Guest
Erratum: In response to a question from a viewer, let me clarify that “Sinopliosaurus weiyuanensis“ is still considered a plesiosaur. It is only “Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis“ that is considered nomen dubium. I should have been specific, as what I said implied the entire genus Sinopliosaurus is invalid. It is not. Indeed, Sinopliosaurus weiyuanensis having been named first, its use takes precedence, and the genus should in fact be considered a plesiosaur for now. In that light, “Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis“ should not even be considered nomen dubium, but completely invalid altogether. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today we have another controversial offering from PNSO, the “Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis”. Based on some teeth, and following a very convoluted path from plesiosaur to spinosaurid, this very interesting dinosaur is as yet
