaterally so that part of the glenoid articular surface can be seen in lateral view (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C362. Sternal plate, shape of posterior margin in dorsal/ventral view: convex (0); straight (1) (González Riga, 2003; González Riga et al., 2009).</p>
            <p>C363. Sternal plate, anteroposteriorly directed ridge on ventral surface, at the anterior end: absent (0); present (1) (Sanz et al., 1999; Upchurch et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C364. Humerus, proximal margin in anterior/posterior view: straight or convex (0); sinuous, as a result of a prominently developed process (attachment site for M. supracoracoideus) on the lateral margin of the proximal end (1) (Upchurch, 1998; González Riga, 2003; González Riga et al., 2009; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C365. Humerus, proximal end: expands laterally relative to the shaft, giving the humerus an hourglass outline in anterior view (0); asymmetrical, with no expansion of lateral margin relative to shaft (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C366. Humerus, humeral head forms a prominent subcircular process on the posterior surface of the proximal end: absent (0); present (1) (Bonaparte et al., 2006; Upchurch et al., 2015; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C367. Humerus, prominent vertical ridge extends along the lateral margin of the posterior surface, from the proximolateral corner to approximately the level of the deltopectoral crest (this ridge defines the lateral margin of the lateral triceps fossa and causes this fossa to be much deeper than the medial one): absent (0); present (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C368. Humerus, tuberosity for attachment of the M. coracobrachialis on the anterior surface of the proximal third: absent (0); present (1) (Powell, 2003; Harris, 2007; Otero, 2010; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C369. Humerus, deltopectoral crest, mediolateral thickness of anterior attachment surface: approximately constant along length (0); distal half mediolaterally expanded relative to proximal half (often doubling in thickness) (1) (Wilson, 2002; Poropat et al., 2016; note that the anterior attachment surface of taxa with a medially deflected deltopectoral crest faces primarily medially).</p>
            <p>C370. Humerus, ratio of maximum mediolateral width of distal end to proximodistal length: 0.30 or greater (0); less than 0.30 (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C371. Radius, bevelling of distal end relative to long-axis of shaft: restricted to lateral half (0); extends across the entire distal end (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C372. Ulna, angle between long-axes of anteromedial and anterolateral processes in proximal end view: 80° or greater (usually approximately a right-angle) (0); less than 80° (acute) (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C373. Metacarpals, longest metacarpal to radius proximodistal length ratio: less than 0.50 (0); 0.50 or greater (1) (Poropat et al., 2016; revised here so that only taxa scored as a ‘1’ for C52 are scored).</p>
            <p>C374. Metacarpals, metacarpal II, ratio of minimum transverse width of shaft to metacarpal length: 0.2 or higher (0); less than 0.2 (1) (Sekiya, 2011).</p>
            <p>C375. Metacarpals, metacarpal III: longest metacarpal (0); shorter than at least one other metacarpal (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C376. Metacarpals, metacarpal IV, distal end profile: subrectangular (0); possesses small pointed lateral and medial projections such that the dorsal margin is longer than the ventral margin, producing a dorsoventrally compressed hexagonal or trapezoidal outline (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C377. Metacarpals, metacarpal V, ratio of proximal end long-axis diameter to that of metacarpal I: less than 1.0 (0); 1.0 or greater (1) (D’Emic, 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C378. Metacarpals, metacarpal V, ratio of proximal end long-axis diameter to that of metacarpal IV: equal or smaller (0); larger than that for metacarpal IV (1) (Poropat et al., 2015b, 2016).</p>
            <p>C379. Metacarpals, metacarpal V with a medially biased flange-like swelling along proximal half of ventral surface: absent (0); present (1) (Apesteguía, 2005a; Mannion &amp; Calvo, 2011; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C380. Ilium, ratio of dorsoventral height of iliac blade above pubic peduncle to anteroposterior length of ilium: less than 0.35 (0); 0.35 or greater (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C381. Ilium, projected line (chord) connecting articular surfaces of ischiadic and pubic processes: passes ventral to ventral margin of postacetabular portion of ilium (0); passes through or dorsal to ventral edge of postacetabular portion of ilium (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C382. Ilium, orientation of the pubic peduncle with respect to the long axis of the ilium: anteriorly deflected (0); perpendicular (1) (Salgado et al., 1997).</p>
            <p>C383. Ilium, protuberance on the lateral surface of the ischiadic articulation: absent (0); present (1) (Borsuk-Białynicka, 1977; Poropat et al., 2015a, 2016).</p>
