{ "version": 1, "reviewedAt": "2026-10-10", "scope": "Specimen-specific horizon conflict for Xinjiangtitan shanshanesis SSV12001; research dossier only, no shared policy edits.", "genus": "Xinjiangtitan", "pbdbId": "287379", "occurrenceId": "1190808", "collectionId": "153762", "specimen": "SSV12001", "sources": { "wu2013": { "title": "Wu, Zhou, Wings, Sekiya & Dong 2013, A new gigantic sauropod dinosaur from the Middle Jurassic of Shanshan, Xinjiang", "doi": "10.3969/j.issn.1004-5589.2013.03.002", "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258149924_A_new_gigantic_sauropod_dinosaur_from_the_Middle_Jurassic_of_Shanshan_Xinjiang", "access": "Full author-uploaded original Chinese article rendered as text; geological setting read, not merely title/abstract. English translation supplement link failed.", "pages": "437-438, geological setting", "evidence": "Original explicitly assigns the fossil-bearing argillaceous siltstone to Qigu, not Qiketai. Regional succession lists both as successive separate units; quarry approximately 8 km south of Qiketai Town and 30 km northeast of Shanshan. Calls it Middle Jurassic by cited 164.6±1.4 Ma tuff date. The article does not demonstrate this as a direct date on the skeleton or its bed.", "webRefs": [ "turn355view1", "turn360view1" ] }, "zhang2020": { "title": "Zhang et al.2020 (online 2018), Redescription of the cervical vertebrae of the Mamenchisaurid Sauropod Xinjiangtitan shanshanesis Wu et al.2013", "doi": "10.1080/08912963.2018.1539970", "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328722273_Redescription_of_the_cervical_vertebrae_of_the_Mamenchisaurid_Sauropod_Xinjiangtitan_shanshanesis_Wu_et_al_2013", "access": "Full author-uploaded original text; introduction, holotype, locality/horizon read. Institutional PDF failed.", "pages": "Online articlepp 1-2", "evidence": "Same SSV 12001 discovered 2012;2014-2015 excavation exposed more of the same skeleton. Uses Qigu and early Late Jurassic based on Deng 2015; no second named-genus occurrence established. Main specimen identifier SSV 12001 is inconsistently printed SSV 120001 in captions, a typographic variant in this same holotype account.", "webRefs": [ "turn382view1" ] }, "maisch2019": { "title": "Maisch & Matzke 2019, First record of a eusauropod from the Upper Jurassic Qigu-Formation (southern Junggar Basin, China), and a reconsideration of Late Jurassic sauropod diversity in Xinjiang", "doi": "10.1127/njgpa/2019/0792", "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreas-Matzke/publication/330758512_First_record_of_a_eusauropod_Dinosauria_Sauropoda_from_the_Upper_Jurassic_Qigu-Formation_southern_Junggar_Basin_China_and_a_reconsideration_of_Late_Jurassic_sauropod_diversity_in_Xinjiang/links/5c6a75d092851c1c9de73220/First-record-of-a-eusauropod-Dinosauria-Sauropoda-from-the-Upper-Jurassic-Qigu-Formation-southern-Junggar-Basin-China-and-a-reconsideration-of-Late-Jurassic-sauropod-diversity-in-Xinjiang.pdf", "access": "Complete 9-page author-uploaded PDF obtained through ResearchGate Download full-text PDF;pp 112-115 and Fig 3 read; page screenshots inspected.", "pages": "112-113 and 115;Fig 3", "evidence": "Explicitly assigns Xinjiangtitan to Qiketai and criticises Xing 2015 Qigu attribution. Discusses uncertain correlations between Turpan and Junggar, with Fig 3 marking Qiketai stratigraphic position controversial. No new skeleton-bed log, specimen-specific geologic remapping or direct holotype-bed date supplied in that argument. Later discussion allows Callovian or Oxfordian. Printed phrase lower Early Jurassic conflicts with their own Upper Jurassic discussion/chart; do not use it as an Early Jurassic alternative. Tooth SGP 2002/005 remains unidentified beyond tentative family rank and occurs in another basin.", "webRefs": [ "turn360view3", "turn363view3", "turn363view2", "turn367view0", "turn367view1" ] }, "upchurch2021": { "title": "Upchurch et al.2021, Re-assessment of the Late Jurassic eusauropod dinosaur Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum Dong,1997, from the Turpan Basin, China, and the evolution of hyper-robust antebrachia in sauropods", "doi": "10.1080/02724634.2021.1994414", "url": "https://dinosaurier-info.de/bibliothek/pdf_r/2021/02724634_2021.pdf", "institutionalUrl": "https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10135460/7/Mannion_02724634.2021.pdf", "access": "Full primary article PDF32 pages read, taxonomic discussionp 24.", "pages": "Articlep 24/e 1994414-24", "evidence": "Adopts Xinjiangtitan Qiketai assignment explicitly following Maisch 2019, with Hudiesaurus in overlying Kalazha. This is supporting adoption, not a new independent field resolution of SSV 12001 horizon.", "webRefs": [ "turn355view2" ] }, "zhang2024": { "title": "Zhang et al.2024 (online 8 December 2022), Redescription of the dorsal vertebrae of the mamenchisaurid sauropod Xinjiangtitan shanshanesis Wu et al.2013", "doi": "10.1080/08912963.2022.2147428", "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366141259_Redescription_of_the_dorsal_vertebrae_of_the_mamenchisaurid_sauropod_Xinjiangtitan_shanshanesis_Wu_et_al_2013", "publisherUrl": "https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2022.2147428", "access": "Full author-uploaded 27-page original text now obtained; occurrence/horizon paragraph, introduction and references inspected. Earlier dossier had publisher abstract only.", "pages": "Onlinep 