See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334272592

An overview of the appendicular skeletal anatomy of South American

titanosaurian sauropods, with definition of a newly recognized clade

Article in Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências · July 2019

DOI: 10.1590/0001-3765201920180374

CITATIONS READS

0 1,414

6 authors, including:

Bernardo Javier Gonzalez Riga Matthew Lamanna

National Scientific and Technical Research Council Carnegie Museum Of Natural History
71 PUBLICATIONS 1,288 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 1,639 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Leo Ortiz Alexander Wilhelm Armin Kellner

National University of Cuyo Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
13 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS 322 PUBLICATIONS 5,000 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pterosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of Argentina: Phylogeny and taphonomy View project

Fauna and flora of the mid-Cretaceous Winton Formation, central-western Queensland View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bernardo Javier Gonzalez Riga on 06 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2019) 91(Suppl. 2): e20180374
(Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences)
Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201920180374
www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal

An overview of the appendicular skeletal anatomy of South American

titanosaurian sauropods, with definition of a newly recognized clade

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA1, MATTHEW C. LAMANNA2, ALEJANDRO OTERO3,

LEONARDO D. ORTIZ DAVID1, ALEXANDER W.A. KELLNER4 and LUCIO M. IBIRICU5

1
CONICET/Laboratorio y Museo de Dinosaurios, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional
de Cuyo, Padre Contreras 1300, Parque Gral. San Martin, Mendoza Capital 5500, Mendoza, Argentina
2
Section of Vertebrate Paleontology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400
Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, U.S.A.
3
CONICET, División Paleontología de Vertebrados, Museo de La Plata, Paseo del Bosque, s/n, La Plata, B1900FWA, Argentina
4
Laboratório de Systemática e Tafonomia de Vertebrados Fósseis, Departamento de Geologia e Paleontologia, Museu Nacional,
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Quinta da Boa Vista, São Cristóvão, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
5
Instituto Patagónico de Geología y Paleontología (IPGP–CONICET), Boulevard
Almirante Brown, 2915, Puerto Madryn, 9120, Chubut, Argentina

Manuscript received on April 18, 2018; accepted for publication on January 28, 2019

How to cite: GONZÁLEZ RIGA BJ, LAMANNA MC, OTERO A, ORTIZ DAVID LD, KELLNER AWA AND
IBIRICU LM. 2019. An overview of the appendicular skeletal anatomy of South American titanosaurian sauropods, with
definition of a newly recognized clade. An Acad Bras Cienc 91:e20180374. DOI 10.1590/0001-3765201920180374.

Abstract: In the last two decades, the number of phylogenetically informative anatomical characters
recognized in the appendicular skeleton of titanosaurian sauropod dinosaurs has increased dramatically
with the discovery of new and comparatively complete specimens. Here we provide an overview of
the appendicular skeletal morphology of South American titanosaurs and discuss its significance for
phylogenetic reconstruction. The appendicular skeletal diversity of South American titanosaurs is
substantially greater than was initially appreciated. Moreover, some regions of the appendicular skeleton,
such as the pes, exhibit remarkable variability in form. Multiple synapomorphies of Titanosauria and the
less inclusive clades Lithostrotia and Saltasauridae consist of characters of the girdles and limbs. Although
the phylogenetic definitions of titanosaurian clades such as Saltasaurinae and Lognkosauria are stable, the
taxonomic content of these clades has varied in recent analyses depending on the phylogenetic topology
recovered. Within Titanosauria, the results of four recent, largely independent analyses support the
existence of a derived titanosaurian lineage distinct from the ‘Saltasaurinae line,’ which is herein termed
Colossosauria. At present, this clade is mainly comprised by taxa within Lognkosauria and Rinconsauria,
and is useful in discussions of titanosaurian lower-level relationships.
Key words: Titanosauria, South America, appendicular skeleton, osteology, phylogeny, Colossosauria.

Correspondence to: Bernardo Javier González Riga

E-mail: [email protected]
ORCid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6051-472X
* Contribution to the centenary of the Brazilian Academy of
Sciences.

Earth Sciences An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2)

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

INTRODUCTION singular animals, but such studies have been

hampered by missing data, as the osteology of
Titanosaurian sauropods were the most diverse and
many titanosaurian species is not well understood.
abundant large-bodied terrestrial herbivores in the
Fortunately, this situation is beginning to change
Southern Hemisphere landmasses during the Late
with recent discoveries and descriptions of well-
Cretaceous (Bonaparte and Powell 1980, Calvo
preserved, comparatively complete specimens
and Bonaparte 1991, Bonaparte and Coria 1993,
of taxa such as Tapuiasaurus from the Early
Bonaparte 1996, Jain and Bandyopadhyay 1997,
Cretaceous of Brazil (Zaher et al. 2011, Wilson
Salgado et al. 1997, Curry Rogers and Forster
et al. 2016), Bonitasaura (Apesteguía 2004,
2001, Smith et al. 2001, Powell 2003, Wilson and Gallina 2011, Gallina and Apesteguía 2011,
Upchurch 2003, Upchurch et al. 2004, Curry Rogers 2015), Dreadnoughtus (Lacovara et al. 2014,
2005, Wilson 2006, Hocknull et al. 2009, González Ullmann and Lacovara 2016, Voegele et al.
Riga 2011, Wilson et al. 2011, Curry Rogers and 2017), Epachthosaurus (Martínez et al. 2004),
Wilson 2014, Gorscak et al. 2014, 2017, Lacovara Futalognkosaurus (Calvo et al. 2007a, b),
et al. 2014, Otero and Salgado 2015, Poropat et Mendozasaurus (González Riga 2003, 2005,
al. 2015, 2016, González Riga et al. 2016, 2018, González Riga et al. 2018), Overosaurus (Coria
Gorscak and O’Connor 2016, Carballido et al. 2017, et al. 2013), and Patagotitan (Carballido et al.
Sallam et al. 2018). Fossils of these dinosaurs have 2017) from the mid- and Late Cretaceous of
been discovered on all continents, and titanosaurian Argentina; Rapetosaurus (Curry Rogers and
taxa currently comprise approximately one third of Forster 2001, 2004, Curry Rogers 2009) from the
known sauropod diversity. The number of named latest Cretaceous of Madagascar; Mansourasaurus
titanosaurs has increased dramatically in recent (Sallam et al. 2018), Rukwatitan (Gorscak et al.
years (e.g., Curry Rogers 2005, González Riga 2014), and Shingopana (Gorscak et al. 2017) from
2011, Cerda et al. 2012, D’Emic 2012, Mannion the Late Cretaceous of Africa; Diamantinasaurus
et al. 2013, Lacovara et al. 2014, Wilson et al. (Hocknull et al. 2009, Poropat et al. 2015, 2016)
2016), with roughly 50 valid species presently and Savannasaurus (Poropat et al. 2016) from the
recognized from South America alone (M.C.L. Late Cretaceous of Australia, and Lohuecotitan
pers. obs.). Furthermore, some taxa are regarded (Díez Díaz et al. 2016) from the Late Cretaceous
as the most massive terrestrial animals known to of Europe. Nevertheless, some areas of the
science (Bonaparte and Coria 1993, Smith et al. titanosaurian skeleton remain poorly understood.
2001, Novas et al. 2005, Sander et al. 2011, Calvo For instance, the morphology of the appendicular
2014, Lacovara et al. 2014, González Riga et al. skeleton has been extensively documented
2016, Carballido et al. 2017). Titanosaurs were in only a few taxa, such as Bonitasaura
particularly diverse during the latest Cretaceous, (Apesteguía 2004, Gallina and Apesteguía 2015),
and encompass a taxonomic richness that rivals that Diamantinasaurus (Hocknull et al. 2009, Poropat
of the hadrosaurid and ceratopsid ornithischians et al. 2015), Dreadnoughtus (Lacovara et al. 2014,
that dominated many Northern Hemisphere Ullmann and Lacovara 2016), Epachthosaurus
paleoecosystems at the same time (Mannion et al. (Martínez et al. 2004), Neuquensaurus (Otero
2011, González Riga et al. 2016). 2010), Opisthocoelicaudia (Borsuk-Bialynicka
Anatomical and phylogenetic analyses 1977), Rapetosaurus (Curry Rogers 2009),
of titanosaurs are crucial for deciphering the and Saltasaurus (Powell 1992, 2003). More
evolutionary history and paleobiology of these specifically, the distal forelimb is not well known in

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 2 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

most titanosaurs, and in some taxa, the presence or of these characters constitute synapomorphies of
absence of ossified carpals and manual phalanges is particular titanosaurian clades.
controversial (see, e.g., Apesteguía 2005, Mannion Many aspects of the girdle and limb
and Otero 2012, Poropat et al. 2015). Similarly, morphology of titanosaurs (plus additional taxa
the pes of titanosaurs is poorly known; until within the more inclusive neosauropod clade
recently, complete, articulated pedes were known Macronaria, Wilson and Sereno 1998) have been
only in Epachthosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia. interpreted as being related to the acquisition of
Fortunately, knowledge of titanosaurian pedal wide-gauge posture, where the manus and pedes
osteology has recently been enhanced by the are located at a considerable distance from the
discovery of the giant titanosaur Notocolossus sagittal midline. This interpretation has been
from the Late Cretaceous of Mendoza Province, supported by many Late Cretaceous sauropod
Argentina (González Riga et al. 2016) plus two trackways attributed to derived titanosaurs
other, as-yet unnamed species from Mendoza (the (e.g., Farlow 1992, Lockley et al. 1994, Calvo
‘Agua del Padrillo taxon,’ UNCUYO-LD 313, 1999, Wilson and Carrano 1999, Wilson 2006,
González Riga et al. 2015) and Neuquén (the ‘La González Riga and Calvo 2009). However, several
Invernada taxon,’ MUCPv-1533, González Riga exceptions to this potential correlation between
et al. 2008a) provinces, respectively (Figure 1). appendicular morphology and posture have also
Furthermore, nearly complete pedes are known for been recognized in the ichnological record (e.g.,
a few other titanosaurs as well, such as Bonitasaura Lockley et al. 2002, Stevens et al. 2016), and as
(Gallina and Apesteguía 2015), Mendozasaurus such, it is now customary for well-preserved
(González Riga et al. 2018), Rapetosaurus (Curry trackways to be carefully analyzed, including
Rogers 2009), and possibly Alamosaurus (the studies of gait (e.g., Vila et al. 2008, González Riga
latter based on NMMNH P-49967, a questionably and Tomaselli 2019). Additionally, computer-aided
referred specimen from the Upper Cretaceous of biomechanical studies are casting new light on the
the southwestern U.S.A., D’Emic et al. 2011). stance and locomotion of sauropods in general
The pes is very incompletely known in most other (Klinkhamer et al. 2018).
titanosaurs. Another complex paleobiological aspect of
As noted above, phylogenetic analyses Titanosauria is the gigantism attained by some
of titanosaurs are important as a basis for lineages and its relationship to appendicular
further evolutionary and paleobiogeographic osteology. Wilson and Carrano (1999) and Carrano
interpretations pertaining to this widespread (2005) argued that many appendicular features
sauropod clade (e.g., Upchurch 1995, 1998, seen in titanosaurs and other sauropods—such as
Salgado et al. 1997, Wilson and Sereno 1998, graviportal, columnar limb posture, increased limb
Wilson 2002, Upchurch et al. 2004, Curry bone robusticity, shortened distal limb segments,
Rogers 2005, D’Emic 2012, Mannion et al. and increased femoral midshaft eccentricity—
2013, González Riga et al. 2016, 2018, Gorscak appear intimately related to the acquisition of large
and O’Connor 2016, Poropat et al. 2016, Sallam body size. As in other quadrupedal dinosaurs, the
et al. 2018). Appendicular character states often manus and pes of sauropods exhibit phalangeal
comprise a significant component of the data reduction (Osborn 1904, Coombs 1975, Upchurch
employed in such analyses (e.g., D’Emic 2012, 1995, 1998, Wilson and Sereno 1998). Typically,
Mannion et al. 2013, González Riga et al. 2016, such reduction occurred primarily in terms of length,
Gorscak and O’Connor 2016); moreover, some with individual phalanges becoming compact and

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 3 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 1 – Recent discoveries of appendicular skeletal elements of Late Cretaceous titanosaurian sauropods from the
Neuquén Basin of southern Argentina. (a) complete and articulated left hind limb of the unnamed La Invernada taxon
(MUCPv-1533), (b) complete and articulated distal left hind limb of the unnamed Agua del Padrillo taxon (UNCUYO-LD
313), (c) right humerus of Notocolossus gonzalezparejasi (UNCUYO-LD 301), (d) complete and articulated right pes of
Notocolossus gonzalezparejasi (UNCUYO-LD 302). Scale bar equals 10 cm in (d).

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 4 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

often disc-like. However, titanosaurs continued this Museo Padre Molina, Río Gallegos, Argentina;
trend, with many taxa reducing and in some cases MUCPv, Museo de Geología y Paleontología de
apparently eliminating ossified manual phalanges. la Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Neuquén,
Furthermore, titanosaurs also exhibit the most Argentina; NMMNH, New Mexico Museum
reduced pedal phalangeal formulae seen within of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque,
Sauropoda (Borsuk-Bialynicka 1977, Salgado et U.S.A.; PVL, Fundación-Instituto Miguel Lillo,
al. 1997, Wilson and Sereno 1998, Martínez et Tucumán, Argentina; SGO, Museo Nacional de
al. 2004, Apesteguía 2005, González Riga et al. Historia Natural, Santiago, Chile; UNCUYO-LD,
2008a, 2016). Laboratorio y Museo de Dinosaurios, Universidad
In the present contribution, we provide an Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina; UNPSJB-
overview of titanosaurian appendicular skeletal PV, Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan
anatomy, focusing on the many representatives of this Bosco, Paleontología de Vertebrados, Comodoro
clade that have been recovered from the Cretaceous Rivadavia, Argentina; USNM, National Museum
of South America. We also discuss several of the of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
principal appendicular skeletal characters that Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; YPM, Yale Peabody
have been used in previous phylogenetic analyses Museum, New Haven, U.S.A.; ZPAL, Instytut
of Titanosauria and its subclades, with the goal of Paleobiologii PAN, Warszawa, Poland.
identifying areas of agreement and conflict. Finally,
THE PECTORAL AND FORELIMB SKELETON
we formally define a new clade of derived South
OF SOUTH AMERICAN TITANOSAURS
American titanosaurs, recognized on the basis of
results of recent cladistic analyses. Although the fossil record of South American
INSTITUTIONAL ABBREVIATIONS
titanosaurs is rich in terms of numbers of specimens
and species, taxa with completely known pectoral
AMNH, American Museum of Natural History, girdles and forelimbs are scarce (Table I).
New York, U.S.A, CM, Carnegie Museum Exceptions include Epachthosaurus (Martínez
of Natural History, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.; CPP, et al. 2004) and the saltasaurines Neuquensaurus
Centro de Pesquisas Paleontológicas Llewellyn (Otero 2010) and Saltasaurus (Powell 1992,
Price, Peirópolis, Brazil; FMNH, Field 2003), for which the pectoral girdle and forelimb
Museum of Natural History, Chicago, U.S.A.; are almost completely known, and to a lesser
IANIGLA, Instituto Argentino de Nivología, extent Argyrosaurus (Mannion and Otero 2012),
Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales, Colección Dreadnoughtus (Lacovara et al. 2014, Ullmann
de Paleovertebrados, Mendoza, Argentina; and Lacovara 2016), Mendozasaurus (González
MACN, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Riga 2003, 2005, González Riga et al. 2018),
‘Bernardino Rivadavia,’ Buenos Aires, Argentina; Muyelensaurus (Calvo et al. 2007c), Patagotitan
MAU (MRS), Museo ‘Argentino Urquiza,’ (Carballido et al. 2017), Tapuiasaurus (Zaher et al.
Rincón de Los Sauces, Argentina; MCS, Museo 2011), and Uberabatitan (Salgado and de Souza
de Cinco Saltos, Cinco Saltos, Argentina; MLP, Carvalho 2008). The pectoral girdles and forelimbs
Museo de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina; MMCh, of South American titanosaurs exhibit the basic
Museo Municipal ‘Ernesto Bachmann,’ Villa El anatomical plan of sauropods in general, but also
Chocón, Argentina; MPEF, Museo Paleontológico possess unique features that differentiate them from
Egidio Feruglio, Trelew, Argentina; MPM, those of non-titanosaurian taxa.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 5 | 42

 TABLE I
South American titanosaur species for which appendicular elements are preserved. Abbreviations: Sc, Scapula; Co, Coracoid; St, Sternal plate; Hu, Humerus; Ra,
Radius; Ul, Ulna; Mc, Metacarpals; Il, Ilium; Pu, Pubis; Is, Ischium; Fe, Femur; Ti, Tibia; Fi, Fibula; As, Astragalus; Mt, Metatarsals; Pp, Pedal phalanges. Y =
bone(s) is/are preserved in the taxon in question; -- = bone(s) not preserved; ? = bone(s) questionably preserved.
Taxon Sc Co St Hu Ra Ul Mc Il Pu Is Fe Ti Fi As Mt Pp Source
Aeolosaurus Santucci and de Arruda-
? -- -- Y ? -- -- -- -- Y Y -- -- -- -- --
maximus Campos 2011
Aeolosaurus
Y -- -- Y Y Y Y (all?) -- -- Y -- Y Y Y -- -- Powell 2003
rionegrinus
Andesaurus Calvo and Bonaparte 1991,
-- -- -- Y -- -- Y (I, V) -- Y Y Y -- -- -- -- --
delgadoi Mannion and Calvo 2011
‘Antarctosaurus’

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y -- Y Y -- -- -- -- Huene 1929, Powell 2003
giganteus
Antarctosaurus
Y -- -- Y Y Y Y (all?) Y Y Y Y Y Y -- Y (all?) Y (some) Huene 1929, Powell 2003
wichmannianus
Argentinosaurus
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- Bonaparte and Coria 1993
huinculensis
Lydekker 1893, Huene 1929,
Argyrosaurus
-- -- -- Y Y Y Y (all) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Powell 2003, Mannion and
superbus
Otero 2012
Atacamatitan
-- -- ? Y -- -- -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- Kellner et al. 2011
chilensis
Y (I, IV, Y (I, III, Y (ungual II Martinelli and Forasiepi
Bonatitan reigi -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- Y Y Y Y
V) V) or III) 2004, Salgado et al. 2015
Bonitasaura Y (III-1, IV-1, Apesteguía 2004, Gallina
-- -- Y Y Y Y Y (II, III) -- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (all)
salgadoi ungual ?I) and Apesteguía 2015
Brasilotitan
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y -- Y -- -- -- -- N Y (ungual) Machado et al. 2013
nemophagus
Choconsaurus
Y Y Y -- -- -- Y (all) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Simón et al. 2018
baileywillisi
Dreadnoughtus Lacovara et al. 2014,
Y Y Y Y Y Y -- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (I, II) Y (ungual I)
schrani Ullmann and Lacovara 2016
Drusilasaura
Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Navarrete et al. 2011
deseadensis
Powell 2003, Mannion and
Elaltitan lilloi Y -- -- Y Y Y -- -- Y -- Y Y Y Y -- --
Otero 2012

e20180374
Epachthosaurus
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (all) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (all) Y (all) Martínez et al. 2004
sciuttoi
BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

6 | 42
Futalognkosaurus Calvo et al. 2007a, b, Calvo
-- -- -- Y Y Y -- Y Y Y -- -- Y -- -- --
dukei 2014
 TABLE I (continued)
Taxon Sc Co St Hu Ra Ul Mc Il Pu Is Fe Ti Fi As Mt Pp Source
Gondwanatitan Kellner and de Azevedo
Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Y Y Y -- Y -- -- -- --
faustoi 1999
Laplatasaurus Huene 1929, Powell 2003,
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y Y -- -- --
araukanicus Gallina and Otero 2015
Malarguesaurus
-- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- González Riga et al. 2009
florenciae
Maxakalisaurus
Y -- Y Y -- -- Y (II, IV) -- -- Y -- -- Y -- -- -- Kellner et al. 2006
topai
BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al.

