> BTW, isn't the name 'Gigantspinosaurus' a valid > genus? I had thought the original description (by > Ouyang) is considered to be valid, including by Susannah > Maidment's recent stegosaur papers.
No idea, I haven't read most of the relevant papers.
Hmmm... why then did you say that the description of this genus was "_still_ unpublished"?
From memory. I remembered that the name was considered invalid and figuredif a valid description had come out, I'd have learned of that via the DML. Probably I overlooked a statement that it was valid in some enormous New Papers post.