# The 37 crowded locality proposals

**Historical research baseline · roster policy v6.** Reviewed 10 October 2026. The original 37 proposals and conditional tests below are preserved.

**Decision update:** This is the preserved historical dossier, not the current policy. The complete follow-up applies six further identity holds and supported locality amendments under policy v10. See [all decisions and current comparisons](complete-locality-review.html). Conditional counts below remain historical.

The 37 proposals share 26 locality problems. 29 include missing profiles; 8 have no unknown locality candidates in the current comparison. These are counts of proposals, not counts of unique genera or confirmed co-occurring animals.

Adding five supported positive profiles and retesting every already recorded anchor in a conditional catalogue screen brings 8 proposals below five in every tested reaching-guess state. Also holding out the proposed Eosauropoda rank artifact brings that total to 12. These are sensitivity tests, not approved fossil-absence filters.

## The decisions with the strongest evidence

**Eosauropoda (370667): propose a genus-rank exception.** Fresh PBDB still self-accepts it as a genus, with no linked occurrences. The cited Bonaparte publication instead treats Eosauropoda as a grouping containing genera. This is a source-rank mismatch, not an animal with an unknown dig site. The report proposes holding this identity out of guesses and answers; policy remains unchanged pending approval.

**Nemegtia (68043): propose one canonical dinosaur identity, Nemegtomaia.** The 2005 replacement-name publication provides direct evidence. A later review records Nemegt and Baruungoyot material; a future canonical profile must keep both. No merge, alias, occurrence transfer or exclusion is implemented here.

**Pellegrinisaurus: hold the Allen clue for stratigraphic verification.** Match the exact catalogue collection to the 2021 revision before deciding whether Anacleto replaces this assignment. This concerns a clue, not removing the genus.

**Repair data before inventing narrower sites.** Adamantisaurus, Galveosaurus, Koutalisaurus, Paulodon and the original Nemegtia dinosaur have published positive locality information despite empty linked profiles. Chinese Hekou/Nanxiong group fields and historical empty identities are the next shared repair tasks.

## What the tests mean

All scenarios use the frozen PBDB source tree and all three provisional standard clues, not an approved Expert working tree.

The five literature profiles add supported positive country/locality information to otherwise empty records. Treating these recorded profiles as the current complete catalogue is a counterfactual screening assumption, not proof that the animals never occurred elsewhere.

No source rows, qualified referrals, non-primary memberships, ages, diets or classification paths are rewritten. No target is removed. All relevant unknowns stay possible.

The rank-hold scenario additionally removes only Eosauropoda 370667 from candidates and probes. This exception is proposed, not applied. Nemegtia is retained in both scenarios with its original Mongolian positive profile.

Every previously recorded anchor for each target is retested against every wrong source-roster guess reaching its parent. New literature sites are research leads, not validated additional anchors.

Neither fewer than five nor a five-plus count alone approves a hidden answer or a free-help trigger. Full footprints, standard facts, working-tree probes and unused clues still require review.

Publication access is disclosed per source. Historical identity claims lacking original verification remain explicitly unresolved.

## All 37 proposals

Ranges count unguessed candidates after actual wrong guesses reaching the displayed source parent. Conditional columns use the best already recorded anchor; every alternative is included in the JSON. A smaller catalogue count remains subject to full scientific review.

| Target | Source parent | Original clue | Baseline | Five profiles | Profiles + proposed rank hold |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Equijubus | Hadrosauroidea | Gansu · CN | 4–6 | 4–5 | 4–5 |
| Gongpoquansaurus | Hadrosauroidea | Gansu · CN | 4–6 | 4–5 | 4–5 |
| Abrosaurus | Mamenchisauridae | Shaximiao Formation · CN | 4–5 | 4–5 | 4–5 |
| Bisticeratops | Chasmosaurinae | Kirtland Formation · US | 4–6 | 4–5 | 4–5 |
| Navajoceratops | Chasmosaurinae | Kirtland Formation · US | 4–6 | 4–5 | 4–5 |
| Terminocavus | Chasmosaurinae | Kirtland Formation · US | 4–6 | 4–5 | 4–5 |
| Yeneen | Titanosauria | Bajo de la Carpa Formation · AR | 4–8 | 3–6 | 3–6 |
| Gannansaurus | Somphospondyli | Jiangxi · CN | 4–6 | 2–4 | 2–4 |
| Jiangshanosaurus | Somphospondyli | Jinhua Formation · CN | 6–10 | 2–4 | 2–4 |
| Jiangxititan | Somphospondyli | Jiangxi · CN | 4–6 | 2–4 | 2–4 |
| Liubangosaurus | Somphospondyli | Xinlong Formation · CN | 5–9 | 2–4 | 2–4 |
| Yunmenglong | Somphospondyli | Haoling Formation · CN | 5–11 | 1–5 | 1–5 |
| Daliansaurus | Troodontidae | Yixian Formation · CN | 3–6 | 3–5 | 3–5 |
| Sinusonasus | Troodontidae | Yixian Formation · CN | 3–6 | 3–5 | 3–5 |
| Pellegrinisaurus | Lithostrotia | Allen Formation · AR | 3–6 | 2–5 | 2–5 |
| Wendiceratops | Centrosaurinae | Oldman Formation · CA | 3–6 | 3–6 | 3–6 |
| Chinshakiangosaurus | Sauropoda | Fengjiahe Formation · CN | 7–11 | 4–5 | 3–4 |
| Damalasaurus | Sauropoda | Daye Group · CN | 7–38 | 5–17 | 4–16 |
| Isanosaurus | Sauropoda | Nam Phong Formation · TH | 5–7 | 4–5 | 3–4 |
| Kotasaurus | Sauropoda | Kota Formation · IN | 5–8 | 4–5 | 3–4 |
| Lamplughsaura | Sauropoda | Dharmaram Formation · IN | 5–7 | 4–5 | 3–4 |
| Microdontosaurus | Sauropoda | Chaya Group · CN | 7–38 | 5–17 | 4–16 |
| Sanpasaurus | Sauropoda | Ziliujing Formation · CN | 7–11 | 5–6 | 4–5 |
| Datousaurus | Eusauropoda | Shaximiao Formation · CN | 8–13 | 4–9 | 4–9 |
| Nebulasaurus | Eusauropoda | Zhanghe Formation · CN | 4–7 | 1–3 | 1–3 |
| Shunosaurus | Eusauropoda | Shaximiao Formation · CN | 8–13 | 1–5 | 1–5 |
| Agilisaurus | Neornithischia | Shaximiao Formation · CN | 3–12 | 3–10 | 3–10 |
| Hexinlusaurus | Neornithischia | Shaximiao Formation · CN | 3–12 | 3–10 | 3–10 |
| Pulaosaurus | Neornithischia | Tiaojishan Formation · CN | 1–10 | 1–8 | 1–8 |
| Sanxiasaurus | Neornithischia | Xintiangou Formation · CN | 1–10 | 1–8 | 1–8 |
| Yandusaurus | Neornithischia | Shaximiao Formation · CN | 3–12 | 1–8 | 1–8 |
| Caudipteryx | Oviraptorosauria | Yixian Formation · CN | 5–10 | 3–7 | 3–7 |
| Incisivosaurus | Oviraptorosauria | Yixian Formation · CN | 5–10 | 1–4 | 1–4 |
| Ningyuansaurus | Oviraptorosauria | Yixian Formation · CN | 5–10 | 4–7 | 4–7 |
| Protarchaeopteryx | Oviraptorosauria | Yixian Formation · CN | 5–10 | 3–7 | 3–7 |
| Yuanyanglong | Oviraptorosauria | Miaogou Formation · CN | 1–6 | 1–4 | 1–4 |
| Istiorachis | Styracosterna | Wessex Formation · UK | 2–6 | 1–4 | 1–4 |

