This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I'm working on Klamelisaurus right now. The Bayesian analysis of Moore et al.[1] places Euhelopus along with Klamelisaurus and the Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus complexes in a clade (Euhelopodidae) outside of Neosauropoda. I'm not sure what other workers think of this, but I think it shows that a macronarian position for Euhelopus is far from a done deal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of Moore et al.'s analyses find Euhelopus to form a clade with mamenchisaurids, not just the Bayesian analysis, and the paper overall seems to justify that position fairly well. I definitely think it would be prudent to edit this article to be more agnostic on the phylogenetic position of Euhelopus for the time being; presenting it unambiguously as a titanosauriform seems inappropriate now. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
