Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), a basal Rebbachisaurid from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado GEOLOGY OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST an open-access journal of the Utah Geological Association ISSN 2380-7601 Volume 5 2018 © 2018 Utah Geological Association. All rights reserved. For permission to copy and distribute, see the following page or visit the UGA website at www.utahgeology.org for information. Email inquiries to GIW@utahgeology.org. MARAAPUNISAURUS FRAGILLIMUS, N.G. (FORMERLY AMPHICOELIAS FRAGILLIMUS), A BASAL REBBACHISAURID FROM THE MORRISON FORMATION (UPPER JURASSIC) OF COLORADO Kenneth Carpenter Theme Issue An Ecosystem We Thought We Knew— The Emerging Complexities of the Morrison Formation SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY Annual Meeting, October 26 – 29, 2016 Grand America Hotel Salt Lake City, Utah, USA GEOLOGY OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST an open-access journal of the Utah Geological Association ISSN 2380-7601 Production Cover Design and Desktop Publishing Douglas A. Sprinkel Cover The controversial vertebra of Maraapunisaurus fragillimus (formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus) and Edward D. Cope who described the specimen in 1878. i President Peter Nielsen peternielsen@utah.gov 801.537.3359 President-Elect Leslie Heppler lheppler@utah.gov 801.538.5257 Program Chair Gregory Schlenker gcsgeoscience@gmail.com 801.745.0262 Treasurer Dave Garbrecht garbrechtd@yahoo.com 801.916.1911 Secretary George Condrat gcondrat@loughlinwater.com 435.649.4005 Past President Paul Inkenbrandt paulinkenbrandt@utah.gov 801.537.3361 UGA Board October 2018 – September 2019 UGA Committees Environmental Affairs Craig Eaton eaton@ihi-env.com 801.633.9396 Geologic Road Sign Terry Massoth twmassoth@hotmail.com 801.541.6258 Historian Paul Anderson paul@pbageo.com 801.364.6613 Outreach Greg Nielson gnielson@weber.edu 801.626.6394 Membership Rick Ford rford@weber.edu 801.626.6942 Public Education Paul Jewell pwjewell@mines.utah.edu 801.581.6636 Matt Affolter gfl247@yahoo.com Publications Paul Inkenbrandt paulinkenbrandt@utah.gov 801.537.3361 Publicity Paul Inkenbrandt paulinkenbrandt@utah.gov 801.537.3361 Social/Recreation Roger Bon rogerbon@xmission.com 801.942.0533 AAPG House of Delegates 2017–2020 Term Tom Chidsey tomchidsey@utah.gov 801.537.3364 State Mapping Advisory Committe UGA Representative Jason Blake blake-j@comcast.net 435.658.3423 UGA Newsletter Newsletter Editor Bill Lund uga.newsletter@gmail.com 435.590.1338 UGA Website www.utahgeology.org Webmasters Paul Inkenbrandt paulinkenbrandt@utah.gov 801.537.3361 Become a member of the UGA to help support the work of the Association and receive notices for monthly meetings, annual field conferences, and new publi- cations. Annual membership is $20 and annual student membership is only $5. Visit the UGA website at www.utahgeology.org for information and membership application. The UGA board is elected annually by a voting process through UGA members. However, the UGA is a volunteer-driven organization, and we welcome your voluntary service. If you would like to participate please contact the current president or committee member corresponding with the area in which you would like to volunteer. Utah Geological Association formed in 1970 from a merger of the Utah Geological Society, founded in 1946, and the Intermountain Association of Geologists, founded in 1949. Affiliated with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Volume 5 2018 This is an open-access article in which the Utah Geological Association permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of text and figures that are not noted as copyrighted, provided the original author and source are credited. Earthquake Safety Committe Chair Grant Willis gwillis@utah.gov 801.537.3355 Douglas A. Sprinkel Utah Geological Survey 801.391.1977 GIW@utahgeology.org Bart J. Kowallis Brigham Young University 801.422.2467 bkowallis@gmail.com Thomas C. Chidsey, Jr. Utah Geological Survey 801.537.3364 tomchidsey@utah.gov Steven Schamel GeoX Consulting, Inc. 801.583-1146 geox-slc@comcast.net Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Editors Kelli C. Trujillo — University of Wyoming John Foster — Utah Field House of Natural History State Park Museum Cary Woodruff — University of Toronto Octavio Mateus — Universidade Nova de Lisboa Editors GEOLOGY OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST an open-access journal of the Utah Geological Association Volume 5 2018 227 ABSTRACT In 1878, Oramel Lucas shipped to E.D. Cope of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, a huge 1.5-m-tall neural spine from the dorsal vertebra of a sauropod (from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation) that Cope named and illustrated as Amphicoelis fragillimus. The holotype was lost and all that is known of the specimen is from Cope’s original publication. Reanalysis of Cope’s publication in light of other sauropods discovered since 1878 indicates that Amphicoelias fragillimus is a basal rebbachisaurid characterized by pneumatic neural spine and arch, and the unambiguous rebbachisaurid character of a festooned spinodiapophyseal lamina. Because the specimen can no longer be referred to the basal diplodo- coid Amphicoelias, the genus name is replaced with Maraapunisaurus n.g. As a rebbachisaurid, revised dimensions indicate a dorsal vertebra 2.4 m tall and a head–to–tail length for the animal of 30.3 to 32 m, significantly less than previous estimates. Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Kenneth Carpenter Prehistoric Museum, Utah State University Eastern, 155 East Main St., Price, UT 84501; Ken.Carpenter@usu.edu; University of Colorado Museum of Natural History, Henderson Building, 15th and Broadway, Boulder, CO 80309 Citation for this article. Carpenter, K., 2018, Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, n.g. (formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), a basal rebbachisaurid from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado: Geology of the Intermountain West, v. 5, p. 227–244. © 2018 Utah Geological Association. All rights reserved. For permission to use, copy, or distribute see the preceeding page or the UGA website, www.utahgeology.org, for information. Email inquiries to GIW@utahgeology.org. INTRODUCTION Between 1877 and 1884, school teacher Oramel Lu- cas and his brother Ira discovered and excavated numer- ous dinosaur specimens from the vicinity of a promi- nent conical hill (a.k.a. “Cope’s Nipple,” “the Nipple,” “Saurian Hill”) of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation in Garden Park north of Cañon City, Colorado (for his- torical review see Carpenter, in press). Among the spec- imens shipped by Oramel Lucas to Edward D. Cope, loosely affiliated with the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, in 1878 was a huge neural spine. The specimen was described and illustrated as Amphicoelias fragillimus by Cope (1878f: 564) who wrote that “the to- tal elevation of this vertebra, when complete, was not less than six feet, and probably more” (figure 1A). This estimation was never challenged by Cope’s contempo- raries, nor later by Henry Osborn and Charles Mook of the American Museum of Natural History in their monograph of the Cope sauropod collection (Osborn and Mook, 1921). Only more recently have questions been raised about this specimen in the debate about the maximum possible size of terrestrial vertebrates (Paul, 1998; Mazzetta and others, 2004; Carpenter, 2006a; Per- ry and others, 2009; Woodruff and Foster, 2014). Osborn and Mook’s access to Cope’s sauropods was made possible by the purchase of the Cope zoological and paleontological specimens by the American Muse- um of Natural History, much to the consternation of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, which had hoped to acquire the collections (Anonymous, 1899). 228 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 Because of financial reasons, Cope began negotiating with the American Museum in April 1894 to purchase parts of his collections with his friend Henry Osborn acting as a middleman (Osborn, 1931). Although this would be considered a conflict of interest today, Cope counted on his friend’s honesty to help him leverage the best possible prices and to recoup the estimated $50,000 (~ $1.5 million in 2018) of personal money spent. The Cañon City dinosaurs were part of the final sale nego- tiated with the Cope estate in 1897 a few months after his death at age 54. In the end, the American Museum spent $60,550 (~ $1.8 million in 2018) for just the four vertebrate fossil collections alone (Osborn, 1931). The process of examining, packing and shipping the collections was not rushed, but took several years, with the last of the collections not arriving at the American Museum until 1903, six years after Cope’s death (Jesup, 1896, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1903). Osborn, who was head of vertebrate paleontology, put William D. Mat- thew, curator at the museum, in charge of the vertebrate fossil collection transfers (Mathew, 1915, p. 38; Osborn and Mook, 1921; Osborn, 1931; Colbert, 1992, p. 51– 53). Matthew was aided by Albert Thompson and Jim Young, also of the American Museum (Osborn, 1931). Some of Cope’s collections were at his house on Pine Street in Philadelphia, but a larger portion was in stor- age a few miles away in the lower level of the Memorial Hall building in Fairmont Park (Matthew, 1915). Once Figure 1. Illustrations of different sauropod dorsals made by Cope to show why he thought that the neural spine of "Amphico- elias" fragillimus (A) was most similar to that of Amphicoelias altus (B) than to Camarasaurus supremus (C, mid-dorsal; D, more posterior mid-dorsal). Scale = 1 m. B to D from Cope 1878b; A from Cope 1878f. 229 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 the collections arrived at the American Museum, the cataloguing of the specimens was handled by Walter Granger, Albert Thompson, and William Matthew (see Jessup, 1901, p. 23; Osborn and Mook, 1921, p. 251, 258, and 260). While Cope was still alive, Osborn did write Cope about various specimens that could not be accounted for by Matthew: “I write to ask whether you can fix your memo- ry upon the type of Symborodon torvus and of S. ophryas. We cannot locate definitely the type of ei- ther specimen, although one is the type of the ge- nus and the other is described as a nearly complete skull. I hope you will look this up, and if you can, refresh your memory and let me know. Dr. Matthew also reports that the types of marsupials from the White River are apparently missing. Have you seen anything of them?” Osborn to Cope, May 19, 1896, in Osborn (1931, p. 449–450). Despite these letters, some of these specimens were never found, e.g., Mesohippus cuneatus, AMNH 6293, “These types could not be identified when Cope’s Colo- rado collection was catalogued by W.D. Matthew.” (Os- born, 1918, p. 47). The situation was worse when the dinosaur collec- tion was finally dealt with six years after Cope’s death. By then it was no longer possible for Osborn to inquire of Cope where the missing specimens might be, or which sets of bones belonged together because Cope never numbered them (see discussion on the comingled spec- imens in Osborn and Mook, 1921, p. 259–261). Osborn even wrote to Oramel Lucas: “I find that the records which came to use with the collection from Professor Cope are very inadequate and do not enable us to determine where the various fossils were found. I write to ask whether you have any records of the number and kind of bones taken out of the different quarries which would enable us to clear up this very import question.” (Osborn to Lucas, April 30, 1904, GPPS docs). Among the Cañon City dinosaurs, the type of Am- phicoelias fragillimus was missing, as were the type mandible of Laelaps trihedrodon, and parts of the types of Camarasaurus leptodirus and Amphicoelias latus (Os- born and Mook, 1921; Chure, 2001). McIntosh (1998) also reports that some bones mentioned in the shipping lists of Lucas were missing, an oversight that Osborn knew nothing about because the documents were as- sumed to be lost (Osborn and Mook, 1921; McIntosh, 1998). Nevertheless, all of the missing specimens (mam- malian, as well as dinosaurian) were assigned catalog numbers in the event that they were eventually found. ABBREVIATION AMNH FR – American Museum of Natural History, Fossil Reptile collection, New York City, NewYork. GPPS docs – archives of the Garden Park Paleontological Society housed at the Royal Gorge Regional Museum and History Center, Cañon City, Colorado. COPE’S GIANT NEURAL SPINE In his description of Amphicoelias fargillimus, Cope wrote that he thought the neural spine compared favor- ably to that of A. altus (figure 1B), a taxon he named the previous year (Cope, 1877d): “It [the neural spine] exhibits the general character- istics of the genus Amphicoelias, in the hyposphen [sic], antero-posteriorly placed neural spine, and elevated diapophysis for the rib articulation. The diapophyses are compressed and supported by a su- perior and inferior, and anterior and posterior, thin buttress, separated by deep cavities.” (Cope, 1878f, p. 563). At the time of this writing, sauropods had just been dis- covered in the United States the year before and were very imperfectly known. From Cope’s limited point of view, the two neural spines did indeed resemble one an- other more than to those of Camarasaurus supremus, the only other sauropod known to him that included dorsal vertebrae (compare figures 1A and 1B with 1C and 1D). Only now with many hundreds more sauro- pod specimens do we know that many of the cited char- acters are more widely spread. In differentiating between the two species of Am- 230 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 phicoelias, Cope wrote (1878f, p. 563): “As compared with the Amphicoelias altus, this rep- tile differs in the greater elevation and attenuation of the neural spine, as well as its different form; also in the generally more laminar character of its but- tresses and walls. The double rib of the anterior bor- der of the spine of A. altus is here [A. fragillimus] represented by two laminae which extend on each side, so as to give a horizontal section of the spine a T shape. The posterior zygapophyses have less lat- eral expanse than in A. altus, but they continue as horizontal laminae with a deep cavity above and be- low: their superior surfaces contract into two ridges, which are separated by a deep groove. These ridges, unlike the anterior ones, approximate to each other closely on the border of the spine. The summit of the spine is wanting.” Despite these differences, Osborn and Mook (1921, p. 279), synonymized the two taxa, arguing that “Cope’s description indicates an animal with the general char- acters and proportions of Amphicoelias altus. It is doubtful, however, if the characters described by Cope warrant the placing of the type in another species dif- ferent from A. altus. The form is therefore provision- ally referred to A. altus.” This position was accepted by McIntosh (1998). In contrast, as will be shown below, I consider the characters listed by Cope as valid distinc- tions and will add to them based on his illustration. The reliability of Cope’s illustrations was never questioned by Osborn and Mook (1921) who were able to match Cope’s illustrated bones to specific bones (see captions for their figures 7 to 14 and 17 to 20). Cope showed an artistic capability as a child (Osborn, 1931) and making his own drawings gave him an eye for de- tail that is missing in many of O.C. Marsh’s publications. Although Cope’s illustration of the bones from Cañon City lacked the refinement of staff artist Rudolf Weber who did the line drawings for the Osborn and Mook monograph (figure 2), there is no reason not to accept the reliability of the Amphicoelias fragillimus illustra- tion. There is also no reason not to accept the measure- ments given by Cope contrary to Woodruff and Foster (2014), who suggest “a typographical error” is likely in the vertebra’s height measurement because they per- ceive another such error in the use of the abbreviation “m” alone for millimeter, rather than the commonly used “mm” today. In point of fact, both meter and milli- meter used the same abbreviation at that time (Anony- mous, 1878, p. 316), and is understood by context. Cope also used “M” (upper case) for meter (e.g., Cope, 1877b, measurements for Camarasaurus supremus) and “m” (lower case) for millimeter (e.g., Cope, 1878f, for Am- phicoelias fragillimus). Woodruff and Foster (2014, p. 217) also seek to cast doubt as to the reliability of Cope’s measurements by focusing on what they contend to be contradictory measurements given by Cope for the fe- mur of A. altus (note: Cope, 1878b, printed January 12, 1878, as given at bottom of p. 233, not Cope, 1877, as stated by Woodruff and Foster, 2014). Cope does write Figure 2. The reliability of the drawings made by Cope is seen in this example with the femur of Amphicoelias altus. (A) Fe- mur as displayed in Cope's office, circa 1895, slightly rotated with head towards the viewer (from Osborn, 1931). (B) Fe- mur illustrated by Cope (1878b). (C) Femur as illustrated by Rudolf Weber (from Osborn and Mook, 1921). 