## The 26 shared cases

### 1. Gansu hadrosauroids

**Targets:** Equijubus, Gongpoquansaurus.

Four recorded Gansu matches plus two empty identities create the worst six-answer state. This is principally a profile problem, not six proven Gansu genera.

**Recorded matches:** Equijubus, Gongpoquansaurus, Jintasaurus, Xuwulong.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Koutalisaurus, Nectosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Add the Spanish Koutalisaurus profile; investigate the exact Nectosaurus Versluys 1910 identity. Do not confuse it with the older marine Nectosaurus. Recheck after standard facts are curated.

**Evidence:** [Prieto-Márquez & Wagner 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667109000731).

**Conditional test · Equijubus:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Gansu · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–5 using Gansu · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Gongpoquansaurus:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Gansu · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–5 using Gansu · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 2. Shaximiao mamenchisaurids

**Targets:** Abrosaurus.

All five retained genera have recorded or cautiously retained unit membership. The qualified Qijianglong alternative and broad Omeisaurus footprint prevent a convenient type-site split.

**Recorded matches:** Abrosaurus, Daanosaurus, Omeisaurus, Qijianglong, Zigongosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** None.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** Qijianglong.

**Next action:** Resolve Daanosaurus subunit placement and Qijianglong's Suining/Upper Shaximiao alternatives with specimen-specific literature. Retain uncertainty until then.

**Evidence:** [Li et al. 2011 · Shaximiao assemblages](https://vjs.pgi.gov.pl/article/download/26567/18275/39914).

**Conditional test · Abrosaurus:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Shaximiao Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–5 using Shaximiao Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 3. Kirtland chasmosaurines

**Targets:** Bisticeratops, Navajoceratops, Terminocavus.

Six catalogue matches remain, including qualified Titanoceratops and a Torosaurus collection recorded as Naashoibito/Kirtland. Hunter Wash horizons offer useful leads, not an exhaustive six-way partition.

**Recorded matches:** Bisticeratops, Navajoceratops, Pentaceratops, Terminocavus, Titanoceratops, Torosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** None.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** Titanoceratops.

**Next action:** Map the Naashoibito collection to its modern Ojo Alamo treatment; review Pentaceratops referrals and Titanoceratops uncertainty. Then test Farmington/Hunter Wash horizons without deleting qualified matches.

**Evidence:** [Fowler & Freedman Fowler 2020](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7278894/).

**Conditional test · Bisticeratops:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Farmington Member · Kirtland Formation · US; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–5 using Farmington Member · Kirtland Formation · US. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Navajoceratops:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Hunter Wash Member · Kirtland Formation · US; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–5 using Hunter Wash Member · Kirtland Formation · US. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Terminocavus:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Hunter Wash Member · Kirtland Formation · US; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–5 using Hunter Wash Member · Kirtland Formation · US. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 4. Bajo de la Carpa titanosaurs

**Targets:** Yeneen.

Seven recorded matches remain before the wrong guess is removed, plus empty Adamantisaurus. This has real overlap even after the Brazilian profile is supplied.

**Recorded matches:** Bonitasaura, Inawentu, Neuquensaurus, Overosaurus, Rinconsaurus, Traukutitan, Yeneen.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Obtain the full Yeneen specimen inventory and compare Cerro Overo/La Invernada referrals across all seven genera. Prepare a non-locality free-help distinction if a five-plus indistinguishable state persists.