            <p>C384. Pubis, proximodistally oriented ridge on lateral surface of blade, separated from the anterior margin of the pubis by a longitudinal groove: absent (0) present (1) (Powell, 2003; Salgado and Carvalho, 2008; Otero, 2010; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C385. Pubis, distal end transversely expanded along lateral surface relative to shaft: present (0); absent (laminar distal blade) (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C386. Ischium, iliac articular surface, anteroposterior length to mediolateral width ratio: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C387. Ischium, ridge (for attachment of M. flexor tibialis internus III) on lateral surface of the lower part of the proximal plate/proximal portion of shaft, close to the posterior/dorsal margin of ischium: associated with parallel groove, posterior/dorsal to ridge (0); groove absent (1) (Sereno et al., 2007; D’Emic, 2012; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C388. Femur, femoral head, projection: directed medially (0); directed dorsomedially (1) (Upchurch et al., 2004; Curry Rogers, 2005; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C389. Femur, ratio of mediolateral breadth of tibial condyle to breadth of fibular condyle: greater than 0.8 (0); 0.8 or less (1) (Wilson, 2002; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C390. Femur, shape of distal condyles: articular surface restricted to distal portion of femur (0); expanded onto anterior portion of femoral shaft (1) (Wilson &amp; Carrano, 1999; Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C391. Tibia to femur length ratio: less than 0.6 (0); 0.6 or greater (1) (Gauthier, 1986; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C392. Fibula, articular surface of lateral trochanter: not visible in anterior view (0); visible in anterior view (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C393. Fibula, distal end mediolateral width to anteroposterior width ratio: 0.8 or less (0); greater than 0.8 (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C394. Fibula, distal end profile: elliptical or semicircular (with a straight medial margin) (0); subtriangular (with a rounded or sharper apex projecting laterally or anterolaterally where flattened anterolateral and posterolateral margins meet) (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C395. Metatarsals, metatarsal V, proximal end: dorsoventrally expanded relative to shaft, with a domed dorsal margin (0); not expanded relative to shaft (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C396. Metatarsals, metatarsal V, tubercle or ridge on ventral surface, at approximately midlength, equidistant from the medial and lateral margins: absent (0); present (1) (Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C397. Pedal digit I, proximal articular surface of ungual (phalanx I-2): perpendicular to long axis of ungual (0); bevelled so that the proximal articular surface faces proximolaterally and thus lies at a distinct angle to the long axis of the ungual (1) (Wilson &amp; Upchurch, 2009; Poropat et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C398. Basioccipital, fossa on lateral surface, extending from base of occipital condyle to base of basal tubera: absent (0); present (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C399. Basicranium, cranial nerve opening II (optic foramen): single opening (0); medially divided to form two foramina (1) (Sander et al., 2006).</p>
            <p>C400. Surangular, anterior foramen: absent (0); present (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C401. Splenial, position of anterior end relative to mandibular symphysis: posterior to symphysis (0); participates in symphysis (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C402. Teeth, D-shaped crown morphology in labial/lingual view: narrows mesiodistally along its apical third (0); narrows mesiodistally along its apical half, giving it a ‘heart’-shaped outline (1) (Royo-Torres et al., 2006; Mateus et al., 2014; Mannion et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C403. Middle–posterior cervical neural arches, vertical midline lamina [part of the interprezygapophyseal lamina (TPRL)] divides the centroprezygapophyseal fossa (CPRF) into two fossae: absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch &amp; Martin, 2002; Curry Rogers, 2009).</p>
            <p>C404. Middle–posterior cervical neural arches, vertical midline lamina [part of the interpostzygapophyseal lamina (TPOL)] divides the centropostzygapophyseal fossa (CPOF) into two fossae: absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch &amp; Martin, 2002; Curry Rogers, 2009).</p>
            <p>C405. Middle cervical neural spines, lateral fossa at the base of the prezygapophyseal process bounded by SPRL, PRDL and PODL: absent (0); present (1) (Harris, 2006b; Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013).</p>
            <p>C406. Middle and posterior cervical neural spines, lateral surface between PRDL, PODL, SPOL, i.e. the spinodiapophyseal fossa (SDF): has three or more coels separated from each other by low ridges: absent (0) present (1) (Mannion et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C407. Cervical ribs, anterior projection extends beyond anterior margin of centrum (including condyle): present (0); absent (1) (Mannion et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C408. Sacral ribs, Sv2 ribs: emanate solely from Sv2 (0); emanate from Sv2, with a contribution from Sv1 (1) (Mannion et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C409. Anteriormost caudal centra, ACDL: absent, or represented by no more than a faint ridge (0); present, well defined or sheet-like (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C410. Anterior–middle caudal