231 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 on page 244, “The length of the femur is six feet four inches” (= 1.930 meters) and on page 245 “Length of femur 1.524 M.” The illustration by Cope (1878b, 1877c; figure 2B) of the femur shows that the distal condyles were missing, therefore Cope’s measurement of 1.524 meters is reasonable as a minimum length, whereas Osborn and Mook (1921) gave a maximum preserved measurement of 1.77 meters. Osborn and Mook (1921) also note and illustrate the distal half of the left femur, which Cope undoubtedly used to estimate the femur length of A. altus as being “six feet four inches.” Today, we would qualify this as a “reconstructed” length, but such terminology was not in use at the time. Despite this possible alternative explanation, we really have no way of knowing Cope’s thinking and might find his ex- planation logical if we could ask him. AMNH FR 5777 AS A BASAL REBBACHISAURID Traditionally, AMNH FR 5777, Amphicoelias fragil- limus, was considered a diplodocid beginning with Osborn and Mook (1921) and continuing to this day (Woodruff and Foster, 2014). Even I had previously con- sidered the specimen a diplodocid (Carpenter, 2006a), but reanalysis of Cope’s description and figure suggests otherwise, and that it is a basal rebbachisaurid. I begin with some points of observation by Cope (1878f, p. 563). He stresses the fragility of the bone in several ways, “In the extreme tenuity [i.e., lack of so- lidity or substance] of all its parts, this vertebra exceeds those of this type already described [i.e., A. altus], so that much care was requisite to secure its preservation.” He also noted the “… attenuation of the neural spine.” Compared to the neural spine of A. altus, and all di- plodocids for that matter, the neural spine is indeed “attenuated,” meaning it had a “simplified” structure in that there are few laminae and fossa. He notes, for ex- ample, that “The double rib [i.e., ridges or laminae] of the anterior border of the spine [i.e., paired spinoprezy- gapophyseal laminae] of A. altus is here [A. fragillimus] represented by two laminae which extend on each side [i.e., spinoprezygapophyseal + spinodiapophyseal lami- nae, see figure 3] so as to give a horizontal section of the spine a T shape…” He says nothing about a prespinal lamina, but neither does he of the postspinal lamina, which is seen in figure 1A. Thus, it is not clear whether he means the “T-cross section” lacked a prespinal pro- cess, or whether he means “t-cross section” with a pre- spinal lamina. Either interpretation is possible (figure 4A). The tetraradiate cross section (a.k.a. “t-cross sec- tion”) was considered by Carvalho and Santucci (2018) as a distinctly rebbachisaurid character, but in fact also occurs in dicraeosaurids (figure 4C). Cope also notes the many laminae of the neural arch (“generally more laminar character of its buttresses and walls”) that in the figure define various pneumatic cavities (figure 3). Other rebbachisaurid features of the neural spine given by Whitlock (2011) can be gleaned from Cope’s il- lustration (figure 3). (1) The festooned spinodiapophy- seal lamina, which is the sheet of bone between the neu- ral spine and transverse process, is an unambiguously rebbachisaurid character (figures 4D to 4L; Sereno and others, 2007; Whitlock, 2011). (2) Pneumatic chambers dorsolateral to neural canal are implied by the paired fo- ramina on each side of the postspinal lamina. This char- acter occurs in Comahuesaurus (Carbadillo and others, 2012), Demandasaurus (Torcida Fernández-Baldor and others, 2011), and Rebbachisaurus (Wilson and Allain, 2015). Other pneumatic chambers appear to have been widespread throughout the neural arch as revealed by the damaged area below the postzygapophyses. There is a large pneumatic cavity (camera) that probably extend- ed dorsally from the pneumatic cavity of the centrum. This feature is also seen in the damaged D4 of CM 94 (Diplodocus carnegii) and in Barosaurus (J. Foster, Utah Field House of Natural History State Park Museum, written communication, 2018). Pneumatized neural arches also occur in the rebbachisaurids Comahue- saurus (Carbadillo and others, 2012), Demandasaurus (Torcida Fernández-Baldor and others, 2011), Katepen- saurus (Ibiricu and others, 2017) and Rebbachisaurus (Wilson and Allain, 2015). (3) The height of the neural arch below the postzygapophyses is very high among rebbachisaurids, but this character is also shared with Haplocanthosaurus, Dicraeosaurus, and the last dorsals of Apatosaurus (figure 4B, 4C, and 4Q). One character that occurs in rebbachisaurids, as 232 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 well as dicraeosaurids and Haplocanthosaurus, that is equivocal in AMNH FR 5777 is the rather steep angle of the transverse process. Much of this process is miss- ing and Cope implies that it was nearly horizontal with dashes (figure 1A), but I believe he was influenced by A. altus to which he thought the giant spine was most similar. There appears to be a slight upwards curvature of the distal portion of the spinodiapophyseal lamina best seen on the more complete left side which suggests that the transverse process could have been angled up- wards, perhaps as much as 30° (figure 5A). This possi- bility is also supported by the angle of the lower edge of the centrodiapophyseal laminae and by the angle of the postzygodiapophyseal lamina. As a general rule, the angle of the postzygapophysis also mirrors the angle of the transverse process among diplodocoids, with some noticeable exceptions: dorsal 7 of Diplodocus carnegii (Hatcher, 1901, plate 8) and dorsals 11–14 in Haplocan- thosaurus where the postzygapophyses are nearly hori- zontal, but the transverse processes are steeply angled (Hatcher, 1903, plate 1). However, in the latter, the post- zygodiapophyseal laminae do reflect the upward angle. The postzygapophyses are proportionally smaller than they are in A. altus where they are very large as not- Figure 3. Drawing made by E.D. Cope of the holotype of Maraapunisaurus fragillimus (Cope, 1878f) with parts labeled. "Pneumatic chambers*" indicate the pneumatic cavities dorsolateral of the neural canal, a feature also seen in several rebba- chisaurids. Terminology from Wilson (1999, 2011) and Wilson and others (2011). 233 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 Figure 4. Caption is on the following page. 234 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 ed by Osborn and Mook (1921; figure 1C). The articular surfaces in AMNH FR 5777 are angled approximately 30°, noticeably steeper than in A. altus. The postzygo- diapophyseal lamina connects the postzygapophyses with the spinodiapophyseal lamina just below its dor- sal rim. The spinopostzygapophyseal laminae extend dorsomedially from the postzygopophyses to join and form the postspinal lamina as they typically do in reb- Figure 4 (figure is on previous page). Comparison of various sauropod dorsal vertebrae in posterior view: (A) Maraapuni- saurus as a rebbachisaurid, (B) Haplocanthosaurus (modified from Hatcher, 1903), and (C) Dicraeosaurus (modified from Janensch, 1929). Rebbachisaurids: (D) Histriasaurus (reconstructed from Dalla Vecchi, 1999), (E) unnamed (modified from Apesteguía, 2007), (F) Rebbachisaurus (reconstructed from Wilson and Allain, 2015), (G) Limaysaurus (modified from Cal- vo and Salgado, 1995), (H) Nopcsaspondylus (reconstructed from Nopcsa, 1902), (I) unnamed (modified from Carvalho and Santucci, 2018), (J) Comahuesaurus (reconstructed from Carballido and others, 2012), (K) Demandasaurus (reconstructed from Torcida Fernandez-Baldor and others, 2011) with neural spine of first caudal, and (L) Katepensaurus (reconstructed from Ibiricu and others, 2013). Basal Diplodocoid: (M) Amphicoelias (modified from Osborn and Mook, 1921). Diplodo- cids: (N) Apatosaurus (modified from Gilmore, 1936), (O) Barosaurus (reconstructed from photographs), (P) Supersaurus (reconstructed from photographs), (Q) Diplodocus (reconstructed from photographs; cross section modified from Osborn, 1899). Cross sections of neural spines also shown for A, C, E, F, M, and Q. All scaled to same height, except for B. Small red boxes in A, F, I, and L show divergence of the lateral spinopostzygapophyseal laminae from the postspinal lamina. Images are not to equal scale. Figure 5. Comparison of the neural spine of Maraapunisaurus fargillimus restored as a rebbachisaurid (A), and the dorsal vertebrae of Rebbachisaurus garasbae (B), and Histriasaurus boscarollii (C). Increments on scale bars = 10 cm. 235 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 bachisaurids, such as Rebbachisaurus and Histriasaurus (figure 5B and 5C), but also in the dicraeosaurids Am- argasaurus and Dicraeosaurus. The postspinal lamina extends the entire preserved length of the neural spine. The spinopostzygapophyseal laminae form a triangu- lar or lachrymiform spinopostzygapophyseal fossa be- tween them. Laterally adjacent to where the postspinal lamina is formed, two short laminae diverge and extend dorsolaterally to combine with the spinodiapophyseal laminae along the sides of the neural spine. The identi- ty of these laminae is problematic because they do not extend to the postzygapophyses. Nevertheless, a similar divergence involving the lateral spinopostzygapophyse- al laminae occurs in several rebbachisaurids (red boxes in figures 4A, 4F, 4I, and 4L). In diplodocids, the lateral spinopostzygapophyseal laminae of the posterior dorsal vertebrae do not contact the postspinal lamina but are separate. The evidences above show that AMNH FR 5777 cannot be referred to the genus Amphicoelias as Cope (1878f) had originally suggested based on the very limited information available to him. Therefore, a new generic name is warranted, but first I need to defend naming the missing type. The fact that the specimen is missing does not invalidate giving it a new generic name (ICZN 1999; Article 72.5.6). “In the case of a nominal species-group taxon based on an illustration or descrip- tion, or on a bibliographic reference to an illustration or description, the name-bearing type is the specimen or specimens illustrated or described (and not the illustra- tion or description itself).” This is reiterated in Article 73.1.4 (ICZN, 1999). Some researchers have objected to this provision in the Code, but as Krell and Marshall (2017, p. 4) have noted, “It is important to understand that a change in the Code to disallow the use of photo- graphs [or illustrations] as proxies for lost types would not change the underlying taxonomy. The processes of discovery and description of species, which are matters of taxonomic judgment rather than rules, would remain the same.” It must also be remembered that the Code is meant for all branches of zoology, not just vertebrate pa- leontology. A binding rule that physical type specimens must exist would exclude some branches of zoology from the Code as listed in Krell and Marshall (2017). Finally, lest it be thought that the Code gives free reign to naming taxa from illustrations of existing spec- imens, it also states “Preference for specimens studied by author. An author should designate as holotype a specimen actually studied by him or her, not a speci- men known to the author only from descriptions or illustrations in the literature.” (ICZN 1999, Recommen- dation 73B). This nonbinding guideline is given as a recommendation because there are instances where the material is missing or destroyed, as was the case for the rebbachisaurid Nopcsaspondylus alarconensis named by Apesteguía (2007) for a vertebra described and figured (but not named) by Nopcsa (1902), for the stegosaur Al- covasaurus longispinus by Galton and Carpenter (2016), and for AMNH FR 5777. The recently issued nonbind- ing Declaration 45 (ICZN 2017) seeks to promote good taxonomic practice regarding an unpreserved specimen as the name-bearing type. As Krell and Marshall (2017) commented, “The Code cannot dictate what quality or quantity of evidence is enough; that is a matter of taxo- nomic judgment.” SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY Sauropoda Marsh, 1878 Diplodocoidae Marsh, 1884 (Upchurch, 1998) Rebbachisauridae Bonaparte, 1997 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus (Cope, 1878f) n.g. Figures 1A, 3, 4A Amphicoelias fragillimus Cope, 1878f Amphicoelias altus Osborn and Mook, 1921 in part Amphicoelias altus McIntosh, 1998 in part Amphicoelias fragillimus Cope, 1878f (Carpenter, 2006a) Etymology Ma-ra-pu-ni (pronounced mah-rah-poo-nee) — Southern Ute for “huge” used here in reference to the huge size of the animal, and saurus, Greek for reptile. The Garden Park area was traditionally Ute tribal terri- tory before they were displaced by settlers in the mid- 1800s. The name was recommended by the Southern Ute Cultural Department, Ignacio, Colorado. 236 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 Holotype AMNH FR 5777 (missing) consisting of a posteri- or dorsal neural arch, including neural spine (minus the distal apex), the proximal parts of the transverse processes, and both postzygapophyses. Woodruff and Foster (2014, p. 211 and 214) also claim “a distal end of a femur” as part of the type, despite no mention of that by Cope (1878f) nor Osborn and Mook (1921). The only mention of a distal end of a femur occurs in Cope’s field notes for 1879. It is here not considered part of the holotype because it could just as easily belong to a large specimen of C. supremus or A. altus which also occurred nearby. Diagnosis Combination of characters, including extremely tall neural arch to the base of the postzygapophyses (estimated approximately 1/3 total height of the spec- imen); unbifurcated, simply structured neural spine with spinopostzygapophyseal laminae joined dorsally to form the postspinal lamina; pneumatic camerae in neural arch and paired pneumatic foramina pierce the neural spine on each side of the postspinal lamina just above where spinopostzygapophyseal laminae join; hy- posphene present; the postspinal lamina extends dor- sally the entire preserved length of neural spine and with the spinodiapophyseal + spinopostzygapophyse- al(?) laminae give the neural spine a simple T-shaped cross section. Description and Discussion The general assumption for AMNH FR 5777 is that it is from a posterior dorsal, possibly D-9 or D-10 (Os- born and Mook, 1921), D-10 (Carpenter, 2006a). Cope, however, simply referred to the specimen as a “posterior dorsal vertebrae” and could not have identified it as a D-10 contrary to Woodruff and Foster (2014, p. 213) because the sauropod dorsal counts were unknown at this time. The neural arch below the postzygapophyses is damaged, but exceptionally tall. It has a very promi- nent intrapostzygapophyseal lamina that slightly wid- ens ventrally towards the missing neural canal (figure 3). Dorsally, it merges into a broad surface below the hyposphene. This region appears to be undamaged and what may be the right centropostzygapophyseal lamina indicates that the laminae ended well below the hypo- sphene, rather than uniting with that structure. The hy- posphene is proportionally small for the size of the neu- ral arch and a simple, rectangular structure (figure 3). The hyposphene is plesiomorphic for sauropods (Apes- teguía, 2005), commonly occurring in Flagellicaudata, and only in basal rebbachisaurids (e.g., Histriasaurus, Comahuesaurus, and Demandasaurus). The damaged area of the neural arch reveals sev- eral pneumatic chambers (camerae and subcamerae), including a large one (figure 3) that probably extend- ed dorsally from the pneumatic cavity of the centrum. This latter feature is also seen