A similar situation arose when Howse and Milner (1993)
described Ornithodesmus as a troodontid. It was only known from a
sacrum, so could only be distinguished from Saurornithoides junior among other
troodontids. They decided it was a "nomen vanum", so perhaps
"Capitalsaurus" deserves this type of validity.
AFAIK a nomen vanum, an "empty name", is a name without a
type specimen. Ornithodesmus has one, doesn't it?
> A prime case in point is the paper
done in part by Brenda Chinnery, myself, Mike Brett- > Surman where we in
fact sunk Kranz's "Magulodon muirkirkensis" and assigned the teeth in
> question to
Neoceratopsia _indet._! As it should be.
I'm rather confused by the
fact you never mentioned the name "Magulodon muirkirkensis" in that
article. Wouldn't it have been proper to keep the name, but just
conclude that it is indeterminate? [...] I don't think authors
should be allowed to "sink" a name into "taxon indet.". It's like me
selecting Embasaurus and saying the name will no longer be used and it will be
hereby known only as "Neotheropoda indet.".
AFAIK that's not allowed, it's impossible to destroy a
name. The nearest thing that can be done is to place it in the Official List of
Rejected Generic Names, but even then nobody can use the name again (create a
Heh heh. Let's wait for the PhyloCode.
There registered names are valid and unregistered ones aren't, so it's
impossible to accidentally create a valid name. Registration also practically
destroys the possibility of homonymy -- cases like Syntarsus won't
happen again after January 1, 200n. :-)