neural arches: spinopostzygapophyseal lamina (SPOL) shape: SPOL grades smoothly toward postzygapophyses (0); SPOL abruptly ends near the anterior margin of the postzygapophyseal facet, and postzygapophyses sharply set off from neural spine, often projecting as distinct processes (1) (D’Emic et al., 2016; note that this feature is usually present in the last few anterior and first few middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C411. Anterior–middle caudal neural arches, anteroposteriorly oriented ridge and fossa (‘shoulder’) between prezygapophyses and postzygapophyses: absent (0); present (1) (D’Emic et al., 2016; note that this feature is usually present in the last few anterior and first few middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C412. Radius, proximal to distal end anteroposterior length ratio: 0.5 or greater (0); less than 0.5 (1) (Mateus et al., 2014; Mannion et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C413. Ulna, vertical groove and ridge structure on posterolateral surface of distal shaft: absent (0); present (1) (Royo-Torres et al., 2006).</p>
            <p>C414. Carpal bones, distal carpal mediolateral width to anteroposterior length ratio: less than 1.4 (0); 1.4 or greater (1) (Royo-Torres et al., 2014; Mannion et al., 2017; note that this is the largest carpal element in those taxa with more than one carpal).</p>
            <p>C415. Metacarpal III, maximum mediolateral width to dorsoventral height of the proximal end ratio: less than 1.3 (0); 1.3 or greater (1) (Mannion et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C416. Tibia, tubercle (‘tuberculum fibularis’) on posterior (internal) face of cnemial crest: absent (0); present (1) (Harris, 2007; Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C417. Posterior cervical neural arches, spinodiapophyseal fossa, at base of lateral surface of neural spine: absent or shallow fossa (0); deep fossa (1) (González Riga, 2005; González Riga et al., 2009, 2018).</p>
            <p>C418. Posterior cervical neural spines, dorsal half laterally expanded as a result of expansion of the lateral lamina (spinodiapophyseal lamina?): absent (0); present (1) (González Riga, 2005; González Riga et al., 2009, 2018; Gallina, 2011; González Riga &amp; Ortiz David, 2014).</p>
            <p> C419. Anteriormost caudal neural spines, medial spinoprezygapophyseal laminae (mSPRLs) merge into the prespinal lamina (PRSL) close to the base of the spine: absent (0); present (1) (Calvo et al., 2008; Carballido et al., 2017; González Riga et al., 2018; note that in  Patagotitan these might be the only SPRLs, whereas  Futalognkosaurus appears to have more typical lateral SPRLs too). </p>
            <p>C420. Metacarpals, metacarpal V, dorsomedial margin of distal third forms a prominent ridge or flange: absent (0); present (1) (González Riga et al., 2018).</p>
            <p>C421. Metatarsals, ratio of metatarsal III to metatarsal I proximodistal length: 1.3 or greater (0); less than 1.3 (1) (González Riga et al., 2016, 2018).</p>
            <p>C422. Metatarsals, ratio of metatarsal III to metatarsal IV proximodistal length: 1.0 or greater (0); less than 1.0 (1) (González Riga et al., 2016, 2018).</p>
            <p>C423. Pedal digit III, number of phalanges: 3 or more (0); 2 or fewer (1) (González Riga et al., 2008, 2016; Nair &amp; Salisbury, 2012).</p>
            <p>C424. Premaxilla, external surface bears anteroventrally orientated vascular grooves originating from an opening in the maxillary contact: absent or faint (0); present and strongly developed (1) (Wilson, 2002; Sereno et al., 2007).</p>
            <p>C425. Subnarial foramen and anterior maxillary foramen, relative position: well distanced from one another (distance equals several subnarial foramen diameters) (0); separated by narrow bony isthmus (distance equals approximately one subnarial foramen diameter) (1) (Wilson, 2002; modified here).</p>
            <p>C426. Jugal, contribution to antorbital fenestra: absent (0); present, but small, bordering less than one-third its perimeter (1); present and large, bordering approximately one-third or more of its perimeter (2) (Wilson, 2002; Carballido et al., 2015; modified here) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C427. Prefrontal, anterior portion of medial margin curves anteromedially to clasp the anterolateral corner of the frontal between itself and the posterior process of the prefrontal: absent (0); present (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C428. Frontals, midline contact (symphysis): patent suture (0); fused in adult individuals (1) (Salgado &amp; Calvo, 1992; Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C429. Frontal, shape of suture with nasal in dorsal view: straight or slightly bowed anteriorly (0); V-shaped, pointing posteriorly (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C430. Frontal, dorsal surface: without paired grooves (0); grooves present, usually facing anterodorsally and extending on to nasal (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; modified here).</p>
            <p>C431. Parietal, suture with exoccipital-opisthotic: linear, gently curved (0); sinuous (two broad subtriangular processes from the parietal invade the exoccipital-opisthotic) (1); suture not visible because of co-ossification (2) (Harris, 2006b; modified here).</p>