Mendozasaurus González Riga 2003, 2005,

Y -- Y Y Y Y Y (all) -- Y -- Y Y Y Y Y (all) Y (all)

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2)

neguyelap González Riga et al. 2018
Muyelensaurus
Y -- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Calvo et al. 2007c
pecheni
Narambuenatitan
-- Y Y Y -- Y -- Y Y Y Y -- -- -- -- -- Filippi et al. 2011a
palomoi
Lydekker 1893, Huene 1929,
Neuquensaurus Y (II, III, Y (I-1, another
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (all) Powell 2003, Salgado et al.
australis IV) nonungual)
2005, Otero 2010
Notocolossus
-- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y Y (all) Y (all) González Riga et al. 2016
gonzalezparejasi
Overosaurus
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Coria et al. 2013
paradasorum
Panamericansaurus
-- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Calvo and Porfiri 2010
schroederi
Patagotitan
Y Y Y Y Y Y -- -- Y Y Y -- Y -- -- -- Carballido et al. 2017
mayorum
Pellegrinisaurus
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- Salgado 1996
powelli
Petrobrasaurus Y (II, IV,
-- -- Y Y -- -- Y Y -- Y Y -- -- -- -- Filippi et al. 2011b
puestohernandezi V)
Pitekunsaurus
Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- Filippi and Garrido 2008
macayai
Quetecsaurus González Riga and Ortiz
-- Y -- Y Y Y Y (all) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
rusconii David 2014
Rinconsaurus Calvo and González Riga

e20180374
Y Y Y Y -- -- Y (all?) Y Y Y Y -- -- -- Y (III?) --
caudamirus 2003
Salgado and Azpilicueta
TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Rocasaurus muniozi -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y Y Y Y -- -- -- -- --

7 | 42
2000
BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

SCAPULA

Zaher et al. 2011, Wilson et

Salgado and Calvo 1993,

Juárez Valieri and Calvo

de Souza Carvalho et al.

Salgado and de Souza

Well-preserved scapulae are reported in

Campos et al. 2005

Powell 1992, 2003

Carvalho 2008
Aeolosaurus rionegrinus (Powell 2003),
al. 2016
Source

2017
2011
Antarctosaurus wichmannianus (Huene 1929),
Choconsaurus (Simón et al. 2018), Dreadnoughtus
(Ullmann and Lacovara 2016), Elaltitan (Mannion
and Otero 2012), Mendozasaurus (González
Riga et al. 2018), Muyelensaurus (Calvo et al.
2007c), Neuquensaurus (Otero 2010), Patagotitan
Pp

Y
--

--

--

--

-- (Carballido et al. 2017), Pitekunsaurus (Filippi

and Garrido 2008), and Saltasaurus (Powell 1992,
2003) among other South American titanosaurs
?others)
?II, V,
Y (I,
Mt

(Table I, Figure 2). Additionally, although the

Y

--

--

--

--

scapula is poorly preserved in the type and only

known specimen of Drusilasaura, its overall shape
As

Y
--

--

--

--

--

is evident (Navarrete et al. 2011).

Fi

Y
--

--

--

As in non-titanosaurian sauropods, the

Ti

Y
--

--

--

--

proximal (i.e., anterior, if the long axis of the scapula

TABLE I (continued)
Fe

is oriented horizontally) end of the scapula is more

Y
--

--

expanded than the distal (i.e., posterior) end. In most

Is

Y
--

--

--

South American titanosaurs (e.g., Drusilasaura,

Pu

Y
--

--

--
?

Mendozasaurus, Patagotitan, Pitekunsaurus,

Y

Y
Il

Saltasaurus), the proximal expansion is less

--

--

--

--

than twice the dorsoventral breadth of the distal

Y (III, IV,
?others)

Y (II)
Mc

end, with the exceptions of Dreadnoughtus and

Y

--

--

--

Muyelensaurus, in which the proximal end is more

than twice as broad as the distal. Nevertheless, the
Ul

--

--

--

--

scapulae of most South American titanosaurs also

Ra

Y
--

--

--

exhibit a slight distal expansion, with the dorsal

Hu

(i.e., acromial) edge of the blade being dorsally

Y

Y
--

--

--

deflected and the ventral edge remaining nearly

St

Y
--

--

--

straight. In most titanosaurs, however, the tallest

part of the dorsal margin of the scapular blade is
Co

Y
--

--

--

still lower than that of the proximal expansion. An

Sc

--

--

--

--

--

exception is seen in Patagotitan, in which the most

elevated point of the blade is approximately the
Trigonosaurus

Triunfosaurus
Tapuiasaurus

Uberabatitan
Saltasaurus

Traukutitan
eocaudata

same height as that of the proximal end (Figure

leonardii
loricatus

macedoi

ribeiroi
Taxon

pricei

2h). Among South American titanosaurs, a reversal

to an unexpanded distal scapular blade occurs in
Dreadnoughtus, in which the dorsal and ventral

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 8 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

edges of the blade are subparallel to one another Rinconsaurus (Calvo and González Riga 2003),
(Figure 2d). Saltasaurus, Tapuiasaurus, and Uberabatitan
In some South American titanosaurs (e.g., (Table I, Figure 3a-c, e). In Titanosauria, the
Patagotitan, Pitekunsaurus), as in other members proximodistal (i.e., anteroposterior, if the long axis
of the clade (e.g., Rapetosaurus), the orientation of the scapulocoracoid is oriented horizontally)
of the scapular blade relative to the coracoid length of the coracoid may be up to twice the
articulation is roughly 45°. In other forms (e.g., length of the scapular articulation. The coracoid
Dreadnoughtus, Muyelensaurus), however, the was progressively modified through the evolution
long axes of the blade and coracoid articulation of Saltasauridae, increasing in proximodistal
are oriented roughly perpendicular to one another. elongation, becoming ‘squared’ at its anteroventral
In titanosaurs, the acromial ridge is generally margin, and ultimately extending to the height of
not as developed as it is in non-titanosaurian the acromial process (i.e., attaining a flush suture
neosauropods such as Diplodocus (Hatcher 1901), with the scapula). These derived morphologies
Giraffatitan (Janensch 1961), or Camarasaurus are reported in many South American titanosaurs,
(McIntosh et al. 1996), in which this ridge clearly such as the saltasaurines Neuquensaurus and
delimits a proximal scapular fossa, widely regarded Saltasaurus and the lognkosaurian Quetecsaurus,
as the origin site of the M. supracoracoideus (Meers and are shared with some Asian titanosaurs (e.g.,
2003, Otero 2018) (Figure 2m-o). In Patagotitan, Opisthocoelicaudia, ZPAL MgD-I/48, Borsuk-
Pitekunsaurus, and the recently described, probably Bialynicka 1977) and the North American
basal titanosaur Choconsaurus, the acromial Alamosaurus (USNM 15560, Gilmore 1946)
region grades much more smoothly into the as well. An infraglenoid lip is present in most
scapular blade than is the case in some other taxa or all South American titanosaurs for which
(e.g., Aeolosaurus rionegrinus, Dreadnoughtus, the coracoid is preserved. The position of the
Elaltitan, Muyelensaurus). When examined in coracoid foramen varies among South American
lateral view, the scapular blade is dorsoventrally titanosaurs, being situated immediately adjacent
deep in some taxa (e.g., A. rionegrinus, Patagotitan, to the scapular articulation in some taxa (e.g.,
Saltasaurus) but substantially shallower in Quetecsaurus, Figure 3c) but located further from
others (e.g., Dreadnoughtus, Muyelensaurus). this articulation in others (e.g., Saltasaurus, Figure
A ventromedial process on the ventral margin of 3b). Nevertheless, as the position of the coracoid
the blade (sensu Carballido et al. 2011) is present foramen appears to change through neosauropod
in Dreadnoughtus, Elaltitan, Neuquensaurus, ontogeny (see, e.g., Ullmann and Lacovara
Patagotitan, and Saltasaurus, among other South 2016), these distinctions are probably of limited
American titanosaurs. taxonomic and phylogenetic significance.

CORACOID STERNUM

The coracoid is known in a minority of Sternal plates are reported with some frequency
South American titanosaurs, including among South American titanosaurs, being
Choconsaurus, Dreadnoughtus, Epachthosaurus, known in Bonitasaura (Gallina and Apesteguía
Narambuenatitan (Filippi et al. 2011a), 2 0 1 5 ) , C h o c o n s a u r u s , D re a d n o u g h t u s ,
Neuquensaurus, Patagotitan, Quetecsaurus Epachthosaurus, Maxakalisaurus (Kellner et
(González Riga and Ortiz David 2014), al. 2006), Mendozasaurus, Muyelensaurus,

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 9 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 2 – Morphological comparison of right scapulae of titanosaurians (a-k) versus those of other sauropods (l-o) in lateral
view. South American (Argentinean) taxa denoted with an asterisk. (a) Pitekunsaurus macayai*, redrawn from Filippi and Garrido
(2008), (b) Rapetosaurus krausei, redrawn from Curry Rogers (2009), (c) Choconsaurus baileywillisi*, redrawn from Simón et al.
(2018), (d) Dreadnoughtus schrani* (left, reversed), redrawn from Lacovara et al. (2014), (e) Muyelensaurus pecheni*, redrawn
from Calvo et al. (2007c), (f) Saltasaurus loricatus*, redrawn from Powell (1992), (g) Mendozasaurus neguyelap*, redrawn from
González Riga et al. (2018), (h) Patagotitan mayorum*, redrawn from Carballido et al. (2017), (i) Drusilasaura deseadensis*
(reversed), redrawn from Navarrete et al. (2011), (j) Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii, redrawn from Borsuk-Bialynicka (1977),
(k) Elaltitan lilloi*, redrawn from Mannion and Otero (2012), (l) Mamenchisaurus youngi (left, reversed), redrawn from Ouyang
and Ye (2002), (m) Diplodocus carnegii (left, reversed), redrawn from Hatcher (1901), (n) Giraffatitan brancai (left, reversed),
redrawn from Janensch (1961), (o) Camarasaurus supremus (left, reversed), redrawn from Osborn and Mook (1921). Not to scale.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 10 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Narambuenatitan, Neuquensaurus, Patagotitan, species at present (Table I). It is highly variable in

Petrobrasaurus (Filippi et al. 2011b), proportions, ranging from slender in taxa such as
Rinconsaurus, Saltasaurus, Tapuiasaurus, and Gondwanatitan (Kellner and de Azevedo 1999),
Uberabatitan (Table I, Figure 3f-k). Unlike Mendozasaurus, Panamericansaurus (Calvo and
those of non-titanosaurian sauropods (e.g., the Porfiri 2010), Petrobrasaurus, Rinconsaurus, and
brachiosaurid Giraffatitan) the sternal plates of especially Muyelensaurus, in which the proximal
titanosaurs are generally semilunate in shape and at and distal ends are not markedly expanded, to
least 65–70% the length of the humerus (McIntosh exceedingly robust as in Dreadnoughtus and
1990, Salgado et al. 1997, Upchurch 1998, saltasaurines (Figure 4). For example, the humeral
D’Emic 2012, Mannion et al. 2013). Nevertheless, robustness index (sensu Wilson and Upchurch
the sternal plates of Choconsaurus and 2003) of Muyelensaurus is 0.18, whereas in
Mendozasaurus are less mediolaterally expanded specimens of the saltasaurine Neuquensaurus (e.g.,
at their posterior ends than are those of some other MLP-CS 1049) this index may reach values of
titanosaurs (e.g., Dreadnoughtus, Maxakalisaurus, up to 0.32. In some South American titanosaurs
Narambuenatitan, Petrobrasaurus, probably (e.g., Argyrosaurus, Atacamatitan [Kellner et al.
Tapuiasaurus), rendering them more subtriangular 2011], Bonatitan [Martinelli and Forasiepi 2004,
than semilunate in dorsal or ventral view (Figure 3f, Salgado et al. 2015], Futalognkosaurus [Calvo,
2014], Elaltitan, Mendozasaurus, Muyelensaurus,
g). This shape, with some variation, was described
Narambuenatitan, Neuquensaurus, Uberabatitan),
as a semilunar sternal plate with a relatively straight
the proximal margin of the humerus is straight, or
posterior border by González Riga (2003) and
nearly so, in anterior view (e.g., Figure 4a, c). In other
González Riga and Ortiz David (2014). Similarly,
titanosaurs, however (e.g., Notocolossus [González
there is considerable variation in the lateral
Riga et al. 2016], Opisthocoelicaudia, Paralititan,
projection of the anterior and posterior ends—and
Quetecsaurus, Saltasaurus), the proximal margin
therefore the concavity of the lateral margin—of
of the humerus is sinuous due to the marked
the sternal plate between different South American
proximal deflection of the humeral head relative to
titanosaurian genera. In Choconsaurus and
the remainder of the bone (Figure 4j). The lateral
Mendozasaurus, the lateral margin is only slightly
margin of the humerus is nearly straight through
concave in dorsal view, whereas in taxa such as
approximately the proximal half of the element.
Maxakalisaurus, Saltasaurus, and especially Futalognkosaurus has a relatively robust humerus
Narambuenatitan this margin is deeply concave; with an expanded proximal end that reaches 40%
forms such as Dreadnoughtus, Petrobrasaurus, of the total length of the bone, as in Saltasaurus,
Rinconsaurus, and Tapuiasaurus appear to exhibit Neuquensaurus, and Opisthocoelicaudia (Calvo
an intermediate condition (Figure 3f-k). There is 2014).
a ridge on the ventral surface of the sternal plate The humeri of many South American titanosaurs
in Bonitasaura, Dreadnoughtus, Neuquensaurus, (e.g., the saltasaurines Neuquensaurus and
Patagotitan, and Saltasaurus, among other taxa. Saltasaurus, the lognkosaurian Futalognkosaurus
HUMERUS [Calvo 2014], Patagotitan, and Dreadnoughtus)
possess a well-developed posterolateral bulge
The humerus is the most frequently preserved around the level of the deltopectoral crest, which is
appendicular bone among South American frequently regarded as the insertion site of the M.
titanosaurian taxa, being known in 27 valid deltoideus clavicularis (Meers 2003, Otero 2018).

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 11 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 3 – Morphological comparison of titanosaurian coracoids (a-e) and sternal plates (f-k). South American (Argentinean)
taxa denoted with an asterisk. (a) Right coracoid in medial view of Neuquensaurus australis*, MLP-Ly 14, redrawn from Otero
(2010), (b) left coracoid in lateral view of Saltasaurus loricatus*, PVL 4017-100, redrawn from Powell (1992), (c) right coracoid
in medial view of Quetecsaurus rusconii*, UNCUYO-LD 300.15, redrawn from González Riga and Ortiz David (2014), (d)
left coracoid in lateral view of Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii, ZPAL MgD-I/48, redrawn from Borsuk-Bialynicka (1977), (e)
left coracoid in lateral view of Dreadnoughtus schrani*, MPM-PV 1156, redrawn from Ullmann and Lacovara (2016), (f) right
sternal plate in dorsal view of Mendozasaurus neguyelap*, IANIGLA-PV 067, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2018), (g)
right sternal plate in dorsal view of Choconsaurus baileywillisi*, MMCh-Pv 44/11, redrawn from Simón et al. (2018), (h) left
sternal plate in ventral view of Saltasaurus loricatus*, PVL 4017-102, redrawn from Powell (1992), (i) left sternal plate in ventral
view of Narambuenatitan palomoi*, MAU-Pv-N-425, redrawn from Filippi et al. (2011a), (j) left sternal plate in ventral view of
Dreadnoughtus schrani*, MPM-PV 1156, redrawn from Ullmann and Lacovara (2016), (k) left sternal plate in ventral view of
Petrobrasaurus puestohernandezi*, MAU-Pv-N-449/25, redrawn from Filippi et al. (2011b). Not to scale.