**Evidence:** [Yeneen original description · 2025 online publication](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2025.2584707); [Santucci & Bertini 2006](https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstreams/f9502a4e-cced-45c6-9397-9994c733c70e/download).

**Conditional test · Yeneen:** five-profile screen 3–6 using Bajo de la Carpa Formation · Neuquén · AR; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–6 using Bajo de la Carpa Formation · Neuquén · AR. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 5. Jiangxi somphospondylans

**Targets:** Gannansaurus, Jiangxititan.

Three recorded Jiangxi matches are inflated by Adamantisaurus, Daxiatitan and Yongjinglong metadata gaps. The latter two have published Gansu contexts.

**Recorded matches:** Gandititan, Gannansaurus, Jiangxititan.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Daxiatitan, Yongjinglong.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Bind original occurrences to reviewed province/group profiles, preserving any other referrals. Do not invent Hekou Formation from the Hekou Group or from horizon labels ‘Upper’ and ‘5’.

**Evidence:** [Mo et al. 2023 · Jiangxititan](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2023.2259413); [Li et al. 2014 · Yongjinglong](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085979); [Santucci & Bertini 2006](https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstreams/f9502a4e-cced-45c6-9397-9994c733c70e/download).

**Conditional test · Gannansaurus:** five-profile screen 2–4 using Ganzhou · Jiangxi · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 2–4 using Ganzhou · Jiangxi · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Jiangxititan:** five-profile screen 2–4 using Ganzhou · Jiangxi · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 2–4 using Ganzhou · Jiangxi · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 6. Jinhua somphospondylans

**Targets:** Jiangshanosaurus.

Two recorded formation matches are joined by eight unknown profiles. This count is not evidence for ten animals from Jinhua.

**Recorded matches:** Dongyangosaurus, Jiangshanosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Daxiatitan, Erketu, Euhelopus, Gannansaurus, Jiangxititan, Qingxiusaurus, Yongjinglong.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Complete the Zhejiang reappraisal and use formation-plus-province context where supported. Preserve the Chinese Erketu referral until its primary identification is checked; a Mongolian type does not erase it.

**Evidence:** [Mannion et al. 2019 · Zhejiang sauropod reappraisal](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10079194/); [Li et al. 2014 · Yongjinglong](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085979); [Santucci & Bertini 2006](https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstreams/f9502a4e-cced-45c6-9397-9994c733c70e/download).

**Conditional test · Jiangshanosaurus:** five-profile screen 2–4 using Zhejiang · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 2–4 using Zhejiang · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 7. Xinlong somphospondylans

**Targets:** Liubangosaurus.

Liubangosaurus is the sole recorded match within this provisional pool, while eight incomplete profiles remain possible. The Napai/Xinlong naming relationship also needs a formal mapping.

**Recorded matches:** Liubangosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Daxiatitan, Erketu, Euhelopus, Gannansaurus, Jiangxititan, Qingxiusaurus, Yongjinglong.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Verify the regional unit equivalence and compare every unknown genus's full Chinese footprint. Use Guangxi context only when supported in all relevant records.

**Evidence:** [Mo et al. 2015 · Xinlong vertebrate review](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/early-cretaceous-vertebrates-from-the-xinlong-formation-of-guangxi-southern-china-a-review/3B686B9CB86574ABAA63A7958166DCED); [Li et al. 2014 · Yongjinglong](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085979).

**Conditional test · Liubangosaurus:** five-profile screen 2–4 using Guangxi · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 2–4 using Guangxi · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 8. Haoling somphospondylans

**Targets:** Yunmenglong.

Three recorded matches plus eight unknown profiles create the eleven-answer maximum. Published Ruyang material suggests a genuinely shared formation but not eleven proven matches.

**Recorded matches:** Ruyangosaurus, Xianshanosaurus, Yunmenglong.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Daxiatitan, Erketu, Euhelopus, Gannansaurus, Jiangxititan, Qingxiusaurus, Yongjinglong.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Review the full Haoling specimen inventory, including named species whose genera have wider ranges. Repair the out-of-province metadata before testing locality or county distinctions.

**Evidence:** [Lü et al. 2013 · Yunmenglong](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667113000839); [Li et al. 2014 · Yongjinglong](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085979).

**Conditional test · Yunmenglong:** five-profile screen 1–5 using Ruyang · Henan · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–5 using Ruyang · Henan · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 9. Yixian troodontids

**Targets:** Daliansaurus, Sinusonasus.

Six recorded matches remain possible. Five relevant genera are reported from Lujiatun, so that narrower name alone is not a guaranteed sub-five solution.

**Recorded matches:** Daliansaurus, Jianianhualong, Liaoningvenator, Mei, Sinovenator, Sinusonasus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** None.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Verify Jianianhualong's exact horizon and all six referred-specimen profiles. If the resulting working tree and unused clues cannot distinguish five remaining answers, provide free anatomical help.

**Evidence:** [2026 Sinovenator review](https://sjp.pensoft.net/article/196379/).

**Conditional test · Daliansaurus:** five-profile screen 3–5 using Lujiatun Member · Yixian Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–5 using Lujiatun Member · Yixian Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Sinusonasus:** five-profile screen 3–5 using Lujiatun Member · Yixian Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–5 using Lujiatun Member · Yixian Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 10. Allen lithostrotians / Pellegrinisaurus

**Targets:** Pellegrinisaurus.

Six recorded matches remain possible. The Pellegrinisaurus anchor itself needs review against the 2021 redescription and its Anacleto assignment; Neuquensaurus has multiple formations.

**Recorded matches:** Aeolosaurus, Bonatitan, Neuquensaurus, Panamericansaurus, Pellegrinisaurus, Rocasaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** None.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Obtain the full primary stratigraphic section and map the exact Allen-labelled collection to the revised material. Hold this anchor for approval rather than deleting the genus or transferring all occurrences.