            <p>C432. Postparietal foramen: absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C433. Supratemporal fenestra: present, relatively large (0); almost closed or absent (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C434. Quadratojugal, angle between anterior and dorsal processes in lateral view: less than or equal to 90°, so that the quadrate shaft is directed dorsally (0); greater than 90° (usually approaching 130°), so that the quadrate shaft slants posterodorsally (1) (Gauthier, 1986; Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C435. Squamosal, anterior extent: restricted to postorbital region (0); extends well past posterior margin of orbit (1); extends beyond anterior margin of orbit (2) (Whitlock, 2011a) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C436. Squamosal, posteroventral margin: smooth, without ventral projection (0); with prominent, ventrally directed ‘prong’ (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C437. Pterygoid, shape of palatine ramus in lateral view: straight, at level of dorsal margin of quadrate ramus (0); stepped, dorsal margin of the palatine ramus is raised above the level of the dorsal margin of the quadrate ramus (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C438. Supraoccipital, sagittal nuchal crest: diminishes strongly in prominence ventrally, so that it barely reaches the dorsal margin of the foramen magnum (0); prominent throughout its length, so that it reaches the dorsal margin of the foramen magnum as a prominent posterior projection (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; modified here).</p>
            <p>C439. Exoccipital, dorsolateral margin in posterior view, spur of bone curves dorsolaterally and then ventrolaterally to form the dorsomedial margin of the post-temporal fenestra: absent (0); present (1) (Xu et al., 2018).</p>
            <p>C440. Exoccipital, small, deep, horizontally oriented groove immediately lateral to each of the proatlantal facets (where present): absent (0); present (1) (Xu et al., 2018).</p>
            <p>C441. Crista prootica (otosphenoidal ridge), ‘leaf’- like dorsolaterally directed process near the base of the basipterygoid process: absent (0); present (1) (Salgado &amp; Calvo, 1992; Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C442. Basisphenoid, area between the basipterygoid processes and parasphenoid rostrum: is a mildly concave subtriangular region (0); forms a deep slot-like cavity that passes posteriorly between the bases of the basipterygoid processes (1) (Upchurch, 1995, 1998).</p>
            <p>C443. Basal tubera, relative prominence: anteroposterior width is approximately 33%, or more, of dorsoventral height of the tubera (such tubera are distinct projections from the basipterygoid) (0); sheet-like, anteroposterior width is less than 33% (normally around 20%) of the dorsoventral height of the tubera (such tubera are reduced to slight swellings on the ventral surface of the basipterygoid) (1) (Wilson, 2002; Whitlock, 2011a; modified here).</p>
            <p>C444. Basal tubera, shape of posterior face: convex (0); flat or slightly concave (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C445. Basal tubera, long-axes of their free distal tips in ventral view: subparallel to each other and extending transversely with respect to the long-axis of the basicranium (0); long-axis of each tuberal tip directed posteromedially, creating a ‘V’-shape pointing towards the occipital condyle (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C446. Basal tubera, ventrolateral tip of each basal tuber projects anteriorly, giving its free distal surface an ‘L’-shaped profile in ventral view: absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on Royo-Torres et al., 2017a).</p>
            <p>C447. Basisphenoid–quadrate contact: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002, 2005b; only taxa preserving a quadrate and with a raised ventrolateral lip on the posterior surface of the basal tubera are scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C448. Basipterygoid processes, distal end transverse expansion: absent (distal end transverse width is subequal to, or less than, the transverse width at the midlength of the process) (0); expanded (marked and rapid transverse expansion close to the distal end) (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C449. Dentary, anteroventral margin shape in medial/lateral view: gently rounded (0); sharply projecting triangular process or ‘chin’ (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C450. Dentary, depth of anterior end: maintains dorsoventral height anteriorly, or increases only slightly (i.e. ratio of height of dentary at anterior end to height of dentary at midlength is 1.2 or lower) (0); increases in dorsoventral height anteriorly (i.e. ratio of height of dentary at anterior end to height of dentary at midlength is higher than 1.2) (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998; Wilson, 2002; modified here).</p>
            <p>C451. Dentary, tuberosity on labial surface near symphysis: absent (0); present (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C452. Dentary, shape of tooth row in dorsal view: follows curvature of rest of the dentary (0); bows outward relative to rest of the dentary (1) (Whitlock &amp; Harris, 2010; Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C453. Teeth, number of replacement teeth per alveolus: three or fewer (0); four or more (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C454. Tooth crowns, enamel thickness, asymmetric labiolingually: absent (0); present (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C455. Atlantal intercentrum, foramen on ventral surface, close to the posterior margin (between the posterior ventrolateral processes): absent (0); present (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C456. Postaxial cervical centra, ridge dividing lateral pneumatic foramen: not confluent with lateral surface of remainder of centrum (0); confluent with lateral surface of remainder of centrum, dorsal and ventral to foramen (1) (new character: based on Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C457. Postaxial cervical centra, small fossa on posteroventral corner of lateral surface: absent (0); shallow, anteroposteriorly elongate fossa present, posteroventral to main lateral pneumatic opening (1) (Whitlock, 2011b; Tschopp &amp; Mateus, 2013).</p>