Unlike many other South American titanosaurs, Alamosaurus, Isisaurus, Opisthocoelicaudia,

Neuquensaurus and Saltasaurus also exhibit a and Rapetosaurus), the articular surfaces of the
deltopectoral crest that is markedly expanded humeral distal condyles are exposed on the anterior
distally, a feature that is shared with the Laurasian surface of the bone. The humeral distal condyles of
titanosaurs Alamosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia titanosaurs are generally flat, except in saltasaurids
and that consequently has been regarded as a and Epachthosaurus in which they are divided.
synapomorphy of Saltasauridae (Wilson 2002, The longest humerus known for any titanosaur
D’Emic 2012). South American titanosaurs also is that of the holotypic specimen of Notocolossus
exhibit variability in features such as the distal (UNCUYO-LD 301, Figures 1c, 4j, González Riga
extent and medial deflection of the deltopectoral et al. 2016). This bone is even longer and more
crest, the development of a proximolateral process, proximally robust than the humerus of Patagotitan
and the concavity of the medial margin of the (Figure 4h), a titanosaur that was recently described
shaft in anterior view. In saltasaurines and other as the largest dinosaur yet discovered (Carballido
lithostrotians (e.g., the non-South American genera et al. 2017). The humerus of Notocolossus is also

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 12 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 4 – Morphological and size comparison of titanosaurian right humeri in anterior view. South American (Argentinean) taxa
marked with an asterisk. (a) Neuquensaurus australis* (left, reversed), redrawn from Otero (2010), (b) Rapetosaurus krausei (left,
reversed), redrawn from Curry Rogers (2009), (c) Muyelensaurus pecheni* (left, reversed), redrawn from Calvo et al. (2007c), (d)
Narambuenatitan palomoi* (left, reversed), redrawn from Filippi et al. (2011a), (e) Mendozasaurus neguyelap*, redrawn from
González Riga et al. (2018), (f) Angolatitan adamastor, redrawn from Mateus et al. (2011), (g) Dreadnoughtus schrani* (left,
reversed), redrawn from Lacovara et al. (2014), (h) Patagotitan mayorum* (left, reversed), redrawn from Carballido et al. (2017),
(i) Paralititan stromeri, redrawn from Smith et al. (2001), (j) Notocolossus gonzalezparejasi*, redrawn from González Riga et al.
(2016). Scale bar equals 20 cm.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 13 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

longer than those of other giant titanosaurs such as definitively assess the widely varying dimensions
Dreadnoughtus (Figure 4g, Lacovara et al. 2014), postulated in recent works (e.g., Lacovara et al.
Futalognkosaurus (Calvo 2014), and Paralititan 2014, Bates et al. 2015, González Riga et al. 2016,
(Figure 4i, Smith et al. 2001). Therefore, despite Carballido et al. 2017).
the incomplete nature of the known remains,
RADIUS AND ULNA
Notocolossus is likely among the largest
titanosaurs discovered thus far. Nevertheless, we Both the radius and ulna are known in the South
recommend caution when estimating the body American titanosaurs Aeolosaurus rionegrinus,
size of one gigantic titanosaurian taxon versus Argyrosaurus, Bonitasaura, Dreadnoughtus,
another. Accurate estimation of body size (e.g., Elaltitan, Epachthosaurus, Mendozasaurus,
total length, mass, volume) is highly problematic Muyelensaurus, Neuquensaurus, Patagotitan,
in the largest titanosaurs because, with the Quetecsaurus, Saltasaurus, and Tapuiasaurus, the
exceptions of Dreadnoughtus, Futalognkosaurus, former bone is additionally known in Uberabatitan
and Patagotitan, most of these taxa (e.g., and the latter in Narambuenatitan and Pitekunsaurus
‘Antarctosaurus’ giganteus, Argentinosaurus,
(Table I). With the exceptions of a few taxa (e.g.,
Paralititan, Puertasaurus, Notocolossus) are
Dreadnoughtus, Elaltitan) the distal mediolateral
represented by very incomplete skeletons (Lacovara
breadth of the radius is approximately twice its
et al. 2014). Moreover, given the morphological
breadth at midshaft. In saltasaurid titanosaurs (and
disparity seen in relatively complete, smaller-
probably some other neosauropods, Upchurch
bodied titanosaurs (e.g., Diamantinasaurus,
et al. 2015), the distal radius is also beveled
Epachthosaurus, Isisaurus, Mendozasaurus,
approximately 20° proximolaterally relative to the
Opisthocoelicaudia, Rapetosaurus, Saltasaurus),
long axis of the shaft (Wilson 2002, D’Emic 2012).
it is probable that different gigantic species also
Most lithostrotians exhibit a proximally
had markedly different anatomical proportions,
elevated olecranon process of the ulna, which
such as the relative proportions and robusticity of
constitutes a reversal to the basal sauropodomorph
the limb elements, the lengths of the cervical and
condition (Wilson and Sereno 1998, Galton and
caudal series, and the distance from the glenoid to
Upchurch 2004, Mannion et al. 2013). The ulnae of
the acetabulum. Indeed, this contention has already
been borne out, at least to some degree, by the saltasaurid titanosaurs are further characterized by
substantially different humeral proportions of the their stout proportions (Wilson 2002); this condition
giant titanosaurs Dreadnoughtus, Notocolossus, is developed to an extreme in the saltasaurines
Paralititan, and Patagotitan (Figure 4g-j), with Neuquensaurus and Saltasaurus. Most other
Notocolossus and especially Dreadnoughtus titanosaurs have more gracile ulnae, a condition that
possessing exceedingly robust humeri, that is especially true for taxa such as Mendozasaurus
of Paralititan being more slender, and that of and Narambuenatitan. In titanosaurs, and
Patagotitan exhibiting an intermediate condition. sauropods in general, the anteromedial process
Although issues surrounding body size estimation in of the proximal ulna is usually longer than the
the largest titanosaurs have been partly ameliorated anterolateral process.
by recent discoveries of relatively complete CARPUS AND MANUS
skeletons of Dreadnoughtus, Futalognkosaurus,
and Patagotitan, additional, similarly complete With the possible exceptions of the carpal elements
giant titanosaur specimens will be needed to reported in Argyrosaurus and Neuquensaurus,

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 14 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

but currently lost (Lydekker 1893, Huene 1929, occurs in the holotypic skeleton of the Mongolian
Otero 2010, Mannion and Otero 2012), titanosaurs titanosaur Opisthocoelicaudia (ZPAL MgD-I/48,
appear to lack an ossified carpus (Upchurch 1998, Borsuk-Bialynicka 1977). Nevertheless, manual
Wilson 2002, D’Emic 2012). The metacarpus is phalanges are well-documented in the Australian
completely or nearly completely known in several titanosaurs Diamantinasaurus and Savannasaurus
South American titanosaurian taxa (Aeolosaurus (Hocknull et al. 2009, Poropat et al. 2015, 2016),
rionegrinus, Antarctosaurus wichmannianus, indicating that the diversity of manual morphologies
Argyrosaurus, Choconsaurus, Epachthosaurus, within Titanosauria was almost certainly greater
Mendozasaurus, Quetecsaurus, and Rinconsaurus) than is presently appreciated (see Discussion).
and partially preserved in a few others (Table I,
Figure 5). A number of these forms (e.g., A. THE PELVIC AND HIND LIMB SKELETON
OF SOUTH AMERICAN TITANOSAURS
rionegrinus, saltasaurines) have fairly stout
metacarpals, but in Argyrosaurus (Mannion and ILIUM
Otero 2012) and especially Choconsaurus (Simón
et al. 2018) these bones are more elongate and The titanosaurian ilium exhibits remarkable
slender, as is also the case in Andesaurus, for which features. The bone is at least partially preserved
only metacarpals I and V are represented (Calvo in many South American taxa, including
and Bonaparte 1991, Mannion and Calvo 2011). Antarctosaurus wichmannianus (Huene 1929,
In many titanosaurs, the ratio of the proximodistal Powell 2003), Brasilotitan (Machado et al.
length of metacarpal I to that of metacarpal II or III 2013), Dreadnoughtus (Lacovara et al. 2014,
is 1.0 or greater (Upchurch 1998, Mannion et al. Ullmann and Lacovara 2016), Epachthosaurus
2013); also, the proximal end of metacarpal V is (Martínez et al. 2004), Futalognkosaurus (Calvo
often subequal in size to that of metacarpal I (D’Emic et al. 2007a, b), Gondwanatitan (Kellner and de
2012). Nevetheless, in taxa such as Choconsaurus, Azevedo 1999), Muyelensaurus (Calvo et al.
Epachthosaurus, and Quetecsaurus, the proximal 2007c), Narambuenatitan (Filippi et al. 2011a),
end of metacarpal V is clearly smaller than that Neuquensaurus (Salgado et al. 2005, Otero 2010),
of metacarpal I, with the latter being much more Overosaurus (Coria et al. 2013), Petrobrasaurus
anteroposteriorly elongate (Figure 5b). (Filippi et al. 2011b), Rinconsaurus (Calvo and
Multiple authors have argued that, in González Riga 2003), Rocasaurus (Salgado and
Titanosauria or clades therein, most or even all Azpilicueta 2000), Saltasaurus (Powell 1992,
manual phalanges were absent or unossified (e.g., 2003), and Trigonosaurus (Campos et al. 2005)
Salgado et al. 1997, Wilson 2002, Apesteguía 2005, (Table I). Among these taxa, the largest complete
Curry Rogers 2005). Among South American ilia and sacrum belong to Futalognkosaurus. In
titanosaurs, this contention is supported by the titanosaurs, the pre- and postacetabular processes
condition in Argyrosaurus, which is known from a of the ilium are expanded anteroposteriorly and
complete, articulated forelimb that nonetheless lacks dorsoventrally (Otero and Vizcaíno 2008, Otero
direct evidence of manual phalanges (Mannion and 2010). Although lateral projection of the iliac
Otero 2012) (but see Discussion below). Similarly, preacetabular process characterizes titanosaurs
an exceptionally complete, articulated postcranium as a whole, the orientation of this process (i.e.,
of Epachthosaurus (UNPSJB-PV 920) possesses lateral or anterolateral) varies considerably among
only a single rudimentary phalanx on manual digit titanosaurian taxa (Figure 6a, b). For example,
IV (Martínez et al. 2004); an identical condition the lateral projection of the preacetabular process

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 15 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 5 – (a) Simplified phylogenetic diagram of right metacarpus shape in proximal view in non-titanosaurian Sauropodomorpha
and Herrerasaurus, modified from Bonnan (2003). The name Brachiosaurus has been replaced by Giraffatitan. Not to scale. (b)
Comparison of left metacarpus of selected titanosaurs in proximal view. Argyrosaurus redrawn from Mannion and Otero (2012),
Quetecsaurus redrawn from González Riga and Ortiz David (2014), Opisthocoelicaudia redrawn from Borsuk-Bialynicka (1977),
La Invernada taxon drawn from personal observation of MUCPv-1533, Epachthosaurus redrawn from Martínez et al. (2004),
Rapetosaurus redrawn from Curry Rogers (2009), Choconsaurus redrawn from Simón et al. (2018). Not to scale. (c) Right
metacarpus (anterior view) of Epachthosaurus (with phalanx IV-1 in dark gray) and Argyrosaurus, redrawn and modified from
Apesteguía (2005), and left metacarpus (anterior view) of Choconsaurus, redrawn from Simón et al. (2018). Roman numerals
indicate metacarpal number. Not to scale.

is more pronounced in Futalognkosaurus, appears to be associated with elongation of the

Neuquensaurus (Figure 6a), and Saltasaurus sacral ribs, as seen in, for example, Neuquensaurus
than it is in Dreadnoughtus, Epachthosaurus, (MCS-5/16, B.J.G.R. pers. obs.).
Overosaurus (Figure 6b), or Trigonosaurus. To In some South American titanosaurs (e.g.,
more rigorously define this character, Salgado et al. Overosaurus, Rinconsaurus), the portion of
(2005) proposed an estimate of the ratio between the iliac blade dorsal to the pubic peduncle is
the distance of the lateralmost point of the pubic dorsoventrally deep, whereas in others (e.g.,
peduncle versus that of the preacetabular process. Saltasaurus) it is much shallower. Furthermore,
A strongly laterally directed preacetabular process ihe ilia of saltasaurines exhibit a ‘kink’ on the

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 16 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

ventral margin of the preacetabular process foramen is subcircular in many titanosaurs but
(D’Emic 2012). These morphological changes oval in Andesaurus, Futalognkosaurus, and
are probably related to locomotor specializations Muyelensaurus (Mannion and Calvo 2011). The
(Wilson and Carrano 1999) and/or the attachment pubes of several titanosaurs (e.g., Dreadnoughtus,
of pelvic musculature (Otero and Vizcaíno 2008). Futalognkosaurus) exhibit a longitudinal
As in Sauropoda more generally, the ischial ventrolateral ridge that is most strongly developed
peduncle of the titanosaurian ilium is only in taxa such as Neuquensaurus, Saltasaurus, and
slightly developed (Wilson 2002), and in derived Uberabatitan.
taxa such as saltasaurines, it is often confluent According to many phylogenetic studies (e.g.,
with the remainder of the bone. Conversely, the Salgado et al. 1997), a typical titanosaurian character
pubic peduncle is elongate, relatively gracile, is the presence of a pubis that is proximodistally
and anteroventrally projected. Interestingly, longer than the ischium. This feature seems to
the ilia of multiple titanosaurs, including South be present in most or even all titanosaurs, but in
American forms such as Dreadnoughtus (Ullmann taxa such as Futalognkosaurus, it is developed
and Lacovara 2016), Epachthosaurus (Martínez to an extreme, with the pubis being markedly
et al. 2004), and Neuquensaurus (Cerda et al. longer and more robust than the ischium (Figure
2012), display well-developed internal camerae, 6f). Furthermore, in this massive Patagonian
indicating that they were probably pneumatized titanosaur, the bone has a slightly subcircular and
by diverticula from the respiratory system. expanded distal end and is strongly thickened
Conversely, the ilia of some other titanosaurs (e.g., distally (MUCPv-323, B.J.G.R. pers. obs.). The
the Tanzanian basal form Rukwatitan, Gorscak et pubis of the basal titanosaur Andesaurus possesses
al. 2014) appear to have been apneumatic. a proximodistally elongate ischial articulation
(Figure 6e); in most other titanosaurian taxa, by
PUBIS
contrast, this articular surface is shorter.
Among South American titanosaurs, the ISCHIUM
pubis is at least partially preserved in
Andesaurus, Antarctosaurus wichmannianus, The ischium is known in many South American
‘Antarctosaurus’ giganteus (Huene 1929), titanosaurs, being especially well-preserved in taxa
Bonitasaura, Dreadnoughtus , Elaltitan, such as Andesaurus, Bonitasaura, Dreadnoughtus,
Epachthosaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Muyelensaurus, and
Gondwanatitan, Mendozasaurus, Muyelensaurus, Saltasaurus (Table I, Figure 6c-f). The titanosaurian
Narambuenatitan, Neuquensaurus, Notocolossus, ischium is a short bone with a relatively broad,
Patagotitan, Petrobrasaurus, Rinconsaurus, plate-like blade (Salgado et al. 1997, Otero
Rocasaurus, Saltasaurus, and Uberabatitan 2010); this morphology as well as the absence
(Table I, Figure 6c-f). In most of these taxa (e.g., of emargination distal to the pubic articulation
Andesaurus, Elaltitan, Futalognkosaurus), it is a are typical of the clade (Wilson 2002, Díez Díaz
short, stout bone, but the pubic blade is slenderer et al. 2016). A mediolaterally compressed iliac
in a few other forms (e.g., Muyelensaurus, articular surface also appears to be a titanosaurian
Petrobrasaurus). The iliac articular surface character (Mannion and Calvo 2011). The pubic
of the pubis is anteroposteriorly elongate in peduncle is anteroposteriorly elongate in forms
titanosaurs (Mannion et al. 2013). The obturator such as Aeolosaurus rionegrinus, Antarctosaurus