**Evidence:** [Cerda et al. 2021 · Pellegrinisaurus redescription](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667121002056).

**Conditional test · Pellegrinisaurus:** five-profile screen 2–5 using Río Negro · AR; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 2–5 using Río Negro · AR. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 11. Oldman centrosaurines

**Targets:** Wendiceratops.

Six recorded Alberta matches include an Avaceratops referral, despite its Montana type locality. Wendiceratops' single known bonebed is a useful positive anchor but does not exclude all others automatically.

**Recorded matches:** Avaceratops, Centrosaurus, Coronosaurus, Monoclonius, Spinops, Wendiceratops.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** None.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Review NMC 8804 and the Monoclonius/Spinops referrals, then compare lower Oldman and the South Side bonebed using specimen evidence. Avoid type-locality-only filtering.

**Evidence:** [Evans & Ryan 2015 · Wendiceratops](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130007).

**Conditional test · Wendiceratops:** five-profile screen 3–6 using Oldman Formation · CA; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–6 using Oldman Formation · CA. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 12. Fengjiahe basal sauropods

**Targets:** Chinshakiangosaurus.

One recorded match plus ten unknown profiles produces the eleven-answer maximum. Eosauropoda is a rank artifact; several historical Chinese names still need original profiles.

**Recorded matches:** Chinshakiangosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Dachongosaurus, Damalasaurus, Eosauropoda, Galveosaurus, Lingwulong, Microdontosaurus, Microsaurops, Omeisaurus, Oshanosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Decide the Eosauropoda genus-rank exception, then research Dachongosaurus, Oshanosaurus and Microsaurops before selecting hidden answers. A blank record is not grounds for a roster cut.

**Evidence:** [Upchurch et al. 2007 · Chinshakiangosaurus](https://ivpp.cas.cn/sourcedb/zw/rck/yszj/202311/P020140313580838812322.pdf); [Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf).

**Conditional test · Chinshakiangosaurus:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Fengjiahe Formation · Yunnan · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–4 using Fengjiahe Formation · Yunnan · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 13. Daye / Damalasaurus

**Targets:** Damalasaurus.

The maximum 38 comprises one recorded match and 37 genera whose group metadata does not rule it out. It does not represent a 38-genus Tibetan assemblage.

**Recorded matches:** Damalasaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Abrosaurus, Adamantisaurus, Analong, Anhuilong, Bellusaurus, Chinshakiangosaurus, Chuanjiesaurus, Daanosaurus, Dachongosaurus, Dashanpusaurus, Datousaurus, Eomamenchisaurus, Eosauropoda, Fushanosaurus, Galveosaurus, Huangshanlong, Huashanosaurus, Hudiesaurus, Jinchuanloong, Jingiella, Klamelisaurus, Lingwulong, Microsaurops, Nebulasaurus, Omeisaurus, Oshanosaurus, Protognathosaurus, Qijianglong, Rhomaleopakhus, Sanpasaurus, Shunosaurus, Tienshanosaurus, Tonganosaurus, Tongnanlong, Xinjiangtitan, Yuanmousaurus, Zigongosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Obtain Zhao's original account and the regional Daye/Chaya lithostratigraphy. Prefer a supported formation-plus-province clue when available; do not infer a group hierarchy from matching strings. Hidden-answer approval remains pending.

**Evidence:** [2011 Tibetan geological review](https://dzhtb.cgs.cn/cn/article/pdf/preview/20110119.pdf); [Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf).

**Conditional test · Damalasaurus:** five-profile screen 5–17 using Xizang · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–16 using Xizang · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 14. Nam Phong / Isanosaurus

**Targets:** Isanosaurus.

One recorded match plus six missing profiles creates a seven-answer maximum. Missing dates and uncertain Nam Phong correlation affect the provisional standard-clue pool too.

**Recorded matches:** Isanosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Dachongosaurus, Eosauropoda, Galveosaurus, Microsaurops, Oshanosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Review current dating and the historical empty identities. Keep the locality profile independent of a convenient Triassic label, and rerun the standard clues after review.

**Evidence:** [McPhee et al. 2015 · basal sauropod context](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4541066/); [Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf).

**Conditional test · Isanosaurus:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Nam Phong Formation · TH; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–4 using Nam Phong Formation · TH. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 15. Kota / Kotasaurus

**Targets:** Kotasaurus.

Two recorded matches and six unknown profiles remain. Barapasaurus and Kotasaurus have different reported type quarries, but quarry exclusivity has not been established.

**Recorded matches:** Barapasaurus, Kotasaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Dachongosaurus, Eosauropoda, Galveosaurus, Microsaurops, Oshanosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Repair the unrelated empty profiles first. A broad Kota clue may already suffice afterwards; require a full referral inventory before offering an exclusive quarry clue.

**Evidence:** [Bandyopadhyay et al. 2010 · Barapasaurus](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2010.00933.x); [Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf).

**Conditional test · Kotasaurus:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Telangana · IN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–4 using Telangana · IN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 16. Dharmaram / Lamplughsaura

**Targets:** Lamplughsaura.

One recorded match plus six unknown profiles remains. The named-animal question and the Upper Dharmaram age are separate from the historical empty records.

**Recorded matches:** Lamplughsaura.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Dachongosaurus, Eosauropoda, Galveosaurus, Microsaurops, Oshanosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Complete locality profiles and standard age/diet review. Do not count indeterminate skeletons as extra named options or narrow all genera to their type sites.