            <p>C458. Anterior cervical centra, paired pneumatic fossae on anterior part of ventral surface: absent (0); present (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C459. Anterior cervical (unbifurcated) neural spines, prespinal lamina: absent (0); present (1) (Curry Rogers, 2005; polarity reversed here).</p>
            <p>C460. Middle cervical neural spines, orientation of anterior margin in lateral view: vertical or sloping posterodorsally (0); anteriorly inclined (1) (Rauhut et al., 2005).</p>
            <p>C461. Middle cervical neural spines, angle between PODL and SPOL in lateral view: acute, less than 85º (usually close to 45º) (0); 85º or more (usually 90º) (1) (Rauhut et al., 2005; Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C462. Posterior cervical neural spines, sharp-lipped dorsoventrally elongate coel on lateral surface, located in anterior part of SDF: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C463. Posterior cervical and/or anterior dorsal bifid neural spines, morphology of metapophyses in anterior view: widely diverging (0); narrow, parallel to converging (1) (Rauhut et al., 2005).</p>
            <p>C464. Cervical ribs, distal blade: single (0); bifurcates into dorsal and ventral processes (1) (new character: based on: Royo-Torres et al., 2006; Britt et al., 2017).</p>
            <p>C465. Anterior–middle cervical ribs, tuberculum in lateral view: nearly vertical (0); oriented posterodorsally (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C466. Dorsal centra, anteroposterior length (excluding articular condyle), increases or remains approximately the same along the sequence (0); shortens from anterior to posterior dorsal vertebrae (1) (Mannion et al., 2012; modified here).</p>
            <p>C467. Anteriormost dorsal diapophyses, fossa on anterior surface, close to distal end: absent (0); present (1) [ew character; note that this is a second fossa, lateral to the prezygapophyseal centrodiapophyseal fossa (PRCDF)].</p>
            <p>C468. Anteriormost dorsal neural spines, epipophyses: absent (0); present (1) (new character; note that taxa that lack epipophyses in presacral vertebrae altogether [i.e. that are scored as ‘0’ for C127] are not scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C469. Anteriormost dorsal neural spines, height relative to spinopostzygapophyseal laminae (and epipophyses, where present): project well beyond SPOLs (0); approximately level with SPOLs (1) (new character).</p>
            <p>C470. Dorsal neural spines (excluding anteriormost dorsal vertebrae), ventral portion of spinoprezygapophyseal lamina (SPRL): contacts the prezygapophysis (0); contacts the diapophysis following ‘lamina capture’ (1) (new character: based on Wilson, 2012).</p>
            <p>C471. Dorsal neural spines, spinodiapophyseal webbing: laminae follow curvature of neural spine and diapophysis in anterior view (0); laminae ‘festooned’ from spine, dorsal margin does not closely follow shape of neural spine and diapophysis (1) (Sereno et al., 2007).</p>
            <p>C472. Middle and posterior dorsal neural arches, paired, sharp-lipped fossae within arch fossa, dorsolateral to neural canal and medial to CPRLs/CPOLs: absent (0); present as shallow excavations (1); present and extend anteroposteriorly throughout the neural arch as foramina (2) (Sereno et al., 2007; Whitlock 2011a; Tschopp et al., 2015a; Wilson &amp; Allain, 2015; modified here) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C473. Middle and posterior dorsal neural arches, centroprezygapophyseal lamina (CPRL): single, undivided (0); bifurcates (or excavated) toward upper end, forming a centroprezygapophyseal lamina fossa [CPRL-F (‘anterior infrazygapophyseal fossa’)] (1) (Upchurch, 1995; Curry Rogers, 2005; D’Emic et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C474. Middle and posterior dorsal neural arches, shape of centropostzygapophyseal lamina (CPOL): single (0); divided, left and right medial CPOLs uniting beneath hyposphene, lateral CPOLs extending towards the anterior part of each postzygapophysis and/or merging into the posterior face of the PCDL (1) (Wilson, 2002; modified here).</p>
            <p>C475. Middle and posterior dorsal neural arches, morphology of prezygapophyses: separated from each other by a gap or TPRL on the midline (0); confluent (1) (new character: based on: Apesteguía et al., 2010; Wilson &amp; Allain, 2015).</p>
            <p>C476. Middle and posterior dorsal neural arches, prezygoparapophyseal lamina (PRPL): absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C477. Posterior dorsal neural arches, parapophysis position: ventral to or level with the prezygapophysis (0); dorsal to the prezygapophysis (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C478. Posterior dorsal neural arches, accessory lamina in POCDF linking hyposphene to PCDL: absent (0); present (1) (Mannion et al., 2012; Tschopp et al., 2015a; taxa that lack a hyposphene are scored with state ‘?’).</p>
