David Marjanovic wrote-
>> Megalosauridae Huxley 1869 nomen conservandum
> Why nomen conservandum? What else could have priority?
I assume Torvosauridae, because Sereno may have phylogenetically defined it