in the damaged D-4 of CM-94 (Diplodocus carnegii) and Barosaurus (J. Foster, Utah Field House of Natural History State Park Muse- um, written communication, 2018). Pneumatized neu- ral arches also occur in the rebbachisaurids Demanda- saurus (Torcida Fernández-Baldor and others, 2011), Comahuesaurus (Carbadillo and others, 2012), Rebba- chisaurus (Wilson and Allain, 2015), and Katepensaurus (Ibiricu and others, 2017). There also appears to be a pair of pneumatic chambers in the neural arch dorsolat- eral to where the neural canal is assumed to have been (figure 3 “pneumatic chambers*”). This character is shared with Demandasaurus (Torcida Fernández-Bal- dor and others, 2011), Comahuesaurus (Carbadillo and others, 2012), and Rebbachisaurus (Wilson and Allain, 2015). The postzygapophyses are proportionally smaller than they are in A. altus where they are very large as noted by Osborn and Mook (1921; figure 1B). The ar- ticular surfaces in AMNH FR 5777 are angled approx- imately 30 degrees, noticeably steeper than in A. altus. Size of Maraapunisaurus It is impossible to discuss AMNH FR 5777 without delving into the issue of its size and that of the animal to whom it belonged. In his description of “Amphicoelias fragillimus,” Cope (1878f, p. 564) wrote: 237 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 “These figures [the measurements] show that the total elevation of this vertebra, when complete, was not less than six feet, and probably more.” Woodruff and Foster (2014, p. 219) make it plain they do not believe Cope, writing: “...that it is highly unlikely that a terrestrial quadru- ped of such a purported body size could have exist- ed.” It is unfortunate that they seek to disprove Cope’s claim by casting aspersions about the quality of his work and go so far as to alter Cope’s measurements, claiming that “proportionally these new values fit much better…” There is, however, corroborative evidence for the existence of the big neural spine as stated by Cope. In late 1877, when word began to circulate of the large bones being uncovered in Garden Park, U.S. Geological Survey geologist Hayden visited Lucas as reported by Pangborn (1878, p. 51). Lucas maintained contact with Hayden and wrote to him on November 18, 1878 (GPPS docs): “You have doubtless seen Prof Cope’s report on the Amphicoelias fragillimus, the vertebra of which is six feet in elevation, requiring a femur twelve feet long, almost fabulous dimensions.” We know from the GPPS docs archives that Cope sent Lucas copies of his publications. Lucas would certainly have noticed if the measurements of the neural spine were in error. Instead, he corroborates Cope’s estimate of a six-foot vertebra in the letter. We also know from copies of the letters he sent to Cope that he did measure many of the bones before shipment. For example: “33 caudal vt of all sizes from 2 inches to 14 inch- es in diameter.” (Lucas letter to Cope, February 10, 1879, GPPS docs). Even more detailed measurements were given in anno- tated drawings he sent with letters to Cope, which in- cluded various thicknesses as well (e.g., figure 6). Thus, it is doubtful that Lucas was merely parroting Cope when he wrote to Hayden. In addition, such a large and impressive fossil is not easily forgotten, as Lucas was to recount in an autobiography written for the 50th re- union of the Oberlin class of 1880: “I found a single bone a vertebra of another animal. This vertebra was six feet in elevation, i.e., the width of the back bone up and down. What a monster this animal must have been.” (Lucas 50th, GPPS docs.) Given the corroborative evidence, what is the estimat- ed restored size of the vertebra AMNH FR 5777? Cope modeled the missing centrum after A. altus, as did I ini- tially (Carpenter, 2006a). Woodruff and Foster (2014) preferred a proportionally larger and rounder centrum modeled on Supersaurus vivianae on the basis that the Figure 6. Copy by Oramel Lucas of one of his illustrations that accompanied one of his letters to Cope. The illustrations show the location of various measurements. This and other drawings were apparently made in the field before crating (GPPS docs). 238 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 centrum becomes larger and rounder in diplodocids with increased size. As a rebbachisaurid, Cope was cor- rect in giving his reconstruction a proportionally small centrum (figure 1A). Using rebbachisaurid vertebrae (figure 5) as a guide does imply a small centrum that was wider than deep. In the new reconstruction (figure 5A), it is difficult to know how much of the neural spine and diapophyses are missing, or the actual height of the centrum. The reconstructed proportions are based on Rebbachisaurus because of the best fit of two easily iden- tified landmarks when the neural spine is scaled down and overlain other vertebrae. These include the base of the neural pedicle (must be at least slightly above the top of the neural canal) and the upper curved edge of the spinodiapophyseal lamina. Using other rebbachis- aurid vertebrae, including the basal Histriasaurus, was less successful because they have proportionally shorter neural arches. The reconstruction gives a vertebrae 2.4 m tall and less than the previous 2.7 m by me (Carpen- ter, 2006a) and 2.8 m by Woodruff and Foster (2014). To better understand the possible size of Maraa- punisaurus, knowing the femur length would be ideal. To give perspective of the huge size of the animal for his readers, Cope (1878f, p. 564) estimated the femur length as 3.66 m based on his observation that the femur was twice the height of the dorsal vertebra in A. altus and Camarasaurus supremus. The ratio may be significant- ly different in rebbachisaurids, although few specimens have useable elements. One example is Limaysaurus, where the incomplete dorsal is restored as 120 cm tall, whereas the complete femur is 144 cm (Calvo and Sal- gado, 1995, as Rebbachisaurus tessonei). In this case, the vertebra is 83% the femur length, rather than 50%. If this pattern is representative of most rebbachisaurids, then the femur of Maraapunisaurus was approximately 2.9 m tall, which is smaller than estimated by Cope and significantly less than my previous estimate of 4.3 to 4.6 m (Carpenter, 2006a) assuming skeletal proportions similar to Diplodocus. Paul (1994) estimated the femur as 3.1 to 4 m, and Woodruff and Foster (2014) estimat- ed 4.76 m. In comparison, the currently largest known sauropod femur is 2.31 m belonging to cf. Antarctosau- rus giganteus (Huene, 1929). Revised as a rebbachisaurid modeled after Limay- saurus, one of the few specimens complete enough to for a skeletal reconstruction, Maraapunisaurus is only 30.3 m long, and 7.95 m at the hips (figure 7). This is significantly less than my previous estimate length of 58 m (Carpenter, 2006a) and Paul’s (1994) estimate of 40 to 60 m. Woodruff and Foster (2014) did not give an esti- mated length based on their revised size of the vertebra. However, Parrish (2006) found that neck length in sau- ropods scales to torso length to the power of 1.35. That would mean that the neck of Maraapunisaurus was 7.6 m long rather than the 6 m long, which it would have if Limaysaurus were simply scaled larger. The result is that Maraapunisaurus might have been 32 m long, which puts it within the range estimates for Supersaurus and Diplodocus hallorum (Lovelace and others, 2008). Finally, the speculative reconstructed hindfoot length of Maraapunisaurus, 1.36 m, is in the size range for some of the type A sauropod tracks from Broome, Figure 7. Body comparisons of Maraapunisaurus as a 30.3-m-long rebbachisaurid (green) compared with previous version as a 58-m-long diplodocid (black). Lines within the silhouettes approximate the distal end of the diapophyses (i.e., top of the ribcage). Rebbachisaurid version based on Limaysaurus by Paul (2016), with outline of dorsal based on Rebbachisaurus; diplodocid version modified from Carpenter (2006). 