            <p>C479. Middle–posterior dorsal transverse processes, anterior surface excavated by a mediolaterally elongate, channel-like fossa or fenestra (laterodiapophyseal fossa): absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on Ibiricu et al., 2013).</p>
            <p>C480. Middle–posterior dorsal neural spines, shape in anterior/posterior view: rectangular through most of length (0); ‘petal’-shaped, expanding transversely through 75% of its length and then tapering (1) (Calvo &amp; Salgado, 1995; Upchurch, 1998; Whitlock, 2011a; Mannion et al., 2012; taxa that lack dorsal vertebrae but that have this morphology in the sacral/anteriormost caudal vertebrae are also scored with the derived state).</p>
            <p>C481. Middle and posterior dorsal neural spines, accessory lamina on lateral surface, extending posterodorsally from the spinoprezygapophyseal lamina to the spinopostzygapophyseal lamina: absent (0); present (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C482. Middle and posterior dorsal neural spines, divided SPOL: bifurcates a short distance above the postzygapophysis (0); divided into lateral and medial branches throughout its length (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; modified here so that only taxa with a divided SPOL are scored).</p>
            <p>C483. Middle and posterior dorsal neural spines, lateral spinopostzygapophyseal lamina (lSPOL): extends to posterolateral margin of spine (0); does not reach lateral margin of the spine, because it fades out on the posterior surface or extends dorsomedially to contact the postspinal lamina (i.e. forms a second medial SPOL) (1) (new character: based on Wilson et al., 2011; note that if only a single undivided SPOL is present, then the state score is determined on the basis of whether this extends to the posterolateral margin of the spine or not).</p>
            <p>C484. Middle and posterior dorsal neural spines, spinoparapophyseal lamina (SPPL): absent (0); present (1) (Wilson &amp; Allain, 2015).</p>
            <p>C485. Posterior dorsal neural spines, ratio of mediolateral width to anteroposterior length (at base): less than 1.0 (longer than wide) (0); 1.0 or greater (wider than long) (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C486. Posterior dorsal and/or sacral neural spines, dorsoventral height to centrum length ratio: 2.0 or greater (0); less than 2.0 (2) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson, 2002; polarity reversed here).</p>
            <p>C487. Thoracic ribs, area between capitulum and tuberculum, on the posterior surface at the base of the rib head: flat (0); oblique ridge connects the medial and lateral edges (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C488. Sacral neural spines, lateral surface anterior and posterior to SPDL: unbroken bone surface (0); excavated by numerous foramina (1) (new character: based on Wilson &amp; Allain, 2015).</p>
            <p>C489. Anterior caudal centra, anteroposterior length: subequal along first 20 vertebrae (0); increasing in length by a factor of 1.5 or greater over first 20 vertebrae (1) (Upchurch, 1998).</p>
            <p>C490. Anteriormost caudal centra, anterior centrodiapophyseal lamina (ACDL): single (0); divided (1) (Wilson, 2002; only taxa with an ACDL are scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C491. Anteriormost caudal neural arches, postzygodiapophyseal lamina (PODL): absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on Wilson, 2002).</p>
            <p>C492. Anteriormost caudal neural arches, centroprezygapophyseal fossa (CPRF) between dorsal margin of anterior neural canal opening and below interprezygapophyseal lamina (TRPL): absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on Remes, 2006).</p>
            <p>C493. Anterior caudal neural arches, prezygapophyseal midline ‘boss’ ventral to prezygapophyses: absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on Mannion et al., 2011).</p>
            <p>C494. Anterior caudal neural spines, shape: single (0); slightly bifurcate (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C495. Anterior caudal neural spines, dorsal margin in lateral view: flat or convex (0); concave (1) (new character).</p>
            <p>C496. Anterior caudal neural spines, SPRL: absent, or restricted to the anterolateral margin of the spine (0); present, extending onto lateral aspect of neural spine (1) (Wilson, 2002; Mannion et al., 2012; modified here).</p>
            <p>C497. Anterior caudal neural spines, lateral lamina: absent (0); present (1) (Wilson, 1999).</p>
            <p>C498. Anterior caudal neural spines, lateral margin of lateral lamina: retains the same anteroposterior width along its length (0); expands anteroposteriorly towards its dorsal end (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C499. Anterior caudal neural spines, elliptical depression between lateral lamina and spinopostzyapophyseal/postspinal lamina on lateral neural spine: absent (0); present (1) (Sereno et al., 2007; Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C500. Anterior caudal neural spines, triangular lateral processes: absent (0); present (1) (Sereno et al., 2007).</p>
            <p>C501. Anteriormost caudal ribs (excluding the first), distal tip ventrally deflected, such that the ventral margin of the caudal rib is strongly concave in anterior/posterior view: absent (0); present (1) (Gallina et al., 2014; modified here).</p>