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 17 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

wichmannianus, and Muyelensaurus (Figure 6d), Arruda-Campos 2011), Bonitasaura (Gallina and
but shorter in others (e.g., Andesaurus [Figure Apesteguía 2015), and Rinconsaurus, but noticeably
6e], Rinconsaurus, Saltasaurus, Triunfosaurus [de less so in taxa such as Bonatitan, Dreadnoughtus,
Souza Carvalho et al. 2017]). In many titanosaurian Epachthosaurus, Patagotitan, Petrobrasaurus, and
taxa, the acetabular margin of the ischium is strongly saltasaurines. In most South American titanosaurs,
concave in lateral view, such that the pubic articular the proximal one third of the femur is angled
surface forms a proximodorsal projection (D’Emic strongly medially relative to the remainder of the
2012, Mannion et al. 2013, Figure 6d). The ischial shaft, but a few taxa (e.g., Epachthosaurus, Figure
blade is slender in taxa such as A. rionegrinus, 7d) lack this morphology (Mannion et al. 2013).
Andesaurus, Bonitasaura, Futalognkosaurus, Most South American titanosaurs (e.g., Bonatitan,
Gondwanatitan, and Muyelensaurus compared to Dreadnoughtus, Patagotitan, Petrobrasaurus,
the condition in other forms such as Rinconsaurus Traukutitan, saltasaurines) also have a prominent
and the saltasaurines Rocasaurus and Saltasaurus. lateral bulge on the proximal third of the femur distal
to the greater trochanter. This feature was initially
FEMUR recognized by McIntosh (1990) and regarded by
Salgado et al. (1997) as a synapomorphy of their
The femur is at least partially preserved in 25 species
then-newly defined clade Titanosauriformes; it
of South American titanosaurs; after the humerus, it
is also present but less developed in some non-
is the most frequently recovered appendicular bone
titanosauriform taxa (Mannion et al. 2013).
of these sauropods (Table I, Figure 7). The femur
Salgado et al. (1997, fig. 10) tentatively quantified
is remarkably slender in Atacamatitan (Figure
the presence of the lateral bulge as being 30% the
7a), and to a lesser degree in ‘Antarctosaurus’
minimum mediolateral width of the femoral shaft.
giganteus (Figure 7j), Bonatitan (Figure 7k),
In South American titanosaurs, the femoral
Mendozasaurus (Figure 7g), Patagotitan
shaft is anteroposteriorly compressed, rendering
(Figure 7h), Petrobrasaurus (Figure 7f), and
it elliptical in cross section. The fourth trochanter
Rinconsaurus (Calvo and González Riga 2003,
is positioned near midshaft in some taxa (e.g.,
fig. 3c), but considerably more robust in taxa such Antarctosaurus wichmannianus, ‘A.’ giganteus,
as Dreadnoughtus (Figure 7i), Futalognkosaurus Bonitasaura, Dreadnoughtus, Epachthosaurus,
(Calvo 2014), and the saltasaurines Neuquensaurus Mendozasaurus) but more proximally in others
(Figure 7b, c), Rocasaurus (Salgado and (e.g., Elaltitan, Neuquensaurus, Patagotitan). It is
Azpilicueta 2000, fig. 9a), and Saltasaurus also more prominent in taxa such as Dreadnoughtus
(Figure 7e); titanosaurs such as Epachthosaurus (Ullmann and Lacovara 2016) and Patagotitan
(Figure 7d) and Traukutitan (Figure 7l) exhibit an (Carballido et al. 2017) than it is in others such
intermediate condition. As with the humerus (see as saltasaurines (e.g., Figure 7b, e). Saltasaurines
above), the markedly differing robusticities of the exhibit a longitudinal ridge on the anterior surface
femur in giant titanosaurs such as ‘A.’ giganteus, of the femoral shaft (Otero 2010, D’Emic 2012).
Dreadnoughtus, and Patagotitan are relevant in Another important femoral character is the
discussions of the overall body dimensions of these orientation of the long axis of the distal condyles in
taxa, though the significance of these differences anterior or posterior view; in many South American
for mass estimation is not yet completely clear. The titanosaurs, the distal condyles are beveled 10°
femoral head is canted strongly proximomedially dorsomedially (Wilson 2002, 2006, D’Emic 2012),
in Aeolosaurus maximus (Santucci and de though there are exceptions to this condition

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 18 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 6 – Morphological comparison of pelvic elements of South American (Argentinean) titanosaurs. Ventral view of sacrum
and ilia of (a) Neuquensaurus australis, MCS 5/16, redrawn from Salgado et al. (2005) and (b) Overosaurus paradasorum, MAU-
Pv-CO-439, redrawn from Coria et al. (2013). Lateral view of left pubis and ischium of (c) Dreadnoughtus schrani, MPM-PV
1156, redrawn from Ullmann and Lacovara (2016), (d) Muyelensaurus pecheni, MRS-Pv 88 (reversed), redrawn from Calvo
et al. (2007c), (e) Andesaurus delgadoi, MUCPv-132, redrawn from Mannion and Calvo (2011), (f) Futalognkosaurus dukei,
MUCPv-323 (reversed), redrawn from Calvo et al. (2007b). Not to scale.

(e.g., Dreadnoughtus, Ullmann and Lacovara these bones is known in a few other taxa as well
2016, Traukutitan, Juárez Valieri and Calvo (Table I, Figure 8a-l). Like other appendicular
2011). Moreover, in the femora of many derived elements, the tibia and fibula of South American
titanosaurs, the fibular condyle projects further titanosaurs vary in proportions from relatively
distally than the tibial condyle (González Riga et al. gracile to robust. Saltasaurines (Figure 8e) have
2018), and in saltasaurines, these condyles extend very stout tibiae with a prominent cnemial crest,
onto the anterior surface of the shaft (Wilson 2002, whereas in other taxa such as A. wichmannianus,
Ullmann and Lacovara 2016). Epachthosaurus (Figure 8c), and Mendozasaurus
(Figure 8a) the tibia is considerably slenderer and
TIBIA AND FIBULA
the crest is weakly developed; other forms such
Both the tibia and fibula are preserved in as Dreadnoughtus (Figure 8d), Futalognkosaurus
Aeolosaurus rionegrinus, Antarctosaurus (Calvo 2014), and Laplatasaurus (Figure 8b)
wichmannianus, Bonatitan, Bonitasaura, exhibit an intermediate condition. The extent
Dreadnoughtus, Elaltitan, Epachthosaurus, of the cnemial fossa on the proximal end of
Laplatasaurus (Gallina and Otero 2015), the tibia is also highly variable among South
Mendozasaurus, Muyelensaurus, Neuquensaurus, American titanosaurs (Gallina and Otero 2015).
Saltasaurus, and Uberabatitan; one or the other of In lithostrotian titanosaurs, the mediolateral width

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 19 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 7 – Morphological comparison of South American titanosaur femora. (a) Right femur in anterior view of Atacamatitan
chilensis, SGO-PV-961g, redrawn from Kellner et al. (2011), (b) left femur in posterior view of Neuquensaurus australis, MLP-
CS 1118, redrawn from Otero (2010), (c) right femur in anterior view of ‘Neuquensaurus robustus,’ MCS-9, redrawn from Otero
(2010), (d) right femur in posterior view (reversed) of Epachthosaurus sciuttoi, UNPSJB-PV 920, redrawn from Martínez et al.
(2004), (e) right femur in posterior view of Saltasaurus loricatus, PVL 4017-79, redrawn from Powell (1992), (f) left femur in
posterior view of Petrobrasaurus puestohernandezi, MAU-PV-PH 449/8, redrawn from Filippi et al. (2011b), (g) left femur in
posterior view of Mendozasaurus neguyelap, IANIGLA-PV 073/4, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2018), (h) right femur in
posterior view (reversed) of Patagotitan mayorum, MPEF-PV 4400/26, redrawn from Carballido et al. (2017), (i) left femur in
posterior view of Dreadnoughtus schrani, MPM-PV 1156, redrawn from Ullmann and Lacovara (2016), (j) right femur in posterior
view (reversed) of ‘Antarctosaurus’ giganteus, drawn from unpublished photo by L.D.O.D., (k) left femur in posterior view of
Bonatitan reigi, MACN-PV RN 821, redrawn from Salgado et al. (2015), (j) left femur in anterior view (reversed) of Traukutitan
eocaudata, MUCPv-204, redrawn from Juárez Valieri and Calvo (2011). Not to scale.

of the distal end of the tibia is at least twice the anteroposterior width of the proximal end, the
diameter of the bone at midshaft (Wilson 2002, robusticity and straightness of the shaft, and the
Mannion et al. 2013). development, location, and morphology of the lateral
The fibulae of South American titanosaurs trochanter. The proximal end is anteroposteriorly
exhibit variability in aspects such as the broad in taxa such as Dreadnoughtus (Figure

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 20 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

8l) and Uberabatitan (Figure 8g) but much TARSUS AND PES
narrower in many others (e.g., Epachthosaurus,
The tarsus of titanosaurs is represented exclusively
Laplatasaurus, Mendozasaurus, Figure 8f, h,
by the astragalus, with the possible exception of
j). Similarly, the shaft is relatively robust in
Elaltitan for which an ossified calcaneum has been
Dreadnoughtus, Uberabatitan, and saltasaurines reported (Mannion and Otero 2012); a calcaneum
(e.g., Figure 8k) but more gracile in Laplatasaurus was also described for Neuquensaurus by Huene
and Mendozasaurus. Interestingly, despite the (1929) but this bone is now lost (Otero 2010).
undoubtedly gigantic size of the animal, the fibula Among South American titanosaurs, the astragalus
of Argentinosaurus (initially described as a tibia, is known in only 11 taxa: Aeolosaurus rionegrinus,
Bonaparte and Coria 1993) is considerably more Bonatitan, Bonitasaura, Dreadnoughtus, Elaltitan,
gracile and slender-shafted than the stouter fibulae Epachthosaurus, Mendozasaurus, Muyelensaurus,
of taxa such as A. rionegrinus, Dreadnoughtus, Neuquensaurus, Notocolossus, and Uberabatitan
Elaltitan, Laplatasaurus, Uberabatitan, and (Table I, Figure 8m-p). In several of these forms
saltasaurines. Nevertheless, at a colossal 1.55 m (e.g., Notocolossus, Uberabatitan, Figure 8n, p) it is
proximodistally tall and pyramidal in shape, but in
in length, the Argentinosaurus fibula remains the
others (e.g., Dreadnoughtus [Figure 8m], Elaltitan
longest yet known for a titanosaur by a considerable
[Figure 8o], Epachthosaurus, Mendozasaurus) it
margin (see Lacovara et al. 2014, table 1). When
is lower. D’Emic (2012) regarded a mediolaterally
observed in lateral view, the fibular shaft is slightly
narrow astragalus as a synapomorphy of
sigmoid in Dreadnoughtus, Epachthosaurus, and Saltasauridae. The element identified as the
Saltasaurus (Powell 1992) but generally straighter calcaneum of Elaltitan is amorphous and globular,
in forms such as Argentinosaurus, Laplatasaurus, consistent in appearance with the calcanea of non-
Mendozasaurus, and Neuquensaurus. The titanosaurian sauropods (Figure 8q, Mannion and
lateral trochanter is very well-developed in Otero 2012).
taxa such as Dreadnoughtus, Laplatasaurus, Complete pedes are extremely scarce in the
Neuquensaurus, and Uberabatitan but less so in fossil record of titanosaurs (Table I, Figure 9, see
others (e.g., Epachthosaurus, Mendozasaurus). also Curry Rogers 2005, González Riga 2011), and
It is placed slightly proximal to midshaft in most indeed, sauropods as a whole (McIntosh 1990).
South American titanosaurs but more distally in Intrinsic factors related to the large body dimensions
selected taxa from other landmasses (e.g., the of these dinosaurs coupled with the relatively
small size and fragility of their skull bones,
Madagascan titanosaur Rapetosaurus, Figure 8i).
posterior caudal vertebrae, and manual and pedal
The lateral trochanter takes the form of a single
elements evidently led to the early disarticulation,
tuberosity in most taxa (e.g., Dreadnoughtus,
and therefore loss, of these comparatively
Laplatasaurus) but is comprised of two subparallel
diminutive bones during the biostratinomic stage
ridges in Epachthosaurus (Martínez et al. 2004). of necrokinesis (González Riga et al. 2008b). In
In Laplatasaurus, Uberabatitan, and perhaps a fact, of the well over 70 valid titanosaurian taxa
few other titanosaurs there is a marked concavity recognized at present (Wilson et al. 2016, M.C.L.
immediately posterior to the lateral trochanter pers. obs.), only three are known from complete
(Salgado and de Souza Carvalho 2008, Gallina and and articulated pedes: Opisthocoelicaudia from
Otero 2015). Mongolia (Figure 9a, ZPAL MgD-I/48, Borsuk-

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 21 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 8 – Morphological comparison of titanosaurian tibiae (a-e), fibulae (f-l), and tarsals (m-q).
South American taxa denoted with an asterisk. (a)-(e), right tibiae in lateral view: (a) Mendozasaurus
neguyelap*, IANIGLA-PV 073/2, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2018), (b) Laplatasaurus
araukanicus*, MLP-CS 1128, redrawn from Gallina and Otero (2015), (c) Epachthosaurus sciuttoi*,
UNPSJB-PV 920, redrawn from Martínez et al. (2004), (d) Dreadnoughtus schrani*, MPM-PV 1156,
redrawn from Ullmann and Lacovara (2016), (e) Saltasaurus loricatus*, PVL 4017-84, redrawn from
Powell (1992). (f)-(l), left fibulae in lateral view: (f) Laplatasaurus araukanicus* (reversed), MLP-CS
1127, redrawn from Gallina and Otero (2015), (g) Uberabatitan ribeiroi*, CPP-1107-UrHo, redrawn
from Salgado and de Souza Carvalho (2008), (h) Epachthosaurus sciuttoi*, UNPSJB-PV 920, redrawn
from Martínez et al. (2004), (i) Rapetosaurus krausei (reversed), FMNH PR 2209, redrawn from Curry
Rogers (2009), (j) Mendozasaurus neguyelap*, IANIGLA-PV 074/3, redrawn from González Riga
(2003), (k) ‘Neuquensaurus robustus’*, MLP-CS 1265, redrawn from Otero (2010), (l) Dreadnoughtus
schrani*, MPM-PV 1156, redrawn from Ullmann and Lacovara (2016). (m)-(q), tarsal elements in various
views: (m) left astragalus in proximal view of Dreadnoughtus schrani*, MPM-PV 1156, redrawn from
Ullmann and Lacovara (2016), (n) right astragalus in anterior view of Notocolossus gonzalezparejasi*,
UNCUYO-LD 302, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2016), (o) right astragalus in anterior view of
Elaltitan lilloi*, PVL 4628, redrawn from Mannion and Otero (2012), (p) left astragalus in anterior
view of Uberabatitan ribeiroi*, CPP-1082-UrHo, redrawn from Salgado and de Souza Carvalho (2008),
(q) calcaneum adhered to medial surface of distal fibula of Elaltitan lilloi*, PVL 4628, redrawn from
Mannion and Otero (2012). Not to scale.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 22 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Bialynicka 1977) and Epachthosaurus (Figure of the distal condyle of the first phalanx of digit IV
9b, UNPSJB-PV 920, Martínez et al. 2004) and suggests the presence of a second ossified phalanx
Notocolossus (Figure 9g, UNCUYO-LD 302, in this digit. Because of this, we herein interpret
González Riga et al. 2016) from Argentina. Two that this taxon had a phalangeal formula of 2-2-2-
additional titanosaurs with complete, articulated 2-0, as is the case in all other derived titanosaurs for
hind feet may be added to this select group: the which the pes is completely represented.
Agua de Padrillo taxon (UNCUYO-LD 313, Another relevant aspect of sauropod pedal
González Riga et al. 2015), which preserves structure is the development of the distal articular
both complete pedes and is currently undergoing facets of the metatarsals. In diplodocids, for example,
laboratory preparation, and the La Invernada taxon the articular facets are strongly convex and extend
(MUCPv-1533, González Riga et al. 2008a), onto the dorsal (= anterior) face of the metatarsals
which preserves the complete left fore- and hind (Bonnan 2005). This condition is clearly visible
limbs and is presently under study (Figures 1a, b, in Barosaurus (AMNH 6341, B.J.G.R. pers. obs.),
9c, d). Preliminary analyses suggest that both the in which the distal end of metatarsal I is strongly
Invernada and Padrillo forms correspond to new convex, indicating a wide range of mobility of
genera (B.J.G.R. pers. obs.). Pedal elements are phalanx I-1. A similar but less pronounced case is
known for many other titanosaurs, including other observed in Apatosaurus (CM 3018, phalangeal
South American taxa (see Table I), but none of these formula 2-3-3-2-1, B.J.G.R. pers. obs.), suggesting
preserve the pes completely and in articulation that the elevated mass of this taxon may have led
(though a few other specimens approach this to a reduction in the mobility of its phalanges in
condition, e.g., ?Alamosaurus NMMNH P-49967, comparison with the more lightly-built diplodocine
Figure 9e, D’Emic et al. 2011). diplodocids Barosaurus and Diplodocus. In the
In sauropods, a progressive reduction in both the macronarian Camarasaurus, two distal articular
number and length of the pedal phalanges has been facets are present in metatarsals I and II (YPM
previously documented and is the most apparent 1901, B.J.G.R. pers. obs.), in accordance with
evolutionary trend in the structure of the hind foot the well-developed pedal phalanges of this taxon
in these herbivorous dinosaurs (Bonnan 2005, (phalangeal formula 2-3-2-2-1, McIntosh et al.
González Riga et al. 2008a, 2016). For example, in 1996).
the basal eusauropods Shunosaurus (Zhang 1988) In titanosaurs, by contrast, the distal articular
and Omeisaurus (He et al. 1988), a total of 12 pedal facets of the metatarsals are less developed than in
phalanges are described. Titanosaurs, by contrast, other sauropods. In Mendozasaurus, for instance,
have fewer pedal phalanges. The possible basal these facets are only slightly convex and only
titanosaur Epachthosaurus has a pedal phalangeal some of them extend onto the dorsal surface of the
formula of 2-2-3-2-0 (nine phalanges total, metatarsal in question (González Riga et al. 2018).
Martínez et al. 2004), and an even more reduced An extreme case is observed in Notocolossus, the
formula of 2-2-2-2-0 (eight phalanges total) occurs metatarsals of which have nearly flat distal articular
in the Padrillo (UNCUYO-LD 313) and Invernada facets, indicating reduced mobility of the digits
(MUCPv-1533) taxa, Notocolossus (González Riga (González Riga et al. 2016, B.J.G.R. pers. obs.).
et al. 2016), and Mendozasaurus (González Riga Interestingly, unlike other titanosaurs, the pedal
et al. 2018). Opisthocoelicaudia was originally unguals of this gigantic taxon are small, blunt,
described as having a pedal phalangeal formula of and amorphous; although there is some possibility
2-2-2-1-0 (Borsuk-Bialynicka 1977), but the shape that this condition is pathologic (González Riga