**Evidence:** [Kutty et al. 2007 · Indian basal sauropodomorphs](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/abs/basal-sauropodomorphs-dinosauria-saurischia-from-the-lower-jurassic-of-india-their-anatomy-and-relationships/C41F89D679B2C0D7FCFBB4C95D695309); [Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf).

**Conditional test · Lamplughsaura:** five-profile screen 4–5 using Dharmaram Formation · IN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–4 using Dharmaram Formation · IN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 17. Chaya / Microdontosaurus

**Targets:** Microdontosaurus.

As with Daye, missing group metadata creates a maximum of 38. The historical name's original description and precise unit rank were not obtained in this review.

**Recorded matches:** Microdontosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Abrosaurus, Adamantisaurus, Analong, Anhuilong, Bellusaurus, Chinshakiangosaurus, Chuanjiesaurus, Daanosaurus, Dachongosaurus, Dashanpusaurus, Datousaurus, Eomamenchisaurus, Eosauropoda, Fushanosaurus, Galveosaurus, Huangshanlong, Huashanosaurus, Hudiesaurus, Jinchuanloong, Jingiella, Klamelisaurus, Lingwulong, Microsaurops, Nebulasaurus, Omeisaurus, Oshanosaurus, Protognathosaurus, Qijianglong, Rhomaleopakhus, Sanpasaurus, Shunosaurus, Tienshanosaurus, Tonganosaurus, Tongnanlong, Xinjiangtitan, Yuanmousaurus, Zigongosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Research the original Chinese/Tibetan account and any later revision. Keep PBDB inclusion distinct from hidden-answer readiness; no unverified synonymy or group-to-formation conversion.

**Evidence:** [2011 Tibetan geological review](https://dzhtb.cgs.cn/cn/article/pdf/preview/20110119.pdf); [Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf).

**Conditional test · Microdontosaurus:** five-profile screen 5–17 using Xizang Zizhiqu · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–16 using Xizang Zizhiqu · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 18. Ziliujing / Sanpasaurus

**Targets:** Sanpasaurus.

Sanpasaurus has a reviewed Maanshan Member locality, but ten unknown profiles dominate the retained set. Narrowing the target alone cannot cure unrelated empty records.

**Recorded matches:** Sanpasaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Dachongosaurus, Damalasaurus, Eosauropoda, Galveosaurus, Lingwulong, Microdontosaurus, Microsaurops, Omeisaurus, Oshanosaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Use the 2016 specimen-level redescription for accepted referrals, then repair the common historical profiles. Test Maanshan only with complete comparison footprints.

**Evidence:** [McPhee et al. 2016 · Sanpasaurus](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5075712/); [Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf).

**Conditional test · Sanpasaurus:** five-profile screen 5–6 using Ziliujing Formation · Sichuan · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–5 using Ziliujing Formation · Sichuan · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 19. Shaximiao eusauropods

**Targets:** Datousaurus, Shunosaurus.

Ten recorded or cautiously retained matches plus three unknown profiles create the thirteen-answer maximum. This is both a real broad assemblage and a metadata problem.

**Recorded matches:** Abrosaurus, Daanosaurus, Dashanpusaurus, Datousaurus, Omeisaurus, Protognathosaurus, Qijianglong, Shunosaurus, Yuzhoulong, Zigongosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Galveosaurus, Lingwulong.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** Qijianglong.

**Next action:** Repair Adamantisaurus, Galveosaurus and Lingwulong profiles, then reconcile Lower/Upper Shaximiao assignments across all ten known matches. Preserve wide Omeisaurus and qualified Qijianglong memberships.

**Evidence:** [Li et al. 2011 · Shaximiao assemblages](https://vjs.pgi.gov.pl/article/download/26567/18275/39914); [Santucci & Bertini 2006](https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstreams/f9502a4e-cced-45c6-9397-9994c733c70e/download); [Sánchez-Hernández 2005 · Galveosaurus](https://mapress.com/zootaxa/2005f/z01034p020f.pdf).

**Conditional test · Datousaurus:** five-profile screen 4–9 using Shaximiao Formation · Sichuan · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–9 using Shaximiao Formation · Sichuan · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Shunosaurus:** five-profile screen 1–5 using Shaximiao Formation · Yungyang · Chongqing · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–5 using Shaximiao Formation · Yungyang · Chongqing · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 20. Zhanghe / Nebulasaurus

**Targets:** Nebulasaurus.

Three recorded matches are joined by four unknown profiles. The original description provides a concrete Xiabanjing locality, but the broad formation already has a small known cohort.

**Recorded matches:** Eomamenchisaurus, Nebulasaurus, Yuanmousaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Adamantisaurus, Galveosaurus, Lingwulong, Omeisaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Repair the four comparison profiles first, including broad/missing Omeisaurus metadata. Do not promise a unique quarry clue without reviewing other referred material.

**Evidence:** [Xing et al. 2015 · Nebulasaurus](https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app20120151.pdf); [Santucci & Bertini 2006](https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstreams/f9502a4e-cced-45c6-9397-9994c733c70e/download); [Sánchez-Hernández 2005 · Galveosaurus](https://mapress.com/zootaxa/2005f/z01034p020f.pdf).

**Conditional test · Nebulasaurus:** five-profile screen 1–3 using Zhanghe Formation · Yunnan · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–3 using Zhanghe Formation · Yunnan · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 21. Shaximiao small ornithischians

**Targets:** Agilisaurus, Hexinlusaurus, Yandusaurus.

Three recorded matches are inflated by nine missing identities. Some historical names may be draft names or spelling artifacts, but those relationships were not verified in original publications here.