            <p>C502. Anteriormost caudal ribs, orientation of ventral surface in anterior/posterior view: lateral (less than 30º to the horizontal plane) (0); dorsolateral (at 30° or more to the horizontal plane, typically 40–50°) (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; modified here; note that this is based on the entire length of the rib, rather than just the medial portion).</p>
            <p>C503. Anteriormost caudal ribs, anterior surface: unexcavated (0); excavated, forming a sharp-lipped fossa or foramen (1) (new character: based on Mannion et al., 2011).</p>
            <p>C504. Anteriormost caudal ribs, excavated anterior surface internally subdivided by subvertical ridges: absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on Mannion et al., 2011).</p>
            <p>C505. Anterior caudal ribs, position: situated on the centrum and arch (0); restricted to the neural arch and dorsal margin of centrum (1) (new character: based on Mannion et al., 2011).</p>
            <p>C506. Middle caudal centra, ventral longitudinal hollow: absent (0); present (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Wilson, 2002; revised here to separate anterior and middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C507. Middle caudal centra, distinct ventrolateral ridges, extending the full length of the centrum: absent (0); present (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; Upchurch et al., 2004; Mannion et al., 2013; revised here to separate anterior and middle caudal vertebrae).</p>
            <p>C508. Middle caudal centra, articular surface shape: cylindrical (ventral and lateral surfaces merge smoothly into each other) (0); subtriangular, with transversely wide ventral margin (1) (Wilson, 2002; Gallina &amp; Apesteguía, 2005; Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C509. Middle caudal centra, lateral pneumatic openings: absent or present as shallow fossa (0); present, with sharply defined margins (1) (Gallina et al., 2014; modified here).</p>
            <p>C510. Scapula, anteroposterior length of acromion to total scapula length ratio: less than 0.4 (0); 0.4 to &lt;0.5 (1); 0.5 or greater (2) (Gallina &amp; Apesteguía, 2005; modified here) [ordered].</p>
            <p>C511. Scapula, posteriorly directed hook-like acromion process, separated from the remaining dorsal margin of the acromion by a concavity: absent (0); present (1) (Gallina &amp; Apesteguía, 2005; Mannion, 2009).</p>
            <p>C512. Scapula, acromial ridge: absent, or only very weakly developed (0); present and well-developed, so that a clear ridge is present and defines the posterior margin of a distinct fossa on the lateral surface of the acromion (1) (Upchurch, 1995; modified here).</p>
            <p>C513. Scapula, bulge-like muscle scar on medial surface, at approximately midheight, just distal to the junction between the acromion and scapular blade: absent (0); present (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; modified here).</p>
            <p>C514. Scapula, ratio of anteroposterior length to minimum blade dorsoventral height: 5.5 or higher (0); less than 5.5 (1) (Carballido et al., 2012; modified and polarity reversed here).</p>
            <p>C515. Scapula, highest point of the dorsal margin of the blade: lower than the dorsal margin of the proximal end (0); at the same height as the dorsal margin of the proximal end or higher (1) (new character: based on Mannion, 2009; Carballido et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C516. Humerus, angle between long-axes of proximal and distal articular surfaces: 30° or less (proximal and distal end long-axes lie in approximately the same plane) (0); twisted through an angle of 30° or more (usually more than 40°) (1) (Gilmore, 1932; Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C517. Humerus, distal condyles: extend the same distance distally, or lateral distal condyle extends further distally than medial distal condyle (0); distal end bevelled as a result of the medial distal condyle extending further distally than the lateral condyle (1) (new character).</p>
            <p>C518. Humerus, lateral margin in distal view: deflected such that it faces entirely posterolaterally (0); flat (facing laterally) or convex (1) [new character; the anterior margin (excluding condyles) should be orientated horizontally when scoring this character].</p>
            <p>C519. Manual phalanx I-1, lapet-like projection from proximodorsal margin, overhanging proximal articular surface: present (0); absent (1) (new character).</p>
            <p>C520. Ilium, profile of dorsal margin in lateral view: gently convex, with a nearly straight portion centrally (0); strongly convex throughout its length, following an arc of a circle (1) (Wilson, 2002; Tschopp et al., 2015a; modified here).</p>
            <p>C521. Pubis, proximal surface and proximal third of anterior margin, in lateral view: meet at an acute angle (0); meet at a right angle (1) (new character).</p>
            <p>C522. Pubis, development of ambiens process: absent or small and confluent with anterior margin of pubis (0); prominent, projecting anteriorly (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1998; modified here).</p>
            <p>C523. Pubis, ambiens process ventral (distal) surface in lateral view: flat or convex (0) concave so that the ambiens process is ‘hooked’ (1) (McIntosh, 1990; Upchurch, 1995, 1998; only taxa with a well-developed ambiens process scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C524. Pubis, obturator foramen: entirely ringed by bone (0); open posteriorly (1) (new character: based on Carballido et al., 2012; note that taxa are only scored with the derived state when the individual is an adult).</p>
