砂龍的屬名是由古希臘文的「ammos」與「sauros」而來,意即「砂地蜥蜴」,是指發現化石的砂岩環境。砂龍目前有一有效種,學名是大砂龍(A. major),這樣命名是因砂龍較原先被分類的近蜥龍還大。在1889年,著名美國古生物學家奧塞內爾·查利斯·馬什(Othniel Charles Marsh)創造了這個種名,當時為近蜥龍的第二個種,大近蜥龍(Anchisaurus major)[1]。在1891年,馬什將這種恐龍建立為個別的屬,砂龍屬(Ammosaurus)[2];而在1892年,馬什根據一個未成年標本(編號YPM 209),新建了一個近蜥龍的種(Ammosaurus solus)。在1932年,弗雷德里克·馮·休尼(Friedrich von Huene)將這個種改歸類於砂龍屬。但目前科學家多認為這種恐龍其實是大砂龍的異名。
Fedak, T. J. (2007). Description and evolutionary significance of the sauropodomorph dinosaurs from the early Jurassic (Hettangian) McCoy Brook Formation. Ph.D. dissertation. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University.
^Marsh, O.C. 1889. Notice of new American dinosaurs. American Journal of Science Series 3, 37: 331-336.
^Marsh, O.C. 1891. Notice of new vertebrate fossils. American Journal of Science Series 3, 42: 265-269.
^ 3.03.13.23.3Galton, P.M.; P. Upchurch. Prosauropoda. Weishampel, D.B., Dodson, P, & Osmolska, H. (编). The Dinosauria 2nd. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2004: 232–258.引文使用过时参数coauthors (帮助)
^ 5.05.1Yates, A. M. 2004. Anchisaurus polyzelus (Hitchcock): the smallest known sauropod dinosaur and the evolution of gigantism among sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Postilla 230: 1-58.
^Yates, Adam M. A revision of the problematic sauropodomorph dinosaurs from Manchester, Connecticut and the status of Anchisaurus Marsh. Palaeontology. in press, 53 (4): 739–752. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2010.00952.x.请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
^Sereno P.C., 1999. The evolution of dinosaurs. Science, 284: 2137-2147.
^Weishampel, D.B. & Young, L.O. 1996. Dinosaurs of the East Coast. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 275 pp.
^Galton, P.M. 1971. The prosauropod dinosaur Ammosaurus, the crocodile Postosuchus, and their bearing on the age of the Navajo Sandstone of Northeastern Arizona. Journal of Palaeontology 45: 781-795.
^Shubin, N.H., Olson, P.E., & Sues, H.-D. 1994. Early Jurassic small tetrapods from the McCoy Brook Formation of Nova Scotia, Canada. In: Fraser, N.C. & Sues, H.-D. (Eds.). In the Shadow of Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 244-250.