2, occurrence and horizon", "evidence": "Uses same SSV 12001 and middle Qigu beds. Calls it Late Jurassic citing 151 Ma lower-Qigu age and Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary in upper unit from Fang 2015/Huang 2019. Fang citation title is southern Junggar, so a specimen-specific Turpan bed correlation is still not demonstrated. No Maisch citation or rebuttal found; newer publication alone cannot settle conflict.", "webRefs": [ "turn354view0", "turn355view5", "turn379view1" ] }, "sui2026": { "title": "Sui et al.2026, The anatomy of a mamenchisaurid tooth informed by digital reconstruction", "doi": "10.3897/sjp.145.187923", "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403455597_The_anatomy_of_a_mamenchisaurid_tooth_informed_by_digital_reconstruction", "repositoryUrl": "https://zenodo.org/records/19414037", "publisherUrl": "https://sjp.pensoft.net/article/187923/", "access": "Full original article text through ResearchGate; publisher 403; Zenodo metadata confirms publication 2 April 2026.", "pages": "476-477 geological setting/materials; systematic account and discussion", "evidence": "PMOL-ADt 0009 is explicitly from same locality/horizon as Xinjiangtitan, labelled middle Qigu; gives GPS42 degrees 57.78 minutesN90 degrees 34.44 minutesE. Adds field-locality detail favouring continued Qigu usage, but does not address competing Qiketai assignment or supply a new discriminating unit map/log for SSV 12001. Assigns tooth Mamenchisauridae indet., explicitly refuses genus referral. Regional formation dates/correlations cannot be exact skeleton age.", "webRefs": [ "turn374view1", "turn374view0", "turn379view2" ] } }, "cases": [ { "id": "same-specimen-competing-horizons", "finding": "Qiketai and Qigu are alternative assignments of the same holotype and quarry, not two independent fossil occurrences. OriginalWu 2013 already uses Qigu; the disagreement is not merely an outdated webpage being corrected by one new paper.", "sources": [ "wu2013", "zhang2020", "maisch2019", "upchurch2021", "zhang2024" ] }, { "id": "age-correlation-not-direct-date", "finding": "Published readings disagree about Middle versus Late Jurassic. Both remain Jurassic. No inspected source supplies a direct radiometric date demonstrably on the SSV 12001 fossil bed; region-wide dates and another basin cannot be substituted.", "sources": [ "wu2013", "maisch2019", "zhang2024", "sui2026" ] }, { "id": "new-tooth-not-genus-occurrence", "finding": "Sui 2026 reports same locality/horizon but unidentified mamenchisaurid tooth; retain as supporting quarry context only, never a positive Xinjiangtitan occurrence. The 2019 Liuhuanggou tooth is also not Xinjiangtitan and is geographically separate.", "sources": [ "maisch2019", "sui2026" ] } ], "decision": { "status": "scientifically-disputed-game-restrictions-resolved", "preferredHorizon": null, "rationale": "The inspected record contains genuine competing lithostratigraphic assignments. Multiple specimen researchers continue Qigu, whileMaisch 2019 and Upchurch 2021 useQiketai. Neither side supplies a decisive specimen-specific mapping/date that can responsibly eliminate the other. More recent Qigu use strengthens the alternative without resolving the geological argument.", "rawPBDB": "Keep raw Qiketai untouched; preserve qualified Qigu alternative attached to occurrence 1190808/collection 153762/SSV 12001.", "guessEligibility": "Retain Xinjiangtitan as a legal source guess. Horizon disagreement is not evidence of a dubious genus or synonymy.", "hiddenAnswerStatus": "No blanket ban required for this horizon issue if future approved profile uses broad Jurassic and supported geography. Remains pending wider expanded-roster approval; no automatic live activation.", "safeClues": [ "Jurassic", "Asia / China", "Xinjiang, China", "Shanshan / Piqan County, Turpan-Hami Basin", "Quarry approximately 8 km south ofQiketai Town" ], "excludedEliminatingClues": [ "A single exclusiveQiketai Formation assignment", "A single exclusiveQigu Formation assignment", "Middle Jurassic-only versusLate Jurassic-only", "An exactMa age or stage drawn from regional dates", "Claim that toothSGP 2002/005 orPMOL-ADt 0009 is a Xinjiangtitan fossil" ], "matchingRule": "For any existing formation comparison retain Xinjiangtitan as compatible with both supported Qiketai/Qigu alternatives. Same-specimen alternatives never increase independent-occurrence counts. Safe locality clue should name geography, not ambiguous formation.", "curatorsNote": "Xinjiangtitan comes from a quarry near Qiketai in Xinjiang. Researchers disagree whether its beds belong to the Qiketai or Qigu Formation. We retain both interpretations and use Jurassic and the secure locality for game clues; neither disputed formation or finer age excludes a guess." }, "remainingLimitations": [ "A georeferenced specimen-bed log/geological map reconciling lithostratigraphic boundaries atSSV 12001 would be needed to choose one horizon.", "UnderlyingDeng 2015,Fang 2015,Huang 2019,Song 2014 andGreene 2000 stratigraphic sources not all read in full in this focused task. Their citation by a later paper is recorded as reported evidence, not independently verified exact-bed dating.", "Year/age claims in originaltitle versus subsequentredescriptions differ; current clue should remain broad Jurassic.", "No claim of exhaustive fossil footprint or complete Expert hidden-answer readiness." ] }