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 23 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

et al. 2016), it is also consistent with the limited mediolateral breadth of metatarsals II–V divided
development of the distal articular facets of the by that of metatarsal I. In Notocolossus, the MtRI is
metatarsals. greater than 0.70 in metatarsals II–V. Moreover, the
A distinctive character of some titanosauriform non-ungual phalanges are relatively long and wide
pedal unguals is the presence of an elongate in relation to the metatarsals, and both the size and
tuberosity on the ventral (= plantar) surface. Among shape of the unguals are unique, as noted above and
South American titanosaurs this structure is present as was described by González Riga et al. (2016).
in Bonatitan (Salgado et al. 2015), Brasilotitan As mentioned above, several variances may
(Machado et al. 2013), Dreadnoughtus (Ullmann be observed within the long-footed titanosaurian
and Lacovara 2016), Mendozasaurus (González morphotype (Figure 9a-f). The medium-sized
Riga et al. 2018), the La Invernada taxon (González derived titanosaur Opisthocoelicaudia (body length
Riga et al. 2008a), and probably others. ~12 m, femoral length 1.39 m, Borsuk-Bialynicka
González Riga et al. (2016) preliminarily 1977) has a relatively short, compact metatarsus,
recognized two primary titanosaurian pedal very short non-ungual phalanges, and large unguals
skeletal morphotypes, which they termed ‘long- (Figure 9a). Metatarsal V is shorter than metatarsal
footed’ (where, as in non-titanosaurian sauropods,
I (metatarsal V length/metatarsal I length = 0.93,
the first four metatarsals exhibit a significant
Borsuk-Bialynicka 1977). Metatarsal III is the
increase in length and a decrease in robusticity
longest, in contrast to other titanosaurs (metatarsal
from medial to lateral) and ‘short-footed’ (with
III length/metatarsal I length = 1.33, González Riga
metatarsals that are all roughly the same length).
et al. 2016) (Table II).
Further study has led us to recognize considerable
The other long-footed titanosaurs analyzed
variation within González Riga et al.’s (2016) long-
herein are Epachthosaurus (Figure 9b, Martínez
footed morphotype, revealing a broad diversity in
et al. 2004), Mendozasaurus (Figure 9f, González
form (Figure 9). Moreover, within Titanosauria,
Riga et al. 2018), the unnamed Invernada and
there is no clear correlation between body size
Padrillo taxa (Figure 9c, d, González Riga et al.
and pedal osteology; instead, the differing hind
2008a, 2015), and NMMNH P-49967, an isolated
foot architecture of various titanosaurs is probably
more intimately related to evolutionary trends seen pes provisionally attributed to Alamosaurus
within different lineages. (Figure 9e, D’Emic et al. 2011). In contrast to
The short-footed pedal morphotype is a Opisthocoelicaudia, in all of these taxa, metatarsal
massive structure that has thus far been observed V is longer than metatarsal I and metatarsals I–IV
only in Notocolossus (Figure 9g). This giant show a progressive increase in length; because
sauropod exhibits the lowest differences between of this, metatarsal IV is the longest (the length
the lengths of the metatarsals of any titanosaurian ratio of metatarsal IV/metatarsal I is 1.39–1.57 in
taxon yet discovered (for instance, the ratio of the these taxa) (Table II). The unguals are relatively
length of metatarsal III to that of metatarsal I is large in relation to metatarsal length. Of all
only 1.14, González Riga et al. 2016). Moreover, titanosaurians for which the pes is completely
in Notocolossus, differences in robusticity known, Epachthosaurus is unique in retaining nine
between metatarsal I and metatarsals II–V are less phalanges. This accords with the basal position
pronounced than in other titanosaurs. This may be of this genus that is frequently recovered by
quantified using the Metatarsal Robustness Index phylogenetic analyses (e.g., Carballido et al. 2017)
(MtRI), which is herein defined as the minimum and the hypothesis of progressive reduction of the

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 24 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 9 – The best-preserved pedes of titanosaurian sauropods. South American (Argentinean) taxa marked with
an asterisk. (a) Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii, ZPAL MgD-I/48, right pes, redrawn from Borsuk-Bialynicka
(1977), (b) Epachthosaurus sciuttoi*, UNPSJB-PV 920, right pes, redrawn from Martínez et al. (2004), (c) La
Invernada taxon*, MUCPv-1533, left pes, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2008a), (d) Agua del Padrillo
taxon*, UNCUYO-LD 313, left pes, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2015), (e) ?Alamosaurus sanjuanensis,
NMMNH P-49967, right pes, redrawn from D’Emic et al. (2011), (f) Mendozasaurus neguyelap*, IANIGLA-PV
077/1–10, 078/1–2, 079, right pes, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2018), (G) Notocolossus gonzalezparejasi*,
UNCUYO-LD 302, right pes, redrawn from González Riga et al. (2016). Scale bars equal 10 cm.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 25 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

TABLE II
Proximodistal lengths and relative proportions of metatarsals of titanosaurian sauropods with the most completely
preserved pedes. Roman numerals indicate metatarsal number. Columns I–V indicate lengths in mm; remaining columns
are length ratios of various metatarsals.
Taxon Specimen I II III IV V II / I III / I IV / I V/I Source
Opisthocoelicaudia Borsuk-
ZPAL MgD-I/48 150 180 200 180 140 1.20 1.33 1.20 0.93
skarzynskii Bialynicka (1977)
Epachthosaurus Martínez et al.
UNPSJB-PV 920 125 153 177 185 153 1.22 1.41 1.48 1.22
sciuttoi (2004)
González Riga et
Padrillo taxon UNCUYO-LD 313 109 138 146 152 130 1.26 1.33 1.39 1.19
al. (2016)
González Riga et
Invernada taxon MUCPv-1533 120 137 168 172 127 1.14 1.40 1.43 1.05
al. (2008)
?Alamosaurus D’Emic et al.
NMMNH P-49967 195 245 270 291 281 1.25 1.38 1.49 1.44
sanjuanensis (2011)
Mendozasaurus González Riga et
IANIGLA-PV 077 135 158 181 212 169 1.17 1.34 1.57 1.25
neguyelap al. (2018)
Notocolossus González Riga et
UNCUYO-LD 302 164 185 187 218 196 1.12 1.14 1.32 1.19
gonzalezparejasi al. (2016)

pedal phalanges within Titanosauria (González the potential relationships between body size and
Riga et al. 2008a, 2016). pedal morphology discussed herein.
Among this second group of long-footed
DISCUSSION
titanosaurs, there are, as yet, no definitive correlations
between pedal structure and body size, though The skeletal structure of sauropods has traditionally
some possible trends are evident. In the smaller- been interpreted as being relatively conservative
bodied taxa within this group (Epachthosaurus in comparison to that of other dinosaurs. This
and the Invernada and Padrillo taxa, with body is documented in, for example, Wilson and
lengths of up to approximately 10 m, Martínez et Curry Rogers’ (2005) summary of the history
al. 2004, González Riga et al. 2008a), metatarsals of sauropod discoveries. In an early stage of
IV and V are relatively slender (Figure 9b-d). In the study of these iconic herbivorous dinosaurs,
contrast, in ?Alamosaurus (NMMNH P-49967) Romer (1968) lamented the difficulty in achieving
and Mendozasaurus, metatarsal V is relatively a classification of sauropods due to their relatively
robust and longer than metatarsals I and II (Figure incomplete fossil record. Thankfully, however,
9e, f). Both of these latter animals were very large: the sauropod record has improved dramatically
in ?Alamosaurus, metatarsal IV is 29.1 cm in in recent decades, leading to significant advances
length, and the femoral length of this individual has in knowledge of the anatomy, evolution, and
been estimated at 1.6–2.0 m (D’Emic et al. 2011, paleobiology of these animals. As Wilson and Curry
González Riga et al. 2016). Similarly, metatarsal Rogers (2005) pointed out, “The improvement in
III of an undescribed specimen of Mendozasaurus our understanding of sauropod phylogeny is the
(UNCUYO-LD 356) is 29.2 cm in length, and result of an improved sauropod fossil record.”
as such, the individual in question was probably Many sauropod species are primarily defined
comparable in size to that represented by NMMNH on anatomical characters derived from the
P-49967. Further discoveries of relatively complete presacral, sacral, and/or anterior caudal vertebrae,
titanosaurian pedes are needed to further evaluate and therefore, many authors have justifiably

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 26 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

focused much of their attention on the axial COMMENTS ON APPENDICULAR

skeleton (e.g., Bonaparte 1999, Wilson 1999, SYNAPOMORPHIES OF SELECTED
TITANOSAURIAN CLADES
2012). Knowledge of other regions of the sauropod
skeleton, especially the skull, manus, and pes, has Here, we follow the node-based phylogenetic
lagged behind understanding of vertebral anatomy, definition of Titanosauria proposed by Salgado et
and as such, the extent of morphological variability al. (1997) and subsequently modified by Wilson and
in these parts of the skeleton has not been as Upchurch (2003). Many titanosaurian clades exhibit
thoroughly characterized. Nevertheless, there is no considerable diversity. One of these appears to be
definitive evidence that certain structures changed Lognkosauria, which is defined as the most recent
significantly more than others through sauropod common ancestor of Mendozasaurus neguyelap
evolutionary history. As more discoveries have and Futalognkosaurus dukei and all descendants
been made, it has become apparent that some parts
(Calvo et al. 2007a). Whereas prior studies (e.g.,
of the sauropod skeleton deserve more attention
González Riga and Ortiz David 2014, González
from researchers than they had previously been
Riga et al. 2016) restricted Lognkosauria to these
afforded. This is certainly the case as regards the
two species, more recent analyses by Carballido
appendicular skeleton of titanosaurs.
et al. (2017) and González Riga et al. (2018) have
At first glance, the appendicular anatomy
suggested a more diverse clade that also includes
of titanosaurs may appear fairly homogeneous.
Argentinosaurus, Patagotitan, and possibly
However, as more well-preserved specimens have
Drusilasaura, Notocolossus, Puertasaurus, and/or
come to light, it has become clear that there is
Quetecsaurus.
considerable variation in the size and morphology
In p rev i o u s p h y l o g en et i c an a l y s e s ,
of the girdle and limb elements within the clade.
Titanosauria has been diagnosed by various
Accordingly, a significant number of appendicular
appendicular synapomorphies, some of which were
skeletal characters have been incorporated into
initially proposed for the titanosaurian subclades
recent phylogenetic analyses of Titanosauria and
more inclusive clades such as Titanosauriformes, Titanosauroidea or Titanosauridae (which have
Macronaria, and Neosauropoda (e.g., Curry since been abandoned due to the invalid status
Rogers 2005, D’Emic 2012, Mannion et al. of the genus Titanosaurus, Wilson and Upchurch
2013, González Riga et al. 2016, 2018, Gorscak 2003). A review of existing phylogenetic analyses
and O’Connor 2016, Carballido et al. 2017, of Titanosauria demonstrates that the clade has
Sallam et al. 2018). Although the percentages of not always been supported by the same suite of
appendicular skeletal characters in these analyses appendicular skeletal characters; in other words,
have varied considerably, the absolute number of there is no universal agreement among researchers
characters has generally increased over the years. as to which morphologies of the girdles and limbs
For example, in a study of the evolutionary history are diagnostic of Titanosauria. In recent years,
of Titanosauriformes, D’Emic (2012) included 51 phylogenetic studies have included additional taxa
appendicular characters out of a total of 119 (42%), and characters, and as a result, some previously-
whereas in their analysis of the relationships of proposed titanosaurian synapomorphies are now
Notocolossus, González Riga et al. (2016) modified thought to characterize either more inclusive or less
the dataset of Carballido and Sander (2014) to inclusive clades. The appendicular skeletal character
include 119 appendicular features, comprising 34% states that were proposed as synapomorphies of
of the total. Titanosauria and several of its subclades in the

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 27 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

analyses of D’Emic (2012), Mannion et al. (2013), In the phylogenetic analysis of Carballido
and González Riga et al. (2016) are summarized in et al. (2011), Titanosauria was supported by one
Table III. Other recent, comprehensive phylogenetic unambiguous appendicular synapomorphy: the
analyses of titanosaurs include, among others, absence of a strongly developed ventromedial
those of Gorscak and O’Connor (2016), Poropat et process on the scapula (character 202, state 0).
al. (2016), Carballido et al. (2017), Gorscak et al. According to Carballido et al. (2011), this feature
(2017), González Riga et al. (2018), and Sallam et is present only in titanosaurian outgroups (e.g.,
al. (2018). Chubutisaurus, Ligabuesaurus, Wintonotitan).
In the phylogenetic study of González
Titanosauria Riga and Ortiz David (2014), Titanosauria was
supported by two unambiguous appendicular
The clade Titanosauria has historically been
synapomorphies: absence of well-developed
supported primarily by vertebral characters,
distal phalangeal articular facets on metacarpals
with appendicular synapomorphies playing a
(character 71, state 1), and humerus/femur length
secondary role. For example, Salgado et al. (1997)
ratio less than 0.9 (character 77, state 1). Both
postulated only one appendicular synapomorphy
of these traits are absent in the non-titanosaurian
for Titanosauria: the presence of a pubis that is
titanosauriform Ligabuesaurus (Bonaparte et al.
considerably longer than the ischium (Salgado et
2006). In their revision of another non-titanosaurian
al. 1997:character 24). This feature is unknown in
titanosauriform, Chubutisaurus, Carballido et al.
some titanosaurs and therefore has an ambiguous
(2011:104) estimated a humerus/femur ratio of
distribution, as seen, for example, in the dataset of 0.86 for this taxon, proposing that a value of less
Salgado et al. (2015). than 0.8 was characteristic of titanosaurs.
Wilson (2002), in an extensive study of The absence of ossified manual phalanges
sauropod phylogeny, proposed four appendicular was proposed as a synapomorphy of
synapomorphies of Titanosauria: crescentic Opisthocoelicaudiinae by Wilson (2002:character
sternal plates (his character 158), prominent ulnar 181, state 2), although Opisthocoelicaudia
olecranon process (reversal) (character 168), ischial possesses at least one vestigial phalanx on manual
blade plate-like, no emargination distal to pubic digit IV (Borsuk-Bialynicka 1977:31). Previously,
peduncle (character 193), and distal tibia expanded Salgado et al. (1997) had proposed this morphology
mediolaterally to twice midshaft breadth (character as diagnostic of their ‘Titanosauridae’ (a clade
205). Subsequently, D’Emic (2012), in a large-scale that is largely similar to what is now known as
analysis of Titanosauriformes, recovered only a Lithostrotia). Salgado et al. (1997) indicated
single appendicular synapomorphy of Titanosauria, that the absence of manual phalanges should be
character 193 of Wilson’s (2002) matrix, referring evaluated based on the morphology of the distal
to the morphology of the ischial blade. In D’Emic’s articular facets of the metacarpals, due to the
(2012) analysis, a pubis considerably longer than likelihood that such phalanges could easily be lost
the ischium (the lone appendicular synapomorphy due to the taphonomic process of necrokinesis.
of Titanosauria according to Salgado et al. 1997, Similarly, Giménez (1992) proposed to examine
their character 24) is regarded as diagnostic of a the distal ends of metacarpals to assess the presence
more inclusive clade that includes Sauroposeidon + of manual phalanges, since in several derived
(Tastavinsaurus + (Euhelopodidae + (Chubutisaurus titanosaurs the metacarpals exhibit roughened,
+ Titanosauria))) (D’Emic 2012:character 102). flattened distal surfaces rather than convex articular

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 28 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

TABLE III
Proposed synapomorphies of the appendicular skeleton within Titanosauria and some of its subclades according to
selected recent works (D’Emic 2012, Mannion et al. 2013, González Riga et al. 2016). Synapomorphies are ordered by
anatomical region. (*) Description of synapomorphy modified from original source; (#) synapomorphy obtained from a
published phylogenetic analysis but not explicitly mentioned previously.
Character originally
Proposed synapomorphy Diagnostic of Source
proposed by

Scapulocoracoid suture flush, no Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 Upchurch 1995, 1998

embayment at suture
Scapula, ventral margin with well- Titanosauria González Riga Carballido et al. 2011
developed ventromedial process (#) et al. 2016
Coracoid anteroventral margin square Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 Salgado et al. 1997,
(*) Upchurch 1998, Sanz et
al. 1999, Wilson 2002
Coracoid proximodistally long* Lithostrotia D’Emic 2012 Wilson 2002
Sternal plate length ≥65–70% humerus Lithostrotia D’Emic 2012; McIntosh 1990;
length (*) Mannion et al. Upchurch 1998
2013
Prominent posterolateral expansion of Lithostrotia Mannion et al. McIntosh 1990, Salgado
sternal plate produces ‘kidney-shaped’ 2013 et al. 1997, Upchurch
profile in dorsal view (*) 1998
Humerus length less than 80% femur Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 Wilson 2002
length (*)
Humeral deltopectoral crest extends Titanosauria Mannion et al. Sanz et al. 1999, Wilson
medially across anterior face of 2013 2002, Upchurch et al.
humerus (*) 2004
Humeral deltopectoral crest strongly Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 Wilson 2002
expanded distally (*)
Humerus with strong posterolateral Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 D’Emic 2012
bulge around level of deltopectoral
crest
Humeral radial and ulnar condyles Alamosaurus + D’Emic 2012 Wilson 2002
divided distally (*) ‘Saltasaurini’
Anterior surface of distal lateral Lithostrotia Mannion et al. D’Emic 2012
condyle of humerus undivided 2013
Radius distal end beveled ~20° Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 Wilson 2002
proximolaterally relative to shaft
Prominent ulnar olecranon process, Lithostrotia Mannion et al. McIntosh 1990, Wilson
projecting well above proximal 2013 and Sereno 1998
articulation (*)
Carpus unossified or absent (*) Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 Upchurch 1998, Wilson
2002
Metacarpal I:metacarpal II/III Lithostrotia Mannion et al. Upchurch 1998
proximodistal length ratio ≥1.0 2013

