{
  "reviewedAt": "2026-10-10",
  "genus": "Qijianglong",
  "scope": "Primary literature review of Suining versus Upper Shaximiao assignment and implications for game clues; no shared repository edits",
  "occurrence": {"occurrenceNo": 1253472, "specimen": "QJGPM 1001", "locality": "Beidu site, Qijiang District, Chongqing Municipality, China", "frozenFormation": "Suining"},
  "resolution": {
    "status": "Game policy can be settled; geological assignment remains contested",
    "primaryRecordedHorizon": "Suining Formation, after the published original description",
    "retainedAlternativeHorizon": "Upper Shaximiao Formation, reported by Dai et al. 2025 from explicitly unpublished Zigong Dinosaur Museum surveys",
    "sameSpecimenNotTwoOccurrences": true,
    "preferStableGeographicalClue": "Beidu/Qijiang, Chongqing, China; administrative wording and scope must match reviewed data",
    "formationClueRecommendation": "Do not use either formation as an exclusive hidden-answer clue. Retain Qijianglong as a competitor under both plausible formation assignments. A field guide can label the original published assignment and the reported alternative.",
    "periodClueRecommendation": "Jurassic is the working interpretation adopted by the original description and both 2025 primary dinosaur descriptions. It is not scientifically unconditional: Suining regional U-Pb work proposes Early Cretaceous. Do not give an exact stage or numerical age, or silently eliminate the credible temporal alternative in an uncertainty-aware comparison. If production requires a single unqualified period, defer hidden-answer activation until that policy is handled.",
    "rosterRecommendation": "Keep Qijianglong as a viable PBDB-backed guess; no taxonomic cut or synonymy is implied by the horizon issue.",
    "dietAndRegion": "Herbivorous sauropod; Asia/China secure independently of formation dispute",
    "noNewDiscoveryYearClueNeeded": true
  },
  "correctionCheck": {
    "published": "2026-03-13",
    "doi": "10.1038/s41598-026-43682-7",
    "scope": "Corrects the spelling of Rhomaleopakhus turpanensis in Figure 3; original printed Phomaleopakhus turpanensis",
    "doesNotResolveQijianglongHorizon": true,
    "access": "Primary publisher indexed correction text and corrected original PMC footnote read; direct correction page redirected to inaccessible publisher auth; PMC correction blocked by bot check"
  },
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "xing2015",
      "title": "Xing et al. 2015, A new sauropod dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of China and the diversity, distribution, and relationships of mamenchisaurids",
      "doi": "10.1080/02724634.2014.889701",
      "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273489974_A_New_Sauropod_Dinosaur_from_the_Late_Jurassic_of_China_and_the_Diversity_Distribution_and_Relationships_of_Mamenchisaurids",
      "access": "Complete author-uploaded original article text; systematic Horizon and Locality sections read",
      "evidence": "QJGPM 1001 is from the Beidu site at Qijiang, Chongqing; assigned to Suining, Upper Jurassic. The park also exposes Upper Shaximiao, Penglaizhen and Jiaguan, but this is not evidence that the named skeleton occurs in all four units. The published horizon argument is lithology and associated ostracod correlation; no site-specific radiometric date is provided.",
      "webRef": "turn387view0"
    },
    {
      "id": "wei2025",
      "title": "Wei et al. 2025, A new mamenchisaurid from the Upper Jurassic Suining Formation of the Sichuan Basin in China and its implication on sauropod gigantism",
      "doi": "10.1038/s41598-025-09796-0",
      "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09796-0",
      "readUrl": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393587347_A_new_mamenchisaurid_from_the_Upper_Jurassic_Suining_Formation_of_the_Sichuan_Basin_in_China_and_its_implication_on_sauropod_gigantism",
      "access": "Complete publisher-supplied original text on ResearchGate; geological background and type locality read; direct Nature fetch failed and PMC returned bot check",