            <p>C525. Pubis, distal end, expands anteriorly and posteriorly (approximately equally): absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on Salgado et al., 2004).</p>
            <p>C526. Ischium, iliac peduncle in lateral view: straight or widening in smooth curve distally (0); narrow, with distinct ‘neck’ (1) (Sereno et al., 2007).</p>
            <p>C527. Ischium, acetabular articular surface: maintains approximately the same transverse width throughout its length (0); transversely narrower in its central portion and strongly expanded as it approaches the iliac and pubic articulations (1) (Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C528. Ischium, angle formed between the long axis of the shaft and the acetabular line (i.e. the straight line from the anterodorsal corners of the iliac and pubic peduncles) in lateral view: 80° or greater (0) acute, less than 80° (typically less than 70°) (1) (Carballido et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C529. Ischium, dorsoventral height of pubic articulation: less than or equal to the anteroposterior length of the proximal plate (0); greater than the anteroposterior length of the proximal plate (1) (Salgado et al., 1997; Carballido et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C530. Ischium, ridge (for attachment of M. flexor tibialis internus III) on lateral surface of the lower part of the proximal plate/proximal portion of shaft, close to the posterior/dorsal margin of ischium: transversely rounded throughout its length (0); thin and sharp (1) (Sereno et al., 2007; modified here).</p>
            <p>C531. Ischium, ventral margin of proximal plate in lateral view: flat along its length (0); has a ventral, subtriangular projection at its anterior end (1) (new character; only taxa whose ischia are emarginate distal to the pubic articulation are scored for this character).</p>
            <p>C532. Ischium, shape of distal shaft in transverse cross-section: triangular, depth of ischial shaft increases medially (0); blade-like, medial and lateral depths subequal (1) (Wilson, 2002; polarity reversed here).</p>
            <p>C533. Ischium, morphology of conjoined distal ends: ‘V’-shaped, forming an angle of 90° or less (usually approximately 50°) with each other (0); forming an angle of more than 90° (typically flat, nearly coplanar) (1) (Upchurch, 1998; Wilson &amp; Sereno, 1998).</p>
            <p>C534. Femur, fourth trochanter: present as low rounded ridge (0); greatly reduced so that it is virtually absent (1) (Mannion et al., 2012).</p>
            <p>C535. Femur, ratio of greatest anteroposterior thickness of shaft (excluding any contribution from the fourth trochanter) to greatest anteroposterior width across distal end: less than or equal to 0.5 (0); greater than 0.5 (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C536. Tibia, lateral margin of cnemial crest in anterior view: rounded (0); subtriangular, forming a point (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C537. Fibula, distal tip of lateral muscle scar: proximal, located above midshaft (0); located approximately at mid-shaft (1) (Whitlock, 2011a; polarity reversed here).</p>
            <p>C538. Astragalus, fibular articular surface: faces laterally or dorsolaterally (0); faces posterolaterally because its anterior margin projects laterally (1) (Whitlock, 2011a).</p>
            <p>C539. Metatarsals I–III, rugosities on dorsolateral margins near distal ends: absent (0); present (1) (Upchurch, 1995).</p>
            <p>C540. Metatarsal I, tubercle/rugosity on medial surface, situated at approximately midlength and equidistant from dorsal and ventral margins: absent (0); present (1) (new character: based on D’Emic et al., 2016).</p>
            <p>C541. Metatarsal II, distal condyle, ventrolateral projection: absent (0); present (1) (Tschopp et al., 2015a).</p>
            <p>C542. Pedal phalanx I-1, proximal and ventral surfaces: meet at approximately 90° (0); proximoventral corner drawn out into thin plate underlying metatarsal I (1) (McIntosh et al., 1992).</p>
            <p>SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher's web-site.</p>
            <p>File S1. Mesquite file.</p>
            <p>File S2. TNT file.</p>
            <p>File S3. BioGeoBEARS R script.</p>
            <p>File S4. Taxon ages (EWP).</p>
            <p>File S5. Taxon ages (EIW).</p>
            <p>File S6. Time-calibrated tree (EWP).</p>
            <p>File S7. Time-calibrated tree (EIW).</p>
            <p>File S8. Geographic ranges (EWP).</p>
            <p>File S9. Geographic ranges (EIW).</p>
            <p>File S10. Relaxed dispersal multiplier matrix.</p>
            <p>File S11. Harsh dispersal multiplier matrix.</p>
            <p>File S12. Time periods.</p>
            <p>File S13. Ancestral area estimations (EWP relaxed). File S14. Ancestral area estimations (EWP harsh). File S15. Ancestral area estimations (EIW relaxed). File S16. Ancestral area estimations (EIW harsh).</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CC8791DC51C858FF5CFF21FD4BFBFA	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Mannion, Philip D.;Upchurch, Paul;Schwarz, Daniela;Wings, Oliver	Mannion, Philip D., Upchurch, Paul, Schwarz, Daniela, Wings, Oliver (2019): 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 185: 784-909