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 29 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

TABLE III (continued)

Character originally
Proposed synapomorphy Diagnostic of Source
proposed by
Metacarpal V proximal end subequal Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 D’Emic 2012
in size to that of metacarpal I
Ilium with kink on ventral margin of Alamosaurus + D’Emic 2012 D’Emic 2012
preacetabular process ‘Saltasaurini’
Anteroposterior to mediolateral width
Mannion et al. Mannion et al. 2013
ratio of iliac articular surface of pubis Titanosauria
2013
≥2.0
Acetabular margin of ischium strongly Titanosauria D’Emic 2012, D’Emic 2012
concave in lateral view such that pubic (Mannion et al. Mannion et al.
articular surface forms proximodorsal 2013) or 2013
projection (*) Lithostrotia
(D’Emic 2012)
No emargination of ischium distal to Titanosauria D’Emic 2012, McIntosh 1990,
pubic articulation Mannion et al. Upchurch 1998, Wilson
2013 2002
Ratio of dorsoventral width of distal Titanosauria Mannion et al. McIntosh 1990,
end of ischial shaft:minimum shaft 2013 Upchurch 1995, 1998
dorsoventral width <1.5 (*)
Femur with longitudinal ridge on Alamosaurus + D’Emic 2012 Otero 2010
anterior face of shaft ‘Saltasaurini’
Femoral distal condyles beveled 10° Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 Wilson 2002
dorsomedially relative to shaft
Ratio of mediolateral width of distal Lithostrotia Mannion et al. Wilson 2002
end of tibia:long axis of a cross-section 2013
horizontally through the midshaft ≥2.0
(*)
Laterally projected tibial cnemial crest Lithostrotia González Riga Wilson 2002
(#) et al. 2016
Astragalus mediolaterally narrow Saltasauridae D’Emic 2012 D’Emic 2012

facets. As was described by Apesteguía (2005), without vestigial ossified manual phalanges. In
there seems to have been a progressive reduction of the first case, the presence of manual phalanges
the manual phalanges from basal titanosauriforms is supported both by well-defined distal articular
to derived titanosaurs. facets on the metacarpals and the discovery of
We observe at least two manual morphologies manual phalanges associated with the specimens
in titanosaurs that are pertinent to discussions of in question. This is the case for two early Late
the presence or absence of ossified phalanges in Cretaceous Australian taxa, Diamantinasaurus and
these sauropods: (1) metacarpals with well-defined Savannasaurus, described by Hocknull et al. (2009)
distal articular facets and curved metacarpal I, as and Poropat et al. (2015, 2016), respectively. In
evidence of manual phalanges, and (2) metacarpals Diamantinasaurus, the manual elements were not
with poorly-defined distal articular facets, with or preserved in articulation but have been tentatively

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 30 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

interpreted as indicative of a manual phalangeal Poropat et al. 2016:1012), nor as negative evidence
formula of 2-1-1-1-1. In Savannasaurus, Poropat et of genuine absence (e.g., Salgado et al. 1997, Wilson
al. (2016) recognized at least two manual phalanges, 2002). To more rigorously evaluate this character in
though these authors did not specify to which digits a given titanosaurian taxon, one must consider the
these bones pertained. These important discoveries presence or absence of distal articular facets on the
hint at the existence of diverse manual structures metacarpals and the taphonomic context of known
within Titanosauria, though articulated specimens specimens.
are needed to confirm certain aspects of their
anatomy (e.g., the proposed phalangeal formula Lognkosauria
of Diamantinasaurus). Additional titanosaurian
Lognkosauria is a node-based clade defined as the
taxa such as Andesaurus and Argyrosaurus exhibit
most recent common ancestor of Mendozasaurus
indirect evidence of manual phalanges, though
neguyelap and Futalognkosaurus dukei and all
these bones have yet to be discovered in these taxa
descendants (Calvo et al. 2007a). Many previous
(Mannion and Calvo 2011, Mannion and Otero
studies (e.g., Calvo et al. 2007a, b, González
2012). In these two large Patagonian titanosaurs,
Riga and Ortiz David 2014, González Riga et
metacarpal I is curved and somewhat ‘banana-
al. 2016) have restricted Lognkosauria to these
shaped,’ similar to that of the basal titanosauriform
two taxa, but more recent analyses (Carballido
Janenschia (Apesteguía 2005:334), thereby
et al. 2017, González Riga et al. 2018) have
suggesting the possible presence of one or more
postulated Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan as
diminutive manual phalanges (e.g., Figure 5c,
Argyrosaurus). lognkosaurians as well; the analysis of Carballido
In the second case, the metacarpals have et al. (2017) additionally positioned Drusilasaura,
poorly developed distal articular facets, and in two Puertasaurus, and Quetecsaurus within this clade
genera, Epachthosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia, a (Figure 10b), whereas that of González Riga et al.
rudimentary phalanx is present on digit IV. Though (2018) also included Notocolossus (Figure 10d).
both of these taxa are represented by fully articulated Intriguingly, most lognkosaurians or putative
postcranial skeletons, there is no evidence of other lognkosaurians are exceedingly large-bodied
ossified manual phalanges (Borsuk-Bialynicka 1977, animals, with Argentinosaurus, Futalognkosaurus,
Martínez et al. 2004). Similarly, in the unnamed Notocolossus, Patagotitan, and Puertasaurus
Invernada taxon (González Riga et al. 2008a), no all being among the largest titanosaurians yet
manual phalanges were discovered, although much discovered.
of the skeleton was exquisitely preserved, including In the analysis of González Riga et al.
the articulated left fore- and hind limbs with all (2018), Lognkosauria was diagnosed by eight
metacarpals and the complete pes (B.J.G.R. pers. synapomorphies, although none of these were
obs.). An important feature of these taxa is that regarded as unique to the clade. Two of these
the metacarpals are in contact distally, forming a morphologies (a deep spinodiapophyseal fossa on
structure that is more tubular than the metacarpus the lateral surface of the base of the neural spine in
of other neosauropods (Figure 5c, Epachthosaurus). posterior cervical vertebrae and laterally expanded
In this context, the absence of ossified manual posterior cervical neural spines resulting from
phalanges cannot be used as positive evidence (i.e., expansion of the lateral lamina) are also present
that these bones were present and subsequently in the North American titanosaur Alamosaurus
removed by taphonomic processes, as suggested by (Tykoski and Fiorillo 2017). From their analysis of

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 31 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

the data matrix of González Riga and Ortiz David Carballido et al.’s (2017) topology, the colossal
(2014), Tykoski and Fiorillo (2017) obtained a Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan are again nested
single resolved tree in which Alamosaurus was within Lognkosauria, this time accompanied by the
postulated as the sister taxon of Lognkosauria similarly gigantic Puertasaurus. Another enormous
(Figure 10c). titanosaur, Notocolossus, is placed as the sister
taxon of Lognkosauria, and two main lineages
RECOGNITION OF A NEW TITANOSAURIAN CLADE
are recovered within Carballido et al.’s (2017)
Although many aspects of titanosaurian phylogeny Eutitanosauria: a ‘lithostrotian line’ that includes
remain unresolved, recent studies have shed Saltasauridae and a second lineage that includes
considerable light on the interrelationships of taxa Lognkosauria and Rinconsauria.
within the clade. The phylogenetic definitions of The existence of a clade that includes
groups such as Saltasaurinae and Lognkosauria undisputed members of Lognkosauria and
are stable, but their taxonomic content has Rinconsauria was previously recovered by Tykoski
and Fiorillo (2017) based on the data matrix of
varied depending on the phylogenetic hypothesis
González Riga and Ortiz David (2014) (Figure
recovered. The recent study of González Riga et al.
10c). Similarly, Gallina and Apesteguía (2011)
(2018) employed a data matrix of 84 taxa scored for
also recovered this clade, termed ‘node A’ in their
423 characters. Analysis of this matrix recovered a
analysis (Figure 10a). These authors based their
clade of South American lithostrotian titanosaurs
study on the dataset of Calvo et al. (2007a) and
pertaining to Rinconsauria and Lognkosauria.
González Riga et al. (2009), but they added new
The other principal lithostrotian clade postulated
cranial and postcranial characters, as well as some
by this analysis primarily includes taxa from
taxa.
Asia and North America plus the Brazilian
Relevant taxa such as Futalognkosaurus,
titanosaur Tapuiasaurus and the Indian Isisaurus
Mendozasaurus, Muyelensaurus, and
(Figure 10d). In the phylogenetic hypothesis
Rinconsaurus have been excluded from other
of González Riga et al. (2018), Lognkosauria is
recent and pertinent phylogenetic analyses, and as
comprised by Argentinosaurus, Futalognkosaurus, such, it is difficult to further evaluate the existence
Mendozasaurus, Notocolossus, and Patagotitan. of the new clade proposed herein. However,
Carballido et al. (2017), in their study of the although Mendozasaurus and Rinconsaurus
giant titanosaur Patagotitan, analyzed a dataset were not included in the phylogenetic study of
of 405 characters and 87 sauropodomorph taxa the bizarre Australian titanosaur Savannasaurus
(including 28 titanosaurs) that was modified from (Poropat et al. 2016, dataset of 297 characters
the matrix of Carballido and Sander (2014). In and 72 taxa), the new group is supported by the
contrast to most previous studies, Malawisaurus recovery of a Muyelensaurus + (Epachthosaurus
was not recovered as a comparatively basal + Futalognkosaurus) clade. In this case, the new
titanosaur, but instead was placed in a position clade is independent from Nemegtosauridae
more derived than Lognkosauria and Rinconsauria. and Saltasauridae (Poropat et al. 2016, fig.
Because Malawisaurus is included in the definition 7). Similarly, although Muyelensaurus and
of Lithostrotia (Upchurch et al. 2004), under Rinconsaurus were not included in González
this phylogenetic hypothesis, members of both Riga et al.’s (2016) phylogenetic analysis of
Lognkosauria and Rinconsauria would be considered Notocolossus (dataset of 350 characters and 33
to be non-lithostrotian titanosaurs (Figure 10b). In taxa), a distinct, well-defined clade that includes

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 32 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Figure 10 - Four cladistic hypotheses of relationships of titanosaurian taxa. Cladograms have been redrawn and are limited to
Titanosauria for ease of comparison. Hypotheses depicted are those of (a) Gallina and Apesteguía (2011), (b) Carballido et al.
(2017), (c) Tykoski and Fiorillo (2017), and (d) González Riga et al. (2018). Abbreviations: LO, Lognkosauria, RI, Rinconsauria.

that genus plus Dreadnoughtus, Futalognkosaurus, REVISED PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS WITH

ADDITIONAL CHARACTERS
Mendozasaurus, and Tapuiasaurus was recovered.
Finally, though Lacovara et al. (2014, dataset We executed a slightly revised phylogenetic
of of 341 characters and 70 taxa) excluded analysis that employed the dataset of González
Muyelensaurus and Rinconsaurus from their Riga et al. (2018, 426 characters and 84 taxa),
analysis of Dreadnoughtus, Malawisaurus was which in turn was based on that of Mannion et al.
recovered as more derived than lognkosaurians, (2017) with the addition of some characters (see
as was also the case in the analysis of Patagotitan González Riga et al. 2018 for details). At present
(Carballido et al. 2017). study, we added three characters (C424–C426) to

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 33 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

the matrix; one of these is new and the other two PHYLOGENETIC DEFINITION OF COLOSSOSAURIA
were originally proposed by González Riga et al.
Four recent phylogenetic analyses based on largely
(2016) (see Appendix). These added characters are
independent datasets (Gallina and Apesteguía
as follows:
2011, Carballido et al. 2017, Tykoski and Fiorillo
C424. Number of phalanges in pedal digit II: three 2017, and González Riga et al. 2018) recovered a
(0), two (1) (González Riga et al. 2016). clade that includes Lognkosauria and Rinconsauria.
C425. Number of phalanges in pedal digit IV: three Moreover, the results of an amended phylogenetic
or more (0), two (1) (modified from González Riga analysis based on the dataset of González Riga et al.
et al. 2016). (2018) that includes three additional appendicular
C426. Number of phalanges in pedal digit V: two characters also supports the existence of this group.
(0), one (1), zero (2) (this paper). Accordingly, we herein propose a new taxon
The matrix was analyzed under equal character following the tenets of phylogenetic taxonomy
weighting using TNT (Tree analysis using New (Sereno 2005, Cantino and de Queiroz 2010), as
Technology) v. 1.1 (Goloboff et al. 2008). The follows:
Colossosauria new taxon
multistate characters 11, 14, 15, 27, 40, 51, 104, 122,
Etymology. From the ancient Greek colossos,
147, 148, 177, 195, 205, and 259 were treated as
colossus, giant, in reference to the gigantic size
ordered. In addition, eleven highly incomplete taxa
of some genera within the clade; from the Greek
(and therefore unstable) were excluded prior to the
saurus, lizard, reptile.
analysis (specimen AODF 836, Astrophocaudia, Definition.Colossosauria is phylogenetically
Australodocus, Brontomerus, Fukuititan, defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Fusuisaurus, Huanghetitan, ´Huanguhetitan´ Mendozasaurus neguyelap but not Saltasaurus
ruyangensis, Liubangosaurus, Mongolosaurus and loricatus or Epachthosaurus sciuttoi (stem-based).
Tendaguria). First, the data matrix was analyzed Specifiers. Mendozasaurus neguyelap González
using New Technology Search with the functions Riga, 2003, Saltasaurus loricatus Bonaparte and
‘sectorial searches’, ‘drift’ and ‘tree fusing’. It was Powell, 1980, Epachthosaurus sciuttoi Powell,
also used ‘get tree’ from ‘driven search’ and ‘find 1990.
minimum length’ three times. Second, the resultant Taxa. Following González Riga et al. (2018) and
trees were searching by Traditional Search using this paper, Colossosauria includes Argentinosaurus,
the option ´tree bisection-reconstruction´. This Futalognkosaurus, Mendozasaurus,
Muyelensaurus, Notocolossus, Patagotitan, and
process resulted in 660 MPTs of 1741 steps and
Rinconsaurus. After Carballido et al. (2017),
produced a fairly well-resolved strict consensus
the clade comprises the aforementioned taxa
tree (Consistency Index, 0.248; Retention index,
plus Aeolosaurus, Bonitasaura, Drusilasaura,
0.560). The strict consensus of these generates a
Overosaurus, Puertasaurus, and Quetecsaurus.
polytomy of basal titanosaurians but recovers the Diagnosis. Following this paper, Colossosauria is
phylogenetic relationships of lithostrotian taxa diagnosed by seven ambiguous synapomorphies:
within two primary clades: a lineage containing humerus, minimum mediolateral width divided by
Lognkosauria and Rinconsauria, herein termed proximodistal length less than 0.15 (Character 42,
Colossosauria, and a clade containing Saltasaurus state 1), middle–posterior dorsal neural arches with
and other derived taxa. posterior centroparapophyseal lamina (character

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 34 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

148, state 1), middle–posterior dorsal neural spines third forming a prominent ridge or flange (character
vertical or slightly posterodorsal (character 164, 420, state 1).
state 0), middle–posterior dorsal neural arches, Observations. The name proposed herein does
not affect the previous nomenclature of other
neural canal in anterior view enclosed in a deep
titanosaurian clades. Figure 11 shows the position
fossa in the dorsal surface of the centrum (character
of the clade Colossosauria.
338, state 1), glenoid does not expand strongly
laterally relative to the lateral surface of the coracoid CONCLUSIONS
(character 361, state 0), humerus, deltopectoral
Systematic and phylogenetic studies of titanosaurian
crest, mediolateral thickness of anterior attachment
sauropod dinosaurs have often focused greater
surface with distal half mediolaterally expanded attention on the postcranial axial skeleton than
relative to proximal half (character 369, state 0), on the appendicular skeleton. Nevertheless, this
metacarpal V with dorsomedial margin of distal practice has changed in recent years alongside

