Re: Spinosaurus questions and the presence of air=.

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

HP Tim Williams wrote... 
 
> Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote: 
> 
> >That's Becklespinax. Altispinax is based on a single tooth, 
> 
> According to Rauhut (2000), Huene explicitly attached the name  
> _Altispinax_ to the vertebrae.  Thus, the valid name of this 
> tall-spined theropod is _Altispinax altispinax_. 
> 
> "However, Huene (1926a: pp. 482-483) stated: "There is another specimen 
> from the Wealden of Battle...consisting of three articulated middle 
> dorsal vertebrae, with extremely high neural spines. ...if it were 
> certain that such dorsal vertebrae belong to _Megalosaurus dunkeri_, it 
> would be necessary to put it into a distinct genus, for which the name 
> _Altispinax_, gen. nov., might be reserved.", and in 1932 (p. 235): 
> "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." (my translation). 
> [...]" 
 
There we have the problem, IMHO: von Huene wasn't consistent with himself. 
In 1926, he conditionally* named *Altispinax* without a type species and 
without a type specimen, and in 1932 he implied that the vertebrae were 
the type specimen of *A.*. In modern words, that is. A type specimen 
wasn't necessary at that time, was it? 
        Then Kuhn came and made the tooth the type specimen of *Altispinax 
dunkeri* which he made the type species. I think a case could be made to 
the ICZN that he shouldn't have done that. But with the conditional in von 
Huene 1926, this could become complicated. 
 
I'm sure von Huene wouldn't stop laughing if he would learn that we stick 
so much to the rules that we are quarrelling about whether the name 
*Altispinax*, "high-spiny", refers to the "extremely high neural spines" 
or to a tooth. 
 
* This practice was awfully common at that time. *Chirotherium* was named 
in a passage that reads something like "well, OK, I'll name it 
*Chirotherium*, but if it's shown to be a reptile rather than, as I 
believe, a bizarroid mammal, it should be named *Chirosaurus* instead". 
Sort of 2 objective synonyms of equal age (remember, page and line 
priority do not exist). Needless to say that it turned out to be a 
"reptile", and that the name *Chirotherium*, which had become commonly 
used by that time, was retained. 
 
> From this it is clear firstly that the generic name _Altispinax_ was 
> proposed for the three vertebrae, 
 
Yes. 
 
> and secondly does not refer to the nomen dubium _Megalosaurus dunkeri_. 
 
Probably. 
 
> Since Huene (1926) did not propose a new specific name, the first  
> available species name given exclusively to the vertebrae is Paul's 
> (1988a) _Acrocanthosaurus altispinax_, 
 
Sure. 

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!