[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: T. rex and other large carnosaurs"



BTW, I have now over 10,000 e-mails in my inbox. I just can't keep up with deleting uninteresting threads... there are so few :-)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:04 PM

 
> Megalosauridae Huxley 1869 nomen conservandum
Why nomen conservandum? What else could have priority?
> is a clade of basal Tetanur[a]e consisting of (in chronological order): Megalosaurus nethercombensis, M. bucklandii, > Metriacanthosaurus reynoldsi, M. brevis, Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis,
> Metriacanthosaurus parkeri, Megalosaurus phillipsi, Poekilopleuron bucklandii,
> Megalosaurus tanneri.
 
What material is known for Metriacanthosaurus reynoldsi, M. brevis and Megalosaurus phillipsi?  When and where did they live?  How are they distinguishable from Metriacanthosaurus parkeri and Megalosaurus bucklandi respectively?
I haven't heard of any of those either.
> Streptospondylus altdorfensis is more closely related to Allosaurus fragilis and
> Allosaurus whitei AMNH 666 (+ AMNH 5735 topotype) than it is to Megalosauridae.
 
What is "Streptospondylus" altdorfensis known from?  What is it's diagnosis, when and where did it live?
Have you forgotten the relatively recent discussion about HP Ronan Allain's paper on the Streptospondylus altdorfensis material from Normandy? :-)
BTW, according to that paper Streptospondylus is closely related to Eustreptospondylus, and both belong to Spinosauroidea, thus they are much closer to Megalosauridae/Torvosauridae than to Allosauridae. Maybe evidence to the contrary is in press, though, I have no idea.
> Proceratosaurus is NOT a ceratosaur,
Who after Huene has suggested that? Since PDW it has always been somewhere in Coelurosauria.
> As I have noted previously, I believe "Spinosauridae" to be a nomen dubium. A
> convenient name, predicated upon drawings of a lost specimen, and in the absence of
> skull/skeleton of a growth series of individua! ! ls for comparative analyses, is not
> acceptable.
 
Just because specimens are lost does not make the taxon a nomen dubium according to the ICZN.
Bingo. AFAIK this wouldn't even make it a nomen vanum (empty name, a name to which no type specimen has been selected, even though there is a description).