**Recorded matches:** Agilisaurus, Hexinlusaurus, Yandusaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Eucentrosaurus, Hanssuesia, Koutalisaurus, Nectosaurus, Paulodon, Ponerosteus, Proiguanodon, Proyandusaurus, Xuanhuasaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Research Eucentrosaurus, Hanssuesia, Nectosaurus, Ponerosteus, Proiguanodon, Proyandusaurus and Xuanhuasaurus individually; add the supported Spanish Koutalisaurus/Paulodon profiles. Do not merge names from secondary lists.

**Evidence:** [Barrett, Butler & Knoll 2005](https://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/12933); [Prieto-Márquez & Wagner 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667109000731); [Sancarlo, Mandorlo & Ford 2025 · Paulodon](https://www.mapress.com/mz/article/view/mesozoic.2.4.3/57945).

**Conditional test · Agilisaurus:** five-profile screen 3–10 using Shaximiao Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–10 using Shaximiao Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Hexinlusaurus:** five-profile screen 3–10 using Shaximiao Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–10 using Shaximiao Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Yandusaurus:** five-profile screen 1–8 using Kaijiang · Sichuan · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–8 using Kaijiang · Sichuan · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 22. Tiaojishan / Pulaosaurus

**Targets:** Pulaosaurus.

One recorded match plus the same nine empty profiles creates the ten-answer maximum. The full 2025 description gives a concrete Hebei locality.

**Recorded matches:** Pulaosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Eucentrosaurus, Hanssuesia, Koutalisaurus, Nectosaurus, Paulodon, Ponerosteus, Proiguanodon, Proyandusaurus, Xuanhuasaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Resolve the shared historical identity/profile queue rather than searching for an artificially exclusive Pulaosaurus site. Curate the new genus's standard clues before hidden-answer approval.

**Evidence:** [Pulaosaurus original description · 2025](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12258161/); [Prieto-Márquez & Wagner 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667109000731); [Sancarlo, Mandorlo & Ford 2025 · Paulodon](https://www.mapress.com/mz/article/view/mesozoic.2.4.3/57945).

**Conditional test · Pulaosaurus:** five-profile screen 1–8 using Tiaojishan Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–8 using Tiaojishan Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 23. Xintiangou / Sanxiasaurus

**Targets:** Sanxiasaurus.

One recorded match plus the same nine empty profiles creates the ten-answer maximum. The original description ties Sanxiasaurus to Yunyang, Chongqing.

**Recorded matches:** Sanxiasaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Eucentrosaurus, Hanssuesia, Koutalisaurus, Nectosaurus, Paulodon, Ponerosteus, Proiguanodon, Proyandusaurus, Xuanhuasaurus.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Obtain the full original material inventory and resolve the shared empty identities. Province context may help once every comparison footprint is supported.

**Evidence:** [Li et al. 2019 · Sanxiasaurus](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2019.1679129); [Prieto-Márquez & Wagner 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667109000731); [Sancarlo, Mandorlo & Ford 2025 · Paulodon](https://www.mapress.com/mz/article/view/mesozoic.2.4.3/57945).

**Conditional test · Sanxiasaurus:** five-profile screen 1–8 using Xintiangou Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–8 using Xintiangou Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 24. Yixian oviraptorosaurs

**Targets:** Caudipteryx, Incisivosaurus, Ningyuansaurus, Protarchaeopteryx.

Five recorded Yixian genera plus five incomplete profiles create the ten-answer maximum. Four unknowns have published southern Chinese contexts; Nemegtia is a formally replaced Mongolian name.

**Recorded matches:** Caudipteryx, Incisivosaurus, Ningyuansaurus, Protarchaeopteryx, Xingtianosaurus.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Banji, Ganzhousaurus, Jiangxisaurus, Nankangia, Nemegtia.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Map the four Ganzhou occurrences to the original Nanxiong descriptions without treating proxy collections as one quarry. Decide the Nemegtia replacement exception, then test whether the five genuine Yixian matches still need free help.

**Evidence:** [Lü et al. 2015 · Huanansaurus](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4489096/); [Lü et al. 2005 · replacement name](https://www.kahaku.go.jp/albums/abm.php?d=4746&f=abm00002251.pdf&n=BNSM_C3106.pdf); [Fanti, Currie & Badamgarav 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031330).

**Conditional test · Caudipteryx:** five-profile screen 3–7 using Jianshangou Member · Yixian Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–7 using Jianshangou Member · Yixian Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Incisivosaurus:** five-profile screen 1–4 using Fuxin Formation · Liaoning · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–4 using Fuxin Formation · Liaoning · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Ningyuansaurus:** five-profile screen 4–7 using Yixian Formation · Jianchang · Liaoning · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 4–7 using Yixian Formation · Jianchang · Liaoning · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

**Conditional test · Protarchaeopteryx:** five-profile screen 3–7 using Jianshangou Member · Yixian Formation · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 3–7 using Jianshangou Member · Yixian Formation · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 25. Miaogou / Yuanyanglong

**Targets:** Yuanyanglong.

Yuanyanglong is the only recorded match, with the same five incomplete profiles retained. The count does not establish southern Chinese or Mongolian animals at Miaogou.

**Recorded matches:** Yuanyanglong.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Banji, Ganzhousaurus, Jiangxisaurus, Nankangia, Nemegtia.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Repair the comparison profiles and decide the Nemegtia naming exception. A formation-plus-province clue is a candidate for retesting once all positive footprints are bound to specimens.

**Evidence:** [Yuanyanglong original description · 2024](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667124001964); [Lü et al. 2015 · Huanansaurus](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4489096/); [Lü et al. 2005 · replacement name](https://www.kahaku.go.jp/albums/abm.php?d=4746&f=abm00002251.pdf&n=BNSM_C3106.pdf).