Figure 11 – Strict consensus cladogram (limited to Titanosauria) generated from a revised analysis of the data matrix of González
Riga et al. (2018) with the addition of three characters (this paper), showing the position and taxonomic content of the newly-
recognized stem-based clade Colossosauria. Abbreviations: Lo, Lognkosauria, Ri, Rinconsauria, Sa, Saltasauridae.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 35 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

discoveries of new specimens that preserve the (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County),
appendicular skeleton in its entirety, or nearly Jorge Calvo (Centro Paleontológico Lago
so. These fossils have provided a wealth of new Barreales, Universidad Nacional del Comahue),
anatomical and paleobiological information on and Stephen Poropat (Swinburne University of
titanosaurs, a group that is characterized by marked Technology), whose insightful comments improved
variation in both body size and morphology. the final paper. Funding was provided by projects
An overview of the appendicular skeletal of the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica
morphology of titanosaurian taxa from South y Tecnológica (PICT), the Universidad Nacional
America indicates that this part of the skeleton de Cuyo-SECYT, and CONICET-PIP to B.J.G.R.
exhibits greater anatomical diversity than was A.W.A.K. acknowledges the Conselho Nacional de
initially appreciated. Detailed comparative studies Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq,
of each of these appendicular elements and skeletal #313461/2018-0) and the Fundação Carlos Chagas
regions would likely yield additional character Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de
information useful for phylogenetic analyses. Janeiro (FAPERJ, #E-26/202.905/2018).
From a systematic point of view, the present
review shows that there is no definitive consensus AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
on the appendicular character states that serve as
The goals of this paper were proposed by B.J.G.R.
synapomorphies for Titanosauria and Lithostrotia.
Anatomical description was performed by B.J.G.R.,
However, within Titanosauria, recent phylogenetic
M.C.L., A.O., and L.M.I. Phylogenetic analysis
analyses confirm the presence of a titanosaurian
was performed by L.D.O.D., A.O., and B.J.G.R.
lineage that differs from the ‘Saltasaurinae line.’
The discussion was written by B.J.G.R., M.C.L.,
Four recent cladistic studies based on largely
A.O., L.M.I., L.D.O.D., and A.W.A.K. The English
independent datasets have recovered this new
revision was completed by M.C.L. The figures
clade, which is herein termed Colossosauria. At
were done by L.D.O.D and B.J.G.R. The tables
present, this clade is mainly comprised by taxa
were made by M.C.L., B.J.G.R., and L.M.I.
belonging to Rinconsauria and Lognkosauria, the
latter including several exceptionally gigantic REFERENCES
species.
APESTEGUÍA S. 2004. Bonitasaura salgadoi gen. et sp. nov.:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a beaked sauropod from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia.
Naturwissenschaften 91: 493-497.
We are grateful to the many people who have APESTEGUÍA S. 2005. Evolution of the titanosaur
metacarpus. In: Tidwell V, Carpenter K (Eds), Thunder-
collaborated with us in collecting, preparing, and Lizards: The Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Bloomington,
studying South American titanosaur fossils over Indiana University Press: 321-345.
the years. We also acknowledge those who have BATES K, FALKINGHAM P, MACAULAY S, BRASSEY
C AND MAIDMENT S. 2015. Downsizing a giant: re-
helped us study South American sauropod material
evaluating Dreadnoughtus body mass. Biol Let 11:
in their care, in particular Jorge Calvo (MUCPv), 20150215.
Rubén Martínez, Gabriel Casal, and Marcelo Luna BONAPARTE J AND CORIA R. 1993. Un nuevo y gigantesco
(UNPSJB), and Jaime Powell (PVL). Case Miller saurópodo titanosaurio de la Formación Río Limay
(Albiano–Cenomaniano) de la Provincia del Neuquén,
and Andrew McAfee (CM) provided assistance
Argentina. Ameghiniana 30: 271-282.
with the bibliography and Figure 10, respectively. BONAPARTE J. 1996. Cretaceous tetrapods of Argentina.
We are also grateful the reviewers Pedro Mocho Münch Geowis Abhand 30: 73-130.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 36 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

BONAPARTE J. 1999. Evolución de las vértebras presacras en Gondwana with the description of a new sauropod
Sauropodomorpha. Ameghiniana 36: 115-187. dinosaur. An Acad Bras Cienc 79: 529-541.
BONAPARTE J AND POWELL J. 1980. A continental CALVO J, PORFIRI J, GONZÁLEZ RIGA B AND
assemblage of tetrapods from the Upper Cretaceous KELLNER A. 2007b. Anatomy of Futalognkosaurus
of northwestern Argentina (Sauropoda-Coelurosauria- dukei Calvo, Porfiri, González Riga & Kellner, 2007
Carnosauria-Aves). Mém Soc Géol France 139: 19-28. (Dinosauria, Titanosauridae) from the Neuquén Group
BONAPARTE J, GONZÁLEZ RIGA B AND APESTEGUÍA (Late Cretaceous), Patagonia, Argentina. Arq Mus Nac,
S. 2006. Ligabuesaurus leanzai gen. et sp. nov. Rio de Janeiro 65: 511-526.
(Dinosauria, Sauropoda), a new titanosaur from the Lohan CAMPOS D, KELLNER A, BERTINI R AND SANTUCCI R.
Cura Formation (Aptian, Lower Cretaceous) of Neuquén, 2005. On a titanosaurid (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) vertebral
Patagonia, Argentina. Cret Res 27: 364-376. column from the Bauru Group, Late Cretaceous of Brazil.
BONNAN M. 2003. The evolution of manus shape in sauropod Arq Mus Nac, Rio de Janeiro 63: 565-593.
dinosaurs: implications for functional morphology, CANTINO P AND DE QUEIROZ K. 2010. International
forelimb orientation, and phylogeny. J Verteb Paleont 23: code of phylogenetic nomenclature. Version 4c (Internet).
595-613. Available from http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/.
BONNAN M. 2005. Pes anatomy in sauropod dinosaurs: CARBALLIDO J, POL D, CERDA I AND SALGADO L.
implications for functional morphology, evolution, and 2011. The osteology of Chubutisaurus insignis del Corro,
phylogeny. In: Tidwell V and Carpenter K (Eds), Thunder- 1975 (Dinosauria: Neosauropoda) from the ‘middle’
Lizards: The Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs. Bloomington: Cretaceous of central Patagonia, Argentina. J Verteb
Indiana University Press: 346-380. Paleont 31: 93-110.
BORSUK-BIALYNICKA M. 1977. A new camarasaurid CARBALLIDO J, POL D, OTERO A, CERDA I, SALGADO
sauropod Opisthocoelicaudia skarzynskii, gen. n., sp. n. L, GARRIDO A, RAMEZANI J, CÚNEO N AND
from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia. Palaeont Pol 37: KRAUSE J. 2017. A new giant titanosaur sheds light on
1-64. body mass evolution among sauropod dinosaurs. Proceed
CALVO J. 1999. Dinosaurs and other vertebrates of the Roy Soc B 284: 20171219.
Lake Ezequiel Ramos Mexía area, Neuquén-Patagonia, CARBALLIDO J AND SANDER P. 2014. Postcranial axial
Argentina. Nat Scien Mus Monogr 15: 13-45. skeleton of Europasaurus holgeri (Dinosauria, Sauropoda)
CALVO J. 2014. New fossil remains of Futalognkosaurus from the Upper Jurassic of Germany: implications for
dukei (Sauropoda, Titanosauria) from the Late Cretaceous sauropod ontogeny and phylogenetic relationships of basal
of Neuquén, Argentina. In: Cerdeño E (Ed), 4th International Macronaria. J System Palaeont 12: 335-387.
Palaeontological Congress, “The History of Life: A CARRANO M. 2005. The evolution of sauropod locomotion:
View from the Southern Hemisphere,” Abstract Volume. morphological diversity of a secondarily quadrupedal
Mendoza: International Palaeontological Association: 325. radiation. In: Curry Rogers K, Wilson J (Eds), The
CALVO J AND BONAPARTE J. 1991. Andesaurus delgadoi Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. Berkeley: Univ
gen. et sp. nov. (Saurischia-Sauropoda), dinosaurio of California Press: 229-251.
Titanosauridae de la Formación Río Limay (Albiano- CERDA I, SALGADO L AND POWELL J. 2012. Extreme
Cenomaniano), Neuquén, Argentina. Ameghiniana 28: postcranial pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs from
303-310. South America. Paläontol Zeitschrift 86: 441-449.
CALVO J AND GONZÁLEZ RIGA B. 2003. Rinconsaurus COOMBS W. 1975. Sauropod habits and habitats. Palaeog
caudamirus gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosaurid (Dinosauria, Palaeocl Palaeoec 17: 1-33.
Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia, CORIA R, FILIPPI L, CHIAPPE L, GARCÍA R AND
Argentina. Rev Geol Chile 30: 333-353. ARCUCCI A. 2013. Overosaurus paradasorum gen. et sp.
CALVO J, GONZÁLEZ RIGA B AND PORFIRI J. 2007c. nov., a new sauropod dinosaur (Titanosauria: Lithostrotia)
A new titanosaur sauropod from the Late Cretaceous of from the Late Cretaceous of Neuquén, Patagonia,
Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina. Arq Mus Nac, Rio de Argentina. Zootaxa 3683: 357-376.
Janeiro 65: 485-504. CURRY ROGERS K. 2005. Titanosauria: a phylogenetic
CALVO J AND PORFIRI J. 2010. Panamericansaurus overview. In: Curry Rogers K and Wilson J (Eds), The
schroederi gen. nov. sp. nov. Un nuevo Sauropoda Sauropods: Evolution and Paleobiology. Berkeley: Univ
(Titanosauridae-Aeolosaurini) de la Provincia del of California Press: 50-103.
Neuquén, Cretácico Superior de Patagonia, Argentina. CURRY ROGERS K. 2009. The postcranial osteology of
Braz Geograp Jour: Geosc Hum Resear Med 1: 100-115. Rapetosaurus krausei (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the
CALVO J, PORFIRI J, GONZÁLEZ RIGA B AND KELLNER Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. J Verteb Paleont 29: 1046-
A. 2007a. A new Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystem from 1086.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 37 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

CURRY ROGERS K AND FORSTER C. 2001. The last of the GALLINA P AND APESTEGUÍA S. 2015. Postcranial
dinosaur titans: a new sauropod from Madagascar. Nature anatomy of Bonitasaura salgadoi (Sauropoda,
412: 530-534. Titanosauria) from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia. J
CURRY ROGERS K AND FORSTER C. 2004. The skull of Verteb Paleont 35: e924957.
Rapetosaurus krausei (Sauropoda: Titanosauria) from the GALLINA P AND OTERO A. 2015. Reassessment of
Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. J Verteb Paleont 24: 121- Laplatasaurus araukanicus (Sauropoda: Titanosauria)
144. from the Upper Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina.
CURRY ROGERS K AND WILSON J. 2014. Vahiny depereti, Ameghiniana 52: 487-501.
gen. et sp. nov., a new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) GALTON P AND UPCHURCH P. 2004. Prosauropoda.
from the Upper Cretaceous Maevarano Formation, In: Weishampel D, Dodson P, Osmólska H (Eds), The
Madagascar. J Verteb Paleont 34: 606-617. Dinosauria (Second Edition). Berkeley: Univ of California
D’EMIC M. 2012. The early evolution of titanosauriform Press: 232-258.
sauropod dinosaurs. Zool J Lin Soc 166: 624-671. GILMORE C. 1946. Reptilian fauna of the North Horn
D’EMIC M, WILSON J AND WILLIAMSON T. 2011. A Formation of central Utah. US Depart Int Prof Paper 210-
sauropod dinosaur pes from the latest Cretaceous of North C: 1-53.
America and the validity of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis GIMÉNEZ O. 1992. Estudio preliminar del miembro anterior
(Sauropoda, Titanosauria). J Verteb Paleont 31: 1072- de los sauropodos titanosauridos. Ameghiniana 30: 154.
1079. GOLOBOFF P, FARRIS J AND NIXON K. 2008. TNT, a free
DE SOUZA CARVALHO I, SALGADO L, LINDOSO R, DE program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 24: 774-786.
ARAÚJO-JÚNIOR H, NOGUEIRA F AND SOARES GONZÁLEZ RIGA B. 2003. A new titanosaur (Dinosauria,
J. 2017. A new basal titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) Sauropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Mendoza
from the Lower Cretaceous of Brazil. J S Am Earth Sci Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 40: 155-172.
75: 74-84. GONZÁLEZ RIGA B. 2005. Nuevos restos fósiles de
DÍEZ DÍAZ V, MOCHO P, PÁRAMO A, ESCASO F, Mendozasaurus neguyelap (Sauropoda, Titanosauria) del
MARCOS-FERNÁNDEZ F, SANZ J AND ORTEGA F. Cretácico tardío de Mendoza, Argentina. Ameghiniana 42:
2016. A new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the 535-548.
Upper Cretaceous of Lo Hueco (Cuenca, Spain). Cret Res GONZÁLEZ RIGA B. 2011. Paleobiology of South American
68: 49-60. titanosaurs. In: Calvo J, Porfiri J, González Riga B and
FARLOW J. 1992. Sauropod tracks and trackmakers: Dos Santos D (Eds), Paleontología y Dinosaurios desde
integrating the ichnological and skeletal records. Zubía América Latina. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de
10: 89-138. Cuyo: 125-141.
FILIPPI L AND GARRIDO A. 2008. Pitekunsaurus macayai GONZÁLEZ RIGA B AND CALVO J. 2009. A new wide-
gen. et sp. nov., nuevo titanosaurio (Saurischia, Sauropoda) gauge sauropod track site from the Late Cretaceous of
del Cretácico Superior de la Cuenca Neuquina, Argentina. Mendoza, Neuquén Basin, Argentina. Palaeontology 52:
Ameghiniana 45: 575-590. 631-640.
FILIPPI L, GARCÍA R AND GARRIDO A. 2011a. A new GONZÁLEZ RIGA B, CALVO J AND PORFIRI J. 2008a.
titanosaur sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous An articulated titanosaur from Patagonia (Argentina): new
of North Patagonia, Argentina. Acta Palaeont Pol 56: 505- evidence of neosauropod pedal evolution. Palaeoworld 17:
520. 33-40.
FILIPPI L, CANUDO J, SALGADO J, GARRIDO A, GONZÁLEZ RIGA B, CALVO J AND PREVITERA E.
GARCÍA R, CERDA I AND OTERO A. 2011b. A new 2008b. Taphonomic analyses of titanosaur sauropods from
sauropod titanosaur from the Plottier Formation (Upper the Neuquén Basin (Argentina) and their implications
Cretaceous) of Patagonia (Argentina). Geol Acta 9: 1-12. in systematic studies. In: Colectivo Arqueológico y
FILIPPI L, SALGADO L AND GARRIDO A. 2019. A new Paleontológico de Salas (Eds), IV Jornadas Internacionales
giant basal titanosaur sauropod in the Upper Cretaceous sobre Paleontología de Dinosaurios y su Entorno. Burgos:
(Coniacian) of the Neuquén Basin, Argentina. Cret Res Colectivo Arqueológico y Paleontológico de Salas de los
100: 61-81. Infantes: 235-241.
GALLINA P. 2011. Notes on the axial skeleton of the titanosaur GONZÁLEZ RIGA B, LAMANNA M, ORTIZ DAVID L,
Bonitasaura salgadoi (Dinosauria-Sauropoda). An Acad CALVO J AND CORIA J. 2016. A gigantic new dinosaur
Bras Cienc 83: 235-246. from Argentina and the evolution of the sauropod hind
GALLINA P AND APESTEGUÍA S. 2011. Cranial anatomy foot. Scient Rep 6: 19165.
and phylogenetic position of the titanosaurian sauropod GONZÁLEZ RIGA B, MANNION P, POROPAT S, ORTIZ
Bonitasaura salgadoi. Acta Palaeont Pol 56: 45-60. DAVID L AND CORIA J. 2018. Osteology of the Late

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 38 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Cretaceous Argentinean sauropod dinosaur Mendozasaurus JUÁREZ VALIERI R AND CALVO J. 2011. Revision of
neguyelap: implications for basal titanosaur relationships. MUCPv 204, a Senonian basal titanosaur from northern
Zool J Lin Soc 184: 136-181. Patagonia. In: Calvo J, Porfiri J, González Riga B and
GONZÁLEZ RIGA B AND ORTIZ DAVID L. 2014. A Dos Santos D (Eds), Paleontología y Dinosaurios desde
new titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper América Latina. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de
Cretaceous (Cerro Lisandro Formation) of Mendoza Cuyo: 143-152.
Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana 51: 3-25. KELLNER A, CAMPOS D, DE AZEVEDO S, TROTTA M,
GONZÁLEZ RIGA B, ORTIZ DAVID L, TOMASELLI M, HENRIQUES D, CRAIK M AND DE PAULA SILVA
CANDEIRO C, CORIA J AND PRÁMPARO M. 2015. H. 2006. On a new titanosaur sauropod from the Bauru
Sauropod and theropod dinosaur tracks from the Upper Group, Late Cretaceous of Brazil. Bol Mus Nac, Nova
Cretaceous of Mendoza (Argentina): trackmakers and Série 74: 1-31.
anatomical evidences. J S Am Earth Sci 61: 134-141. KELLNER A AND DE AZEVEDO S. 1999. A new sauropod
GONZÁLEZ RIGA B, PREVITERA E AND PIRRONE C. dinosaur (Titanosauria) from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil.
2009. Malarguesaurus florenciae gen. et sp. nov., a new Nat Scien Mus Monogr 15: 111-142.
titanosauriform (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Upper KELLNER A, RUBILAR-ROGERS D, VARGAS A AND
Cretaceous of Mendoza, Argentina. Cret Res 30: 135-148. SUAREZ M. 2011. A new titanosaur sauropod from the
GONZÁLEZ RIGA B AND TOMASELLI M. 2019. Different Atacama Desert, Chile. An Acad Bras Cienc 83: 211-219.
trackway patterns in titanosaur sauropods: analysis of KLINKHAMER A, MALLISON H, POROPAT S,
new Titanopodus tracks from the Upper Cretaceous of SINAPIUS G AND WROE S. 2018. Three-dimensional
Mendoza, Neuquén Basin, Argentina. Cret Res 93: 49-59. musculoskeletal modelling of the sauropodomorph hind
GORSCAK E AND O’CONNOR P. 2016. Time-calibrated limb: the effect of postural change on muscle leverage.
models support congruency between Cretaceous Anat Rec 301: 2145-2163.
continental rifting and titanosaurian evolutionary history. LACOVARA K ET AL. 2014. A gigantic, exceptionally
Biol Let 12: 20151047. complete titanosaurian sauropod dinosaur from southern
GORSCAK E, O’CONNOR P, STEVENS N AND ROBERTS Patagonia, Argentina. Scient Rep 4: 6196.
E. 2014. The basal titanosaurian Rukwatitan bisepultus LOCKLEY M, FARLOW J AND MEYER C. 1994.
(Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the middle Cretaceous Brontopodus and Parabrontopodus ichnogen. nov. and
Galula Formation, Rukwa Rift Basin, southwestern the significance of wide and narrow-gauge sauropod
Tanzania. J Verteb Paleont 34: 1133-1154. trackways. Gaia 10: 233-248.
GORSCAK E, O’CONNOR P, ROBERTS E AND STEVENS LOCKLEY M, SCHULP A, MEYER C, LEONARDI G AND
N. 2017. The second titanosaurian (Dinosauria: KERUMBA MAMANI D. 2002. Titanosaurid trackways
Sauropoda) from the middle Cretaceous Galula Formation, from the Upper Cretaceous of Bolivia: evidence for large
southwestern Tanzania, with remarks on African manus, wide-gauge locomotion and gregarious behaviour.
titanosaurian diversity. J Verteb Paleont 37: e1343250. Cret Res 23: 383-400.
HATCHER J. 1901. Diplodocus (Marsh): its osteology, LYDEKKER R. 1893. The dinosaurs of Patagonia. An Mus La
taxonomy, and probable habits, with a restoration of the Plata 2: 1-14.
skeleton. Mem Carneg Mus 1: 1-63. MACHADO E, AVILLA L, NAVA W, CAMPOS D AND
HE X, LI K AND CAI K. 1988. The Middle Jurassic Dinosaur KELLNER A. 2013. A new titanosaur sauropod from the
Fauna from Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan, Vol. IV. Sauropod Late Cretaceous of Brazil. Zootaxa 3701: 301-321.
Dinosaurs (2), Omeisaurus tianfuensis. Chengdu: Sichuan MANNION P, ALLAIN R AND MOINE O. 2017. The
Scient Tech Publ House. earliest known titanosauriform sauropod dinosaur and the
HOCKNULL S, WHITE M, TISCHLER T, COOK A, evolution of Brachiosauridae. PeerJ 5: e3217.
CALLEJA N, SLOAN T AND ELLIOTT D. 2009. New MANNION P, BENSON R, UPCHURCH P, BUTLER R,
mid-Cretaceous (latest Albian) dinosaurs from Winton, CARRANO M AND BARRETT P. 2011. A temperate
Queensland, Australia. PLoS ONE 4: e6190. palaeodiversity peak in Mesozoic dinosaurs and evidence
HUENE F. 1929. Los saurisquios y ornitisquios del Cretáceo for Late Cretaceous geographical partitioning. Glob Ecol
Argentino. An Mus La Plata 3: 1-196. Biog 21: 898-908.
JAIN S AND BANDYOPADHYAY S. 1997. New titanosaurid MANNION P AND CALVO J. 2011. Anatomy of the basal
(Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) Andesaurus delgadoi
central India. J Verteb Paleont 17: 114-136. from the mid-Cretaceous (Albian–early Cenomanian)
J A N E N S C H W. 1 9 6 1 . D i e G l i e d m a s z e n u n d Río Limay Formation, Neuquén Province, Argentina:
Gliedmaszengürtel der Sauropoden der Tendaguru- implications for titanosaur systematics. Zool J Lin Soc
Schichten. Palaeontographica Suppl 7: 177-235. 163: 155-181.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 39 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