239 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 Australia (Salisbury and others, 2016). I would note, however, that the largest pes track (Salisbury and oth- ers, 2016, figure 29) is most likely closely set manus and pes prints (compare their figures 27C and 28C; note manus track behind pes). Regardless, some of the other tracks in the 1.35 to 1.40 m range contradict Woodruff and Foster (2014, p. 219) that such huge sauropods were impossible. Salisbury and others (2016) rightly note that the Broome tracks have major ramifications on the upper size-limits of terrestrial vertebrates. Loss of the Neural Spine As noted above, the holotype of Maraapunisaurus fragillimus is one of several specimens that were miss- ing when the American Museum of Natural History took procession of the Cope collection. I have previous- ly hypothesized that the specimen crumbled and was disposed of by Cope years before the collection was sold (Carpenter, 2006a, p. 134). I still believe that to be the strongest hypothesis, although I now consider that the destruction may have occurred by mishandling or rough handling of the crate with the specimen during its move 8 km to the Memorial Hall basement storage where Cope kept most of the Lucas specimens (Osborn, 1931). We do know that hay was often used to pack the fossils in crates as Cope wrote regarding the shipping of Elasmosaurus: “It is very desirable that the specimens should be packed in such a way as to avoid friction or break- age in case of sudden jars. To accomplish this each single piece or mass, should be so surrounded in the hay or other packing as to allow of some elasticity of contact with the next. It is also important that any box should not be too large to bear the rough han- dling of so much weight: otherwise it may be bro- ken, even much lost.” (Cope to Theophilus Turner, February 13, 1868, given in Almy, 1987, p. 188). That the use of hay to pack fossils was widespread at this time is seen by the instructions Marsh gave his collec- tors: “Pack fossils in boxes of moderate size, and made of inch boards. Plenty of hay or straw should be put on the bottom, and closely around sacks of fossils, so that they cannot move when the box is turned over.” (Schuchert and LeVene, 1940, p. 173; see also Davidson and Everhart, 2017). The major problem with hay is its compaction under heavy weight, a serious problem as Cope noted in a let- ter regarding the shipment of the Elasmosaurus: “Each mass should have had a thicker wrapping of hay (still more when paper is used) & the box should be so packed as to prevent the rubbing and moving of the pieces. The largest box had 1/3 to 1/4 vacant space when it arrived & it as well as others, suffered some injury on that account.” (Cope to Turner, Feb- ruary 13, 1868, given in Almy, 1987, p. 189). The large and heavy neural spine of Maraapunisaurus would have been difficult to crate and ship safely from Colorado to Philadelphia where it was described and illustrated by Cope, as well as from Cope’s home to his Memorial Hall storage. Given that preservatives were not yet in use, it is amazing that the specimen arrived in Philadelphia in the first place. Lucas does mention that he solved the problem of keeping the fractured bones he was excavating together: “They [the fossil bones] were taken out with great care, each piece for the most part, especially in all the more fragile bones, being secured in its prop- er position relative to those about it, by pasting pa- per on the surface of the bones.” (Lucas to Marsh, March 11, 1879). This precursor to the use of plaster of Paris jackets was independently arrived at by different people (see Schuchert and LeVene, 1940). Ultimately, however, we will never know what happened to this and other Cope specimens that went missing. PALEOBIOGEOGRAPHICAL IMPLICATIONS Maraapunisaurus fragillimus as a rebbachisau- rid has profound paleobiogeographical and temporal implications. Previously, rebbachisaurids were only known from the Cretaceous and have not been report- 240 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 ed from North America. However, the phylogenetic study by Wilson and Allain (2015) estimated a 20-mil- lion-year ghost lineage for rebbachisaurids extending back to the Late Jurassic, and thus to the age of Maraa- punisaurus. This 20-million-year ghost lineage has been shortened recently to 10 million years by Xenoposeidon (Taylor, 2018). The previous absence of rebbachisaurids from North America does not exclude Maraapunisau- rus from being the first reported. Suuwassea, for exam- ple, has only recently been identified as a dicraeosau- rid from the Morrison Formation, making it the first (Whitlock, 2011). Although Maraapunisaurus is a basal rebbachis- aurid because of the presence of a hyposphene (shared with Histriasaurus, Comahuesaurus, and Demanda- saurus), it also has pneumatic chambers dorsolateral to neural canal as in Comahuesaurus, Demandasaurus, and Rebbachisaurus, but which is apparently lacking in Histriasaurus. The neural arch is also very tall and is proportional to that of Rebbachisaurus. Thus, in some ways Maraapunisaurus is more derived than other basal rebbachisaurids, especially Histriasaurus in a few of its features (figure 5). The coeval presence of Maraapunisaurus and di- plodocids in the Morrison Formation raises interesting issues about the paleobiogeographical origins of rebba- chisaurids. The Late Jurassic age for Maraapunisaurus does support the hypothesis for a Middle Jurassic split of the diplodocoids into the diplodocids and rebbach- isaurids (Sereno and others, 2007; Wilson and Allain, 2015). Given that there is greater similarities between Late Jurassic and pre-Aptian faunas of North America and Europe (Galton, 1980; Kirkland and others, 1997, 2016; Carpenter and others, 2002; Carpenter, 2006b; Mateus, 2006) than there is between North and South America for the same time interval, it seems more prob- able that the migration of rebbachisaurids was from North America to Europe during the latest Late Juras- sic and earliest Early Cretaceous, with a later arrival in South America via Europe and Africa (figure 8). This direction of migration is the reverse to that previously hypothesized (Torcida Fernandez-Baldor and others, 2011; Fanti and others, 2013). Nevertheless, temporal distribution does seem to support this possibility (figure 8C) and that the presence of post-Berriasian–pre-Ap- tian rebbachisaurids in Africa are predicted. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION It has been over 140 years since Oramel Lucas dis- covered the giant neural spine that was named Am- phicoelias fragillimus by Edward Cope in 1878. This specimen was lost prior to 1902, the year the Cope rep- tile collection was transferred to the American Museum of Natural History. The specimen has long been referred to Amphicoelias altus, which is now considered a basal diplodocoid (Whitlock, 2011). Reanalysis of Cope’s de- scription and figure demonstrate at least two unambig- uous rebbachisaurid characters: the festooned spinodia- pophyseal lamina and pneumatic neural spine. Because the specimen cannot be referred to the genus Amphico- elias, a new name is proposed, Maraapunisaurus fragilli- mus (Cope, 1878f). As a rebbachisaurid, Maraapunisau- rus from the Late Jurassic of North America is both the oldest rebacchisaurid and the first from North America and it may be the center of the group's origin. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to Pat Monaco and the late Donna En- gard for sharing various documents pertaining to Oramel Lucas. These are now housed at the Royal Gorge Regional Museum and History Center, Cañon City, Colorado. An- drew Smith and Melissa Smeins (Bureau of Land Manage- ment, Royal Gorge Field Office, Cañon City, Colorado), and Dan Grenard (unafilliated, Cañon City, Colorado) made additional documents from the Garden Park Pale- ontology Society available. Thanks to Fabio M. Dalla Vec- chia (Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Sabadell, Spain) for sharing his unpublished illustration of Histriasaurus boscarollii. Thanks to Ursula Göhlich and Andreas Kroh (Natural History Museum Vienna and Jürgen Kriwet, University of Vienna), for searching their collections for the holotype of Nopcsaspondylus alarcon- ensis; the specimen remains lost. The name Maraapuni- saurus was suggested by Hanley Frost, Sr., Edward Box III, and Garrett Briggs of the Southern Ute Cultural De- partment, Ignacio, Colorado. I am pleased to acknowl- edge that Zachary Taylor Ward Armstrong (Independent 241 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 Figure 8. Paleogeographic maps showing the distribution of rebbachisaurids during the Late Jurassic (A) and Early Cre- taceous (B). Abbreviations: M–Maraapunisaurus (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian), A–Amazonsaurus (Aptian-Albian), C–Co- mahuesaurus (Aptian-Albian), D–Demandasaurus (Upper Barremian-Lower Aptian), H–Histriasaurus (Upper Hauterivi- an-Lower Barremian), N–Nigersaurus (Aptian-Albian), T–Tataouinea (Albian), X–Xenoposeidon (Berriasian-Valanginian), and Z–Zapalasaurus (Barremian-lower Aptian). (C) Temporal and paleogeographic distribution of Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous rebbachisaurids. Paleogeographic maps from the commercial version of Ron Blakey’s “Paleogeography of West- ern North America” that is licensed to the Prehistoric Museum. 