**Conditional test · Yuanyanglong:** five-profile screen 1–4 using Nei Monggol · CN; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–4 using Nei Monggol · CN. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

### 26. Wessex / Istiorachis

**Targets:** Istiorachis.

Three recorded matches plus Koutalisaurus, Nectosaurus and Paulodon with empty profiles produce six possible answers. Two of those empty names have supported Spanish localities.

**Recorded matches:** Brighstoneus, Comptonatus, Istiorachis.

**Relevant unknown profiles:** Koutalisaurus, Nectosaurus, Paulodon.

**Qualified-only matches retained:** None.

**Next action:** Add the Spanish profiles and research Nectosaurus Versluys 1910. A broad Wessex clue is likely sufficient in the catalogue diagnostic without an extra quarry clue; exhaustive footprint approval is still required.

**Evidence:** [Lockwood, Martill & Maidment 2025 · Istiorachis](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/spp2.70034); [Prieto-Márquez & Wagner 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667109000731); [Sancarlo, Mandorlo & Ford 2025 · Paulodon](https://www.mapress.com/mz/article/view/mesozoic.2.4.3/57945).

**Conditional test · Istiorachis:** five-profile screen 1–4 using Wessex Formation · UK; with the proposed Eosauropoda hold 1–4 using Wessex Formation · UK. These anchors remain unapproved for gameplay.

## Evidence access and remaining work

Fresh PBDB identity/opinion responses are retained with wire SHA-256 hashes for Eosauropoda, Nectosaurus, Nemegtia, Paulodon, Microsaurops, Proyandusaurus, Xuanhuasaurus and Galveosaurus. A self-accepted identity is not proof of nomenclatural validity. The exact cause of any entry error is not established.

The original publications for Nectosaurus Versluys 1910, Microsaurops Kuhn 1964, Proyandusaurus Knoll 1999, Xuanhuasaurus Zhao 1985 and several other historical ornithischian names remain a targeted research queue. Secondary naming lists have not been promoted to policy. Damalasaurus and Microdontosaurus likewise remain included under PBDB but lack hidden-answer approval.

[Bonaparte 1986 · Eosauropoda](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte_86b.pdf) — Full Smithsonian-hosted English translation read. Eosauropoda is discussed as a suprageneric evolutionary grouping containing named genera, not a new genus.

[Lü et al. 2005 · replacement name](https://www.kahaku.go.jp/albums/abm.php?d=4746&f=abm00002251.pdf&n=BNSM_C3106.pdf) — Full one-page nomenclatural paper read. Nemegtomaia replaces the preoccupied dinosaur name Nemegtia Lü et al. 2004. The original dinosaur material comes from Nemegt, Mongolia.

[Fanti, Currie & Badamgarav 2012](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031330) — Full primary paper read. Nemegtomaia includes the Nemegt type and referred material from Baruungoyot. A future canonical profile must retain both supported formation memberships.

[Santucci & Bertini 2006](https://repositorio.unesp.br/bitstreams/f9502a4e-cced-45c6-9397-9994c733c70e/download) — Full original description read. Adamantisaurus has an Adamantina Formation type locality in São Paulo, Brazil. Its empty linked PBDB occurrence set is a data gap; precise age correlation remains uncertain.

[Sánchez-Hernández 2005 · Galveosaurus](https://mapress.com/zootaxa/2005f/z01034p020f.pdf) — Publisher's original-description abstract/excerpt read; full naming-priority dispute not adjudicated. The described animal is from Galve, Teruel, Spain. This supports a country profile, not an automatic merge with the separately spelled Galvesaurus identity.

[Prieto-Márquez & Wagner 2009](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667109000731) — Indexed primary abstract and locality passages; full publisher text unavailable. The Koutalisaurus dentary is associated with Les Llaus, Spain. Reassessment of its relationship to Pararhabdodon is separate from the missing locality profile.

[Sancarlo, Mandorlo & Ford 2025 · Paulodon](https://www.mapress.com/mz/article/view/mesozoic.2.4.3/57945) — Full original description read. Paulodon is the recently named Spanish iguanodont from the Camarillas Formation at Galve; the paper distinguishes SC1 and SC2 levels. It is not an obsolete North American name.

[Li et al. 2014 · Yongjinglong](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085979) — Full primary paper read. Yongjinglong and Daxiatitan come from the upper Hekou Group in Gansu. Group rank and numbered horizons must not be converted into invented formation names.

[Mo et al. 2023 · Jiangxititan](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2023.2259413) — Indexed primary locality passages; publisher full text inaccessible. Jiangxititan is from Tankou, Nankang, Jiangxi, in the Nanxiong succession. Gannansaurus is nearby at Longling; nearby sites are not automatically one quarry.

[Mannion et al. 2019 · Zhejiang sauropod reappraisal](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10079194/) — Author-repository abstract and indexed primary text; full text not fully inspected. Jiangshanosaurus and Dongyangosaurus require a specimen-based Jinhua Formation profile in Zhejiang rather than a preferred-site shortcut.

[Mo et al. 2015 · Xinlong vertebrate review](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/early-cretaceous-vertebrates-from-the-xinlong-formation-of-guangxi-southern-china-a-review/3B686B9CB86574ABAA63A7958166DCED) — Primary publisher abstract inspected. The Xinlong assemblage is in Guangxi. Liubangosaurus was originally described using Napai; the rank and equivalence need an explicit source-backed mapping.

[Lü et al. 2013 · Yunmenglong](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667113000839) — Primary publisher abstract inspected. Yunmenglong belongs to the Haoling assemblage of Ruyang, Henan. Shared formation membership does not establish shared quarry membership.