MANNION P AND OTERO A. 2012. A reappraisal of the Late OTERO A AND SALGADO L. 2015. El registro de
Cretaceous Argentinean sauropod dinosaur Argyrosaurus Sauropodomorpha (Dinosauria) de la Argentina. In:
superbus, with a description of a new titanosaur genus. J Fernández M and Herrera Y (Eds), Reptiles Extintos –
Verteb Paleont 32: 614-638. Volumen en Homenaje a Zulma Gasparini. Buenos Aires:
MANNION P, UPCHURCH P, BARNES R AND MATEUS Publicación Electrónica Asoc Paleont Arg 15: 69-89.
O. 2013. Osteology of the Late Jurassic Portuguese OTERO A AND VIZCAÍNO S. 2008. Hindlimb musculature
sauropod dinosaur Lusotitan atalaiensis (Macronaria) and and function of Neuquensaurus australis (Lydekker)
the evolutionary history of basal titanosauriforms. Zool J (Sauropoda: Titanosauria). Ameghiniana 45: 333-348.
Lin Soc 168: 98-206. OUYANG H AND YE Y. 2002. The first mamenchisaurian
MARTINELLI A AND FORASIEPI A. 2004. Late Cretaceous skeleton with complete skull: Mamenchisaurus youngi.
vertebrates from Bajo de Santa Rosa (Allen Formation), Chengdu: Sichuan Scient Tech Press: 1-111.
Río Negro Province, Argentina, with the description of a POROPAT S, UPCHURCH P, MANNION P, HOCKNULL
new sauropod dinosaur (Titanosauridae). Rev Mus Arg de S, KEAR B, SLOAN T, SINAPIUS G AND ELLIOTT D.
Cienc Nat, Nueva Serie 6: 257-305. 2015. Revision of the sauropod dinosaur Diamantinasaurus
MARTÍNEZ R, GIMÉNEZ O, RODRÍGUEZ J, LUNA M matildae Hocknull et al. 2009 from the middle Cretaceous
AND LAMANNA M. 2004. An articulated specimen of Australia: implications for Gondwanan titanosauriform
of the basal titanosaurian (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) dispersal. Gond Res 27: 995-1033.
Epachthosaurus sciuttoi from the early Late Cretaceous POROPAT S ET AL. 2016. New Australian sauropods shed
Bajo Barreal Formation of Chubut Province, Argentina. J light on Cretaceous dinosaur palaeobiogeography. Scient
Verteb Paleont 24: 107-120. Rep 6: 34467.
MATEUS O, JACOBS L, SCHULP A, POLCYN M, TAVARES
POWELL J. 1990. Epachthosaurus sciuttoi (gen. et sp. nov.)
T, BUTA NETO A, MORAIS M AND ANTUNES M.
un dinosaurio saurópodo del Cretácico de Patagonia
2011. Angolatitan adamastor, a new sauropod dinosaur
(Provincia de Chubut, Argentina). V Congreso Argentino
and the first record from Angola. An Acad Bras Cienc 83:
de Paleontología y Bioestratigrafía, Tucumán, Actas 1:
221-233.
123-128.
MCINTOSH J. 1990. Sauropoda. In: Weishampel D, Dodson
POWELL J. 1992. Osteología de Saltasaurus loricatus
P, Osmólska H (Eds), The Dinosauria. Berkeley: Univ of
(Sauropoda - Titanosauridae) del Cretácico Superior del
California Press: 345-401.
noroeste Argentino. In: Sanz J and Buscalioni A (Eds), Los
MCINTOSH J, MILES C, CLOWARD K AND PARKER J.
Dinosaurios y su Entorno Biótico. Cuenca: Instituto ‘Juan
1996. A nearly complete skeleton of Camarasaurus. Bull
de Valdés’: 165-230.
Gunma Mus Nat Hist 1: 1-87.
POWELL J. 2003. Revision of South American titanosaurid
MEERS M. 2003. Crocodylian forelimb musculature and its
dinosaurs: paleobiological, palaeobiogeographical and
relevance to Archosauria. Anat Rec Part A 274: 892-916.
NAVARRETE C, CASAL G AND MARTÍNEZ R. 2011. phylogenetic aspects. Rec Queen Vict Mus 111: 1-173.
Drusilasaura deseadensis gen. et sp. nov., un nuevo ROMER A. 1968. Notes and Comments on Vertebrate
titanosaurio (Dinosauria-Sauropoda), de la Formación Paleontology. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 304 p.
Bajo Barreal, Cretácico Superior del norte de Santa Cruz, SALGADO L. 1996. Pellegrinisaurus powelli nov. gen. et sp.
Argentina. Rev Bras Paleont 14: 1-14. (Sauropoda, Titanosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous
NOVAS F, SALGADO L, CALVO J AND AGNOLÍN F. 2005. of Lago Pellegrini, northwestern Patagonia, Argentina.
Giant titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Late Ameghiniana 33: 355-365.
Cretaceous of Patagonia. Rev Mus Arg Cienc Nat, Nueva SALGADO L AND AZPILICUETA C. 2000. Un nuevo
Serie 7: 37-41. saltasaurino (Sauropoda, Titanosauridae) de la provincia
OSBORN H. 1904. Manus, sacrum, and caudals of Sauropoda. de Río Negro (Formación Allen, Cretácico Superior),
Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 20: 181-190. Patagonia, Argentina. Ameghiniana 37: 259-264.
OSBORN H AND MOOK C. 1921. Camarasaurus, SALGADO L AND DE SOUZA CARVALHO I. 2008.
Amphicoelias, and other sauropods of Cope. Mem Am Uberabatitan ribeiroi, a new titanosaur from the Marília
Mus Nat Hist 3: 247-387. Formation (Bauru Group, Upper Cretaceous), Minas
OTERO A. 2010. The appendicular skeleton of Neuquensaurus, Gerais, Brazil. Palaeontology 51: 881-901.
a Late Cretaceous saltasaurine sauropod from Patagonia, SALGADO L, CORIA R AND CALVO J. 1997. Evolution of
Argentina. Acta Palaeont Pol 55: 299-326. titanosaurid sauropods. I: phylogenetic analysis based on
OTERO A. 2018. Forelimb musculature and osteological the postcranial evidence. Ameghiniana 34: 3-32.
correlates in Sauropodomorpha (Dinosauria, Saurischia). SALGADO L, APESTEGUÍA S AND HEREDIA S. 2005.
PLoS ONE 13: e0198988. A new specimen of Neuquensaurus australis, a Late

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 40 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

Cretaceous saltasaurine titanosaur from north Patagonia. J (Eds), The Dinosauria (Second Edition). Berkeley: Univ
Verteb Paleont 25: 623-634. of California Press: 259-322.
SALGADO L, GALLINA P AND PAULINA CARABAJAL UPCHURCH P, MANNION P AND TAYLOR M. 2015. The
A. 2015. Redescription of Bonatitan reigi (Sauropoda: anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of “Pelorosaurus”
Titanosauria), from the Campanian–Maastrichtian of the becklesii (Neosauropoda, Macronaria) from the Early
Río Negro Province (Argentina). Hist Biol 27: 525-548. Cretaceous of England. PLoS ONE 10: e0125819.
SALLAM H, GORSCAK E, O’CONNOR P, EL-DAWOUDI VILA B, OMS O, MARMI J AND GALOBART A. 2008.
I, EL-SAYED S, SABER S, KORA M, SERTICH J, Tracking Fumanya footprints (Maastrichtian, Pyrenees):
SEIFFERT E AND LAMANNA M. 2018. New Egyptian historical and ichnological overview. Oryctos 8: 115-130.
sauropod reveals Late Cretaceous dinosaur dispersal VOEGELE K, LAMANNA M AND LACOVARA K. 2017.
between Europe and Africa. Nat Ecol Evol 2: 445-451. Osteology of the dorsal vertebrae of the giant titanosaurian
SANDER P ET AL. 2011. Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: sauropod dinosaur Dreadnoughtus schrani from the Late
the evolution of gigantism. Biol Rev 86: 117-155. Cretaceous of Argentina. Acta Palaeont Pol 62: 667-681.
SANTUCCI R AND DE ARRUDA-CAMPOS A. 2011. A new WILSON J. 1999. A nomenclature for vertebral laminae in
sauropod (Macronaria, Titanosauria) from the Adamantina sauropods and other saurischian dinosaurs. J Verteb
Formation, Bauru Group, Upper Cretaceous of Brazil and Paleont 19: 639-653.
the phylogenetic relationships of Aeolosaurini. Zootaxa WILSON J. 2002. Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny: critique and
3085: 1-33. cladistic analysis. Zool J Linn Soc 136: 217-276.
SANZ J, POWELL J, LE LOEUFF J, MARTÍNEZ R AND WILSON J. 2006. An overview of titanosaur evolution and
PEREDA SUBERBIOLA X. 1999. Sauropod remains phylogeny. In: Actas de las III Jornadas Internacionales
from the Upper Cretaceous of Laño (northcentral Spain). sobre Paleontología de Dinosaurios y su Entorno. Burgos:
Titanosaur phylogenetic relationships. Estud Mus Cienc Colectivo Arqueológico-Paleontológico de Salas de los
Nat Alava 14: 235-255. Infantes: 169-190.
SERENO P. 2005. The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy. WILSON J. 2012. New vertebral laminae and patterns of
Syst Biol 54: 595-619. serial variation in vertebral laminae of sauropod dinosaurs.
SIMÓN M, SALGADO L AND CALVO J. 2018. A new Contrib Mus Paleontol, Univ of Michigan 32: 91-110.
titanosaur sauropod from the Upper Cretaceous of WILSON J, BARRETT P AND CARRANO M. 2011.
Patagonia, Neuquén Province, Argentina. Ameghiniana An associated partial skeleton of Jainosaurus cf.
55: 1-29. septentrionalis (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Late
SMITH J, LAMANNA M, LACOVARA K, DODSON P, Cretaceous of Chhota Simla, central India. Palaeontology
SMITH J, POOLE J, GIEGENGACK R AND ATTIA Y. 54: 981-998.
2001. A giant sauropod dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous WILSON J AND CARRANO M. 1999. Titanosaurs and
mangrove deposit in Egypt. Science 292: 1704-1706. the origin of ‘wide-gauge’ trackways: a biomechanical
STEVENS K, ERNST S AND MARTY D. 2016. Uncertainty and systematic perspective on sauropod locomotion.
and ambiguity in the interpretation of sauropod trackways. Paleobiology 25: 252-267.
In: Falkingham P, Marty D, Richter A (Eds), Dinosaur WILSON J AND CURRY ROGERS K. 2005. Introduction:
Tracks – The Next Steps. Bloomington: Indiana University monoliths of the Mesozoic. In Curry Rogers K, Wilson
Press: 227-243. J (Eds), The Sauropods: Evolution and Palaeobiology.
TYKOSKI R AND FIORILLO A. 2017. An articulated cervical Berkeley: Univ of California Press: 1-15.
series of Alamosaurus sanjuanensis Gilmore, 1922 WILSON J, POL D, CARVALHO A AND ZAHER H.
(Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from Texas: new perspective on 2016. The skull of the titanosaur Tapuiasaurus macedoi
the relationships of North America’s last giant sauropod. J (Dinosauria: Sauropoda), a basal titanosaur from the
Syst Palaeont 15: 339-364. Lower Cretaceous of Brazil. Zool J Linn Soc 178: 611-
ULLMANN P AND LACOVARA K. 2016. Appendicular 662.
osteology of Dreadnoughtus schrani, a giant titanosaurian WILSON J AND SERENO P. 1998. Early evolution and
(Sauropoda, Titanosauria) from the Upper Cretaceous of higher-level phylogeny of sauropod dinosaurs. Soc Verteb
Patagonia, Argentina. J Verteb Paleont 36: e1225303. Paleont Mem 5: 1-68.
UPCHURCH P. 1995. The evolutionary history of sauropod WILSON J AND UPCHURCH P. 2003. A revision of
dinosaurs. Phil Trans Roy Soc London B 349: 365-390. Titanosaurus Lydekker (Dinosauria – Sauropoda), the first
UPCHURCH P. 1998. The phylogenetic relationships of dinosaur genus with a ‘Gondwanan’ distribution. J Syst
sauropod dinosaurs. Zool J Linn Soc 124: 43-103. Palaeont 1: 125-160.
UPCHURCH P, BARRETT P AND DODSON P. 2004. ZAHER H, POL D, CARVALHO A, NASCIMENTO P,
Sauropoda. In: Weishampel D, Dodson P, Osmólska H RICCOMINI C, LARSON P, JUÁREZ VALIERI R,

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 41 | 42

BERNARDO J. GONZÁLEZ RIGA et al. TITANOSAUR APPENDICULAR SKELETON

PIRES-DOMINGUES R, DA SILVA N AND CAMPOS (1), Opisthocoelicaudia: 424 (1), 425 (1), 426 (1),
D. 2011. A complete skull of an Early Cretaceous sauropod
Alamosaurus: 424 (1), 425 (1), 426 (?).
and the evolution of advanced titanosaurians. PLoS ONE
6: e16663.
NOTE ADDED IN PROOF
ZHANG Y. 1988. The Middle Jurassic Dinosaur Fauna from
Dashanpu, Zigong, Sichuan, Vol. IV. Sauropod Dinosaurs
(1), Shunosaurus. Chengdu: Sich Scient Tech Publ House. Since this paper went to press, another South
American titanosaur that preserves appendicular
APPENDIX skeletal remains has been formally described:
Kaijutitan maui from the Upper Cretaceous
SCORES FOR ADDITIONAL PHYLOGENETIC
CHARACTERS (Coniacian) Sierra Barrosa Formation of Neuquén
Province, northern Patagonia, Argentina (Filippi et
The phylogenetic analysis in this paper is based al. 2019). The type material of this large-bodied taxon
on the dataset of González Riga et al. (2018), with includes multiple, mostly incomplete appendicular
the addition of three characters (C424–C426), the bones, in addition to cranial and postcranial axial
scores for which are as follows: remains. The preserved appendicular elements
Omeisaurus: 424 (0), 425 (0), 426 (0), are as follows: incomplete scapula and coracoid,
Shunosaurus: 424 (0), 425 (0), 426 (0), Cedarosaurus: sternal plate, humerus, radius?, ulna, metacarpals
424 (0), 425 (?), 426 (0), Apatosaurus: 424 (0), II and III, incomplete ?ilium and femur, tibia,
425 (0), 426 (0), Diplodocus: 424 (0), 425 (0), astragalus, and incomplete metatarsal II. Though
426 (0), Camarasaurus: 424 (0), 425 (0), 426 (0), the incompleteness of many of these bones renders
Janenschia: 424 (0), 425 (0), 426 (0), Gobititan: comparisons difficult, most (e.g., the ulna and tibia)
424 (1), 425 (1), 426 (?), Epachthosaurus: 424 suggest a stout-limbed animal, comparable in this
(0), 425 (1), 426 (1), Mendozasaurus: 424 (1), 425 regard to Dreadnoughtus from Upper Cretaceous
(1), 426 (1), Notocolossus: 424 (1), 425 (1), 426 sediments in southern Patagonia.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2019) 91(Suppl. 2) e20180374 42 | 42

View publication stats