242 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 dinosaur blogger) who independently considered the possibility that AMNH FR 5777 was a rebbachisaurid four years before me in his blog: https://palaeozoologist. deviantart.com/journal/Was-Amphicoelias-a-rebbachis- aur-440611550. I came to a similar conclusion based on Carvalho and Santucci (2018) and Apesteguía and others (2010). Finally, review comments by Greg Paul (indepen- dent dinosausr artist), John Whitlock (Mount Aloysius College), Mike Taylor (University of Bristol), and John Foster (Museum of Moab) are gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES Almy, K.J., 1987, Thof ’s dragon and the letters of Capt. Theophi- lus Turner, M.D., U.S. Army: Kansas History, v. 10, no. 3, p. 170–200. Anonymous, 1878, International measures: Bulletin of the Ameri- can Metric Bureau, v. 20, p. 316–317. Anonymous, 1899, Cope collection lost: The Philadelphia Record, December 30, no. 10,166, p. 10, https://news.google.com/ newspapers?nid=QDEWnZBrHwAC&dat=18991230&print- sec=frontpage&hl=en (accessed August 29, 2018). Apesteguía, S., 2005, Evolution of the hyposphene–hypantrum complex within Sauropoda, in Tidwell, V., and Carpenter, K, editors, Thunder-lizards—the sauropodomorph dinosaurs: Bloomington, Indiana Press University, p. 248–267. Apesteguía, S., 2007, The sauropod diversity of the La Amarga For- mation (Barremian), Neuquén (Argentina): Gondwana Re- search, v. 12, p. 533–546. Apesteguía, S., Gallina, P.A., and Haluza, A., 2010, Not just a pretty face—anatomical peculiarities in the postcranium of rebbach- isaurids (Sauropoda: Diplodocoidea): Historical Biology, v. 22, no. 1–3, p. 165–174, DOI: 10.1080/08912960903411580. Bonaparte, J.F., 1997, Rayososaurus grioensis Bonaparte 1995: Ameghiniana, v. 34, no. 1, p. 116. Calvo, J.O., and Salgado, L., 1995, Rebbachisaurus tessonei sp. nov. a new Sauropoda from the Albian-Cenomanian of Argentina; new evidence on the origin of the Diplodocidae: Gaia, v. 11, p. 13–33. Carballido, J.L., Salgado, L., Pol, D., Canudo, J.I., and Garrido, A., 2012, A new basal rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Diplodo- coidea) from the Early Cretaceous of the Neuquén Basin— evolution and biogeography of the group: Historical Biology, v. 24, no. 6, p. 631–654, dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2012.67 2416 (accessed November 29, 2012). Carpenter, K., (in press), History and geology of the Cope’s Nip- ple quarries in Garden Park, Colorado, Morrison Formation, type locality of giant sauropods: Geology of the Intermountain West, v. 5. Carpenter, K., 2006a, Biggest of the big—a critical re-evaluation of the megasauropod Amphicoelias fragillimus, in Foster, J., and S.G. Lucas, editors, Paleontology and geology of the Upper Ju- rassic Morrison Formation: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 36, p. 131–137. Carpenter, K., 2006b, Assessing dinosaur faunal turnover in the Cedar Mountain Formation (Lower Cretaceous) of eastern Utah, USA: Ninth International Symposium on Mesozoic ter- restrial ecosystems and biota, Abstract and Proceedings Vol- ume, p. 21–25. Carpenter, K., Dicroce, T., Gilpin, D., Kineer, B., Sanders, F., and Tidwell, V., 2002. Origins of the Early and “Middle” Creta- ceous dinosaurs of North America—implications for plate tec- tonics, in anonymous, editor, Proceedings of the internation- al symposium on new concepts in global tectonics: La Junta, Colorado, Otero Junior College, p. 289-308. Carvalho, J.C., and, Santucci, R.M., 2018, New dinosaur remains from the Quiricó Formation, Sanfranciscana Basin (Lower Cretaceous), southwestern Brazil: Cretaceous Research, v. 85, p. 20–27. Chure, D.J., 2001, On the type and referred material of Laelaps tri- hedrodon Cope 1877 (Dinosauria: Theropoda), in Tanke, H., and Carpenter, K., editors, Mesozoic vertebrate life: Bloom- ington, Indiana University Press, p. 10–18. Colbert, E.H., 1992, William Diller Matthew, paleontologist—the splendid drama observed: New York, Columbia University Press, 275 p. Cope, E.D., 1877b (published August 23, 1877), On a gigantic sau- rian from the Dakota epoch of Colorado: Paleontological Bul- letin, v. 25, p. 5–10. Cope, E.D., 1877c (published November 21, 1877), On reptilian remains from Dakota beds of Colorado: Paleontological Bul- letin, v. 26, p. 193–496. Cope, E.D., 1877d (published December 10, 1877), On Amphicoe- lias, a genus of saurians from the Dakota epoch of Colorado: Paleontological Bulletin, v. 27, p. 2–5. Cope, E.D., 1878b (published January 12, 1879), On the Vertebrata of the Dakota Epoch of Colorado: Proceedings of the Ameri- can Philosophical Society, v. 17, p. 233–247 and p. 279. Cope, E.D., 1878f (published August 1878), A new species of Am- phicoelias: American Naturalist, v. 12, p. 563–565. Dalla Vecchia, F.M., 1999, Atlas of the sauropod bones from the Upper Hauterivian-Lower Barremian of Bale/Valle (SW Istria, Croatia): Natura Nascosta, v. 18, p. 6–41. Davidson, J.P., and Everhart, M.J., 2017, Scattered and shattered—a 243 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 brief history of the early methods of digging, preserving and transporting Kansas fossils: Transactions of the Kansas Acad- emy of Science, v. 120, no. 3–4, p. 247–258. Fanti, F., Cau, A., Hassine, M., and Contessi, M., 2013, A new sau- ropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Tunisia with ex- treme avian-like pneumatization [abs.]: Nature Communica- tions, v. 4, p. 2080, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3080. Galton, P.M., 1980, European Jurassic ornithopod dinosaurs of the families Hypsilophodontidae and Camptosauridae: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, v. 160, no. 1, p. 73–95. Galton, P., and Carpenter, K., 2016, The plated dinosaur Stego- saurus longispinus Gilmore, 1914 (Dinosauria: Ornithischia; Upper Jurassic, western USA), type species of Alcovasaurus n. gen.: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhan- dlungen., v. 279, no. 2, p. 185–208. Gilmore, C.W., 1936, Osteology of Apatosaurus with special refer- ence to specimens in the Carnegie Museum: Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, v. 11, p. 175–300. Hatcher, J.B., 1901, The Jurassic dinosaur deposits near Canyon City, Colorado: Annals of the Carnegie Museum, v. 1, p. 327– 341. Hatcher, J.B., 1903, Osteology of Haplocanthosaurus, with descrip- tion of a new species and remarks on the probable habits of the Sauropoda and the age and origin of the Atlantosaurus beds— additional remarks on Diplodocus: Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, v. 2, no. 1, p. 1–75. Huene, E., 1929, Los saurisquios y ornitisquios del Cretaceo Ar- gentino: Anales del Museo de La Plata, v. 3, p. 1-196. Ibiricu, L.M., Casal, G.A., Martínez, R.D., Lamanna, M.C., Luna, M., and Salgado, L., 2013, Katepensaurus goicoecheai, gen. et sp. nov., a Late Cretaceous rebbachisaurid (Sauropoda, Di- plodocoidea) from central Patagonia, Argentina: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 33, no. 6, p. 1351–1366. Ibiricu, L.M., Lamanna, M.C., Martínez, R.D.F., Casal, G.A., Cer- da, I.A., Martínez, G., and Salgado, L., 2017, A novel form of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in a sauropod dinosaur— implications for the paleobiology of Rebbachisauridae: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 62, no. 2, p. 221–236. ICZN, 1999, International code of zoological nomenclature: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, online