BTW, I have now over 10,000 e-mails in my inbox. I
just can't keep up with deleting uninteresting threads... there are so few
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:04
> Megalosauridae Huxley 1869 nomen
Why nomen conservandum? What else could have
> is a clade of basal Tetanur[a]e consisting of (in chronological order): Megalosaurus
nethercombensis, M. bucklandii, > Metriacanthosaurus reynoldsi, M. brevis,
> Metriacanthosaurus parkeri, Megalosaurus phillipsi,
> Megalosaurus tanneri.
What material is known for Metriacanthosaurus reynoldsi, M.
brevis and Megalosaurus phillipsi? When and where did they live?
How are they distinguishable from Metriacanthosaurus parkeri and Megalosaurus
I haven't heard of
any of those either.
> Streptospondylus altdorfensis is more closely
related to Allosaurus fragilis and
> Allosaurus whitei AMNH 666 (+ AMNH 5735 topotype)
than it is to Megalosauridae.
is "Streptospondylus" altdorfensis known from? What is it's
diagnosis, when and where did it live?
Have you forgotten
the relatively recent discussion about HP Ronan Allain's paper on
the Streptospondylus altdorfensis material from
BTW, according to that paper
Streptospondylus is closely related to Eustreptospondylus, and
both belong to Spinosauroidea, thus they are much closer to
Megalosauridae/Torvosauridae than to Allosauridae. Maybe evidence to the
contrary is in press, though, I have no idea.
> Proceratosaurus is NOT a
Who after Huene has suggested that? Since
PDW it has always been somewhere in Coelurosauria.
> As I have noted previously, I believe "Spinosauridae" to
be a nomen dubium. A
> convenient name, predicated upon drawings of a lost
specimen, and in the absence of
> skull/skeleton of a growth series of individua! ! ls for
comparative analyses, is not
Just because specimens are lost does not make the
taxon a nomen dubium according to the ICZN.
Bingo. AFAIK this wouldn't even make it a
nomen vanum (empty name, a name to which no type specimen has been selected,
even though there is a description).