      "evidence": "Recognizes the Jurassic/Cretaceous Suining dating dispute and explicitly adopts Late Jurassic based on dinosaur and palynological assemblages. Continues to place Qijianglong in Suining and reports its layer lower than Tongnanlong on field-work grounds. Its figured geologic map concerns Tongnanlong at Tongnan, not a new mapped section through the Beidu Qijianglong quarry. It supplies no new direct absolute date for QJGPM 1001.",
      "webRef": "turn378view0"
    },
    {
      "id": "dai2025",
      "title": "Dai et al. 2025, A new mamenchisaurid sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic of Southwest China reveals new evolutionary evidence from East Asian eusauropods",
      "doi": "10.1038/s41598-025-29995-z",
      "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-29995-z",
      "readUrl": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12686105/",
      "access": "Complete primary original publisher and PMC HTML, discussion and change footnote read",
      "evidence": "The discussion contrasts original Suining assignment with a Zigong Dinosaur Museum survey placing the same Qijianglong materials in Upper Shaximiao. Survey is explicitly unpublished. Figure 1 is a map for Mamenchisaurus sanjiangensis at Hechuan, not Qijianglong Beidu. The 2026 revision fixes an unrelated genus spelling. Neither is a published site-specific remapping/dating analysis for Qijianglong.",
      "webRefs": ["turn358view0", "turn369view0", "turn369view1"]
    },
    {
      "id": "daiCorrection2026",
      "title": "Dai et al. 2026, Correction: A new mamenchisaurid sauropod dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic of Southwest China reveals new evolutionary evidence from East Asian eusauropods",
      "doi": "10.1038/s41598-026-43682-7",
      "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-43682-7",
      "access": "Primary indexed publisher correction and original article correction footnote read; full direct fetch unavailable",
      "evidence": "Figure 3 misspelled Rhomaleopakhus as Phomaleopakhus; correction changes that spelling only. No Qijianglong stratigraphic correction.",
      "webRef": "turn369search0"
    },
    {
      "id": "wang2019",
      "title": "Wang et al. 2019, Surprisingly young age for the mamenchisaurid sauropods in South China",
      "doi": "10.1016/j.cretres.2019.07.006",
      "url": "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667119300333",
      "institutionalUrl": "https://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/272893",
      "access": "Primary publisher indexed abstract; full paper not obtained. Institutional repository states no files associated. ResearchGate requests full text.",
      "evidence": "Abstract reports detrital zircon mean 114.4 +/- 1.1 Ma, Aptian, for classic Suining fossil outcrops. This is a serious alternative regional age interpretation; accessed abstract does not independently establish Qijianglong Beidu-specific sampling or a correlation that resolves its exact horizon. Do not write that QJGPM 1001 itself has been directly dated to 114.4 Ma.",
      "webRefs": ["turn372search0", "turn383view1"]
    }
  ],
  "searchAssessment": {
    "searched": ["Qijianglong Beidu geology dating", "Qijianglong Suining 2019 zircon", "Qijianglong Beidu Shaximiao", "Chinese Qijianglong Suining Upper Shaximiao horizon searches", "Qijianglong 2026 stratigraphy dating"],
    "publishedSiteSpecificRemappingFound": false,
    "publishedSiteSpecificAbsoluteDatingFound": false,
    "absenceOfEvidenceIsNotProofNoPublicationExists": true,
    "remainingEvidenceToResolveGeology": "A published Beidu measured stratigraphic section/map tying QJGPM 1001 to the formation contact and independently constrained dates/correlation. The reported unpublished survey could settle this if formally published."
  },
  "suggestedCuratorText": "Qijianglong's original description places its skeleton in the Suining Formation at Beidu, Qijiang. A later paper reports an unpublished remapping to Upper Shaximiao. We retain both interpretations and use the secure Chongqing locality instead of making the disputed formation a decisive clue. Jurassic is the current working age used in recent dinosaur descriptions, while Suining's regional age remains debated."
}