edi- tion, nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/ (accessed February 5, 2018). ICZN, 2017, Declaration 45—addition of recommendations to Ar- ticle 73 and of the term “specimen, preserved” to the glossa- ry: The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, v. 73, no. 2–4, p. 96–97, doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v73i2.a2. Janensch, W., 1929, Die Wirbelsaule der Gattung Dicraeosaurus: Palaeontographica, Supplement, v. 7, p. 37–133. Jesup, M.K., 1896, Annual report of the President for 1895: The American Museum of Natural History, v. 27, 97 p. Jesup, M.K., 1898, Annual report of the President for 1897: The American Museum of Natural History, v. 29, 123 p. Jesup, M.K., 1899, Annual report of the President for 1898: The American Museum of Natural History, v. 30, 80 p. Jesup, M.K., 1900, Annual report of the President for 1899: The American Museum of Natural History, v. 31, 92 p. Jesup, M.K., 1901, Annual report of the President for 1900: The American Museum of Natural History, v. 32, 106 p. Jesup, M.K., 1903, Annual report of the President for 1902: The American Museum of Natural History, v. 34, 94 p. Kirkland, J.I., Britt, B.B., Burge, D.L., Carpenter, K., Cifelli, R., De- Courten, F., Eaton, J., Hasiotis, S., and Lawton, T., 1997, Lower to middle Cretaceous dinosaur faunas of the central Colorado Plateau—a key to understanding 35 million years of tectonics, sedimentology, evolution, and biogeography: Brigham Young University Geology Studies, v. 42, part II, p. 69–103. Kirkland, J.I., Suarez, M., Suarez, C., and Hunt-Foster, R., 2016, The Lower Cretaceous in east-central Utah—the Cedar Mountain Formation and its bounding strata: Geology of the Intermoun- tain West, v. 3, p. 101–228. Krell, F.T., and Marshall, S.A., 2017, New species described from photographs—yes? no? sometimes?—a fierce debate and a new declaration of the ICZN: Insect Systematics and Diversity, v. 1, no. 1, p. 3–19. Lovelace, D.M., Hartman S.A., and Wahl, W.R., 2008, Morphology of a specimen of Supersaurus (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Morrison Formation of Wyoming, and a re-evaluation of diplodocid phylogeny: Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, v. 65, no. 4, p. 527–544. Marsh, O.C., 1878, Principal characters of American Jurassic dino- saurs: American Journal of Science, series 3, v. 14, p. 411–416. Marsh, O.C., 1884, Principal characters of American Jurassic di- nosaurs; Part VII, on the Diplodocidae, a new family of the Sauropoda: American Journal of Science, series 3, v. 26, p. 161–167. Mateus, O., 2006, Late Jurassic dinosaurs from the Morrison For- mation (USA), the Lourinha and Alcobaça Formations (Por- tugal), and the Tendaguru Beds (Tanzania)—a comparison, in Foster, J., and Lucas, S.G., editors, Paleontology and geology of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation: New Mexico Mu- seum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 36, p. 223–231. Matthew, W.D., 1915, Dinosaurs with special reference to the American Museum collections: New York, American Muse- um of Natural History, 162 p. 244 Maraapunisaurus fragillimus, N.G. (Formerly Amphicoelias fragillimus), A Basal Rebbachisaurid From the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Colorado Carpenter, K. Geology of the Intermountain West 2018 Volume 5 Mazzetta, G.V., Christiansen, P., and Fariña, R.A., 2004. Giants and bizarres—body size of some southern South American Creta- ceous dinosaurs: Historical Biology, v. 16, no. 2–4, p. 71–83. McIntosh, J.S., 1998, New information about the Cope collection of sauropods from Garden Park, Colorado, in Carpenter, K., Chure, D., and Kirkland, J.I., editors, The Morrison Forma- tion—an interdisciplinary study: Modern Geology, v. 23, p. 481–506. Nopcsa, F., 1902, Notizen uber Cretacischen Dinosaurier: Sitzu- ngsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften/ Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, v. 111, part 1–3, p. 108–114. Osborn, H.F., 1918, Equiidae of the Oligocene, Miocene, and Plio- cene of North America, iconographic type revision: Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, n.s., v. 2, no. 1, p. 1–217. Osborn, H.F., 1931, Cope—master naturalist: Princeton, Princeton University Press, 740 p. Osborn, H.F., and Mook, C.C., 1921, Camarasaurus, Amphicoelias, and other sauropods of Cope: Memoirs of the American Mu- seum of Natural History, n.s., v. 3, no. 3, p. 248–387. Pangborn, J.G., 1878, The new Rocky Mountain tourist Arkansas Valley and San Juan guide: Chicago, Illinois, Knight and Leon- ard, 64 p. Parrish, J.M., 2006, The origins of high browsing and the effects of phylogeny and scaling on neck length in sauropodomorphs, in Carrano, M.T., Gaudin, T.J., Blob, R.W., and Wible, J.R., ed- itors, Amniote paleobiology: Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p. 201–224. Paul, G.S., 1994, Big sauropods—really, really big sauropods: The Dinosaur Report, The Dinosaur Society, Fall, p. 12–13. Paul, G.S., 1998, Terramegathermy and Cope’s Rule in the land of titans: Modern Geology, v. 23, p. 179–217. Paul, G.S., 2016, The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs: Princeton, Princeton University Press, 360 p. Perry, S.F., Christian, A., Breuer, T., Pajor, N., and Codd, J.R., 2009, Implications of an avian‐style respiratory system for gigan- tism in sauropod dinosaurs: Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A—Ecological Genetics and Physiology, v. 311, no. 8, p. 600–610. Salisbury, S.W., Romilio, A., Herne, M.C., Tucker, R.T., and Nair, J.P., 2016, The Dinosaurian ichnofauna of the Lower Creta- ceous (Valanginian–Barremian) Broome Sandstone of the Walmadany area (James Price Point), Dampier Peninsula, Western Australia: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Mem- oir, v. 16, p. 1–152. Sereno, P.C., Wilson, J.A., Witmer, L.M., Whitlock, J.A., Maga, A., Ide, O., and Rowe, T.A., 2007, Structural extremes in a Creta- ceous dinosaur: PLoS ONE 2: e1230, https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0001230. Schuchert, C., and LeVene, C.M., 1940, O.C. Marsh, pioneer in pa- leontology: New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press, 541 p. Taylor, M.P., 2018, Xenoposeidon is the earliest known rebbachisau- rid sauropod dinosaur: PeerJ 6:e5212, doi: 10.7717/peerj.5212. Torcida Fernández-Baldor, F., Canudo, J.l., Huerta, P., Montero, D., Pereda Suberbiola, X., and Salgado, L., 2011, Demandasaurus darwini, a new rebbachisaurid sauropod from the Early Creta- ceous of the Iberian Peninsula: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 56, no. 3, p. 535–552. Upchurch, P., 1998, The phylogenetic relationships of sauropod di- nosaurs: Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 124, p. 43–103. Whitlock, J.A., 2011, A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodo- coidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda): Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 161, p. 872–915, doi: 10.1111/j.1096- 3642.2010.00665.x. Wilson, J.A., 1999, A nomenclature for vertebral laminae in sau- ropods and other saurischian dinosaurs: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 19, no. 4, p. 639-653, DOI:10.1080/02724634 .1999.10011178. Wilson, J.A., 2002, Sauropod dinosaur phylogeny—critique and cladistic analysis: Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 136, p. 217-276. Wilson, J.A., and Allain, R., 2015, Osteology of Rebbachisaurus garasbae Lavocat, 1954, a diplodocoid (Dinosauria, Sau- ropoda) from the early Late Cretaceous–aged Kem Kem beds of southeastern Morocco: Journal of Vertebrate Pa- leontology, v. 35, no. 4, unpaginated, e1000701, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2014.1000701. Wilson, J.A., D’Emic, M.D., Ikejiri, T., Moacdieh, E.M., and Whit- lock, J.A., 2011, A nomenclature for vertebral fossae in sau- ropods and other saurischian dinosaurs: PLoS ONE 6(2): e17114. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017114 (accessed Febru- ary 9, 2018). Woodruff, C., and Foster, J.R., 2014, The fragile legacy of Am- phicoelias fragillimus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda; Morrison For- mation—Latest Jurassic): Volumina Jurassica, v. 12, no. 2, p. 211–220.