Re: Spinosaurus questions and the presence of air=.

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 5/30/03 2:51:52 PM EST, twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com 
> writes:
>
> << _Becklespinax_ Olshevsky, 1991, is thus an
>  objective junior synonym of _Altispinax_ Huene, 1923." >>
>
> This is also incorrect. Becklespinax and Altispinax have two different type
> species and two different type specimens and CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE SYNONYMS. 
> Stop
> trying to sink Becklespinax; it won't work; it's ironclad.

First of all, the quote is from Rauhut (2000); they were not my words.

Second, and to add further fuel to the fire, there is an alternative 
interpretation to George's.  Huene (1932) wrote: "Three articulated dorsal 
vertebrae with very elongated neural spines, figured by Owen (202, Pl. 19), 
also seem to belong here; ...In 1926 ..., I based the genus _Altispinax_ on 
these specimens."

Thus, Kuhn (1939) was in error when he made _Megalosaurus dunkeri_ the type 
species of _Altispinax_.  Kuhn meant well, but his overzealous bookkeeping 
did not preserve the intent of Huene's application of the name _Altispinax_. 
 Granted, Huene was sloppy; it was a habit of his when it came to 
nomenclature.  Neverthless, Rauhut has a point: Huene intended the generic 
name _Altispinax_ to be attached to the "three articulated dorsal vertebrae 
with very elongated neural spines", not the tooth named _M. dunkeri_.

Might be a job for the ICZN.



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus