Geology of the Intermountain West is indeed in the same position: it is published only online, and the papers that describe Maraapunisaurus and Dryosaurus elderae contain no evidence of having been registered in ZooBank. I'm including these two cases in the manuscript I'm writing; once I think it has progressed far enough, I'll send it to the people who have contacted me.
The names aren't nomina nuda, though. According to
the glossary of the ICZN, a nomen nudum is a name that is unavailable
specifically because it fails to conform to
Article 13 (or, if published in 1930 or earlier, Article 12 instead). All these names fulfill Art. 13 beautifully: they're all "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon", and the genera are all explicitly given a type species. The names are still unavailable because, instead, they fail
Art. 8.5.3: the online-only works that erected them don't count as published because they don't contain evidence of having been registered.
There are several other inaccuracies in your tweets, too (which I can't reply to on Twitter because I don't have an account). Specifically:
It's not so important that the names are registered in ZooBank; the publications must be, and they must contain evidence of having been registered – which means they cannot be registered retroactively. You recommended "contacting the staff at Scientific Reports to get this issue resolved as soon as possible"; but the staff can't do anything to make the names available with their original authorships & dates. Under the current rules, that ship has sailed and sunk. The closest thing the staff could do would be to invite the 105 authors (I counted them yesterday: one hundred and five, counting those only once who contributed to more than one of the 22 papers) to publish new papers that erect the names anew, and register these new papers before they're published; but then the names would take their authorships & dates from those new papers – i.e., the year of publication for all 22 of them would be 2020 at the earliest – they would continue to not compete for homonymy or synonymy until then.
This is, BTW, why
Teihivenator remains unavailable. It was registered
after it was published in an online-only venue; that does
not make the work count as published. I'm not including that name in the manuscript because, frankly, it was published under unethical circumstances
and the syntype and only specimens of the type and only species are "a chimaera of tyrannosaur and ornithomimosaur specimens", so I personally don't want it to become available.