[2026 Sinovenator review](https://sjp.pensoft.net/article/196379/) — Indexed primary systematic and locality passages; full publisher access blocked. Five of the relevant troodontid genera are reported from Lujiatun. Narrowing Yixian to Lujiatun therefore does not guarantee fewer than five before a guess removes one.

[Yeneen original description · 2025 online publication](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2025.2584707) — Primary publisher abstract inspected; full referred-specimen inventory unavailable. Yeneen is described from the Bajo de la Carpa Formation at La Invernada. The wider Cerro Overo–La Invernada area is not proof of an exclusive locality footprint.

[Cerda et al. 2021 · Pellegrinisaurus redescription](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667121002056) — Primary publisher abstract and indexed primary passages; full author-hosted stratigraphic section still needed. The redescription discusses the Lago Pellegrini type and a Cinco Saltos referral. An Anacleto versus Allen assignment needs an exact collection-to-revision mapping before changing our Allen anchor.

[Evans & Ryan 2015 · Wendiceratops](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130007) — Full primary paper read. Wendiceratops comes from the South Side Ceratopsian bonebed in the lower Oldman. Other Alberta referrals must still be checked independently of their genera's type localities.

[Fowler & Freedman Fowler 2020](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7278894/) — Full primary paper read. Navajoceratops and Terminocavus have differentiated Hunter Wash horizons. Older Pentaceratops referrals and the Naashoibito stratigraphic assignment require reconciliation.

[Li et al. 2011 · Shaximiao assemblages](https://vjs.pgi.gov.pl/article/download/26567/18275/39914) — Primary review and indexed passages consulted; genus-by-genus referral review incomplete. Lower and Upper Shaximiao are distinct assemblages within the wider unit. Broad or disputed referrals cannot be forced into a single subunit for convenience.

[Upchurch et al. 2007 · Chinshakiangosaurus](https://ivpp.cas.cn/sourcedb/zw/rck/yszj/202311/P020140313580838812322.pdf) — Full original redescription consulted. The known type locality is in the Fengjiahe Formation of Yunnan. This does not resolve historical names with missing profiles in the same source-tree pool.

[McPhee et al. 2016 · Sanpasaurus](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5075712/) — Full primary redescription read. The type material is tied to the Maanshan Member of Ziliujing at Weiyuan. Rejected old referrals must be resolved by specimen evidence rather than collection labels alone.

[Bandyopadhyay et al. 2010 · Barapasaurus](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2010.00933.x) — Indexed primary locality passages; full publisher access blocked. Barapasaurus and Kotasaurus have different reported type localities within the Kota Formation. Type-quarry distinction is not an exhaustive range boundary.

[Kutty et al. 2007 · Indian basal sauropodomorphs](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/abs/basal-sauropodomorphs-dinosauria-saurischia-from-the-lower-jurassic-of-india-their-anatomy-and-relationships/C41F89D679B2C0D7FCFBB4C95D695309) — Primary publisher abstract inspected. Lamplughsaura is described from the Upper Dharmaram assemblage. Indeterminate material is not an additional named answer.

[McPhee et al. 2015 · basal sauropod context](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4541066/) — Full primary discussion consulted. The Nam Phong age assignment relevant to Isanosaurus needs care. A conventional Triassic label should not substitute for a current dating review.

[2011 Tibetan geological review](https://dzhtb.cgs.cn/cn/article/pdf/preview/20110119.pdf) — Indexed primary geological passages only; original naming publications not obtained. Historical Damalasaurus/Microdontosaurus records and Daye/Chaya rank relationships need original regional literature. Missing group fields elsewhere are not co-occurrence evidence.

[Xing et al. 2015 · Nebulasaurus](https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app60/app20120151.pdf) — Full original description read. Nebulasaurus is from Zhanghe at Xiabanjing, Yunnan. Eomamenchisaurus and Yuanmousaurus are also associated with Zhanghe; a formation clue already identifies a small known cohort.

[Barrett, Butler & Knoll 2005](https://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/12933) — Primary repository abstract and systematic leads consulted; historical naming chain not fully read. The small Shaximiao ornithischians need specimen-based profiles. The alleged Proyandusaurus/Hexinlusaurus naming chain is not approved from secondary lists.

[Pulaosaurus original description · 2025](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12258161/) — Full primary paper read. Pulaosaurus is described from Tiaojishan at Shimen Gou, Qinglong, Hebei. The large retained pool is dominated by unrelated names lacking locality metadata.

[Li et al. 2019 · Sanxiasaurus](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2019.1679129) — Primary publisher abstract inspected. Sanxiasaurus is described from Xintiangou at Yunyang, Chongqing. The retained unknown genera still need independent profiles.

[Lü et al. 2015 · Huanansaurus](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4489096/) — Full primary paper read. Banji, Ganzhousaurus, Jiangxisaurus and Nankangia are discussed in the Nanxiong assemblage of Ganzhou, Jiangxi. A shared proxy collection is not a shared physical quarry.

[Yuanyanglong original description · 2024](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667124001964) — Primary publisher abstract inspected. Yuanyanglong comes from the Miaogou assemblage at Maortu, Inner Mongolia. Southern Chinese taxa with empty formation fields must not be described as recorded Miaogou matches.

[Lockwood, Martill & Maidment 2025 · Istiorachis](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/spp2.70034) — Indexed primary description and locality passages; full author PDF access blocked. The described Wessex specimen has a specific Black Band horizon near Grange Chine. Broad comparison profiles should be repaired before adding a quarry-level gameplay clue.

Reproduce with `python review-priority-proposals.py`. Selected expanded roster: 1,316; policy roster-policy-2026-10-10-v6. Live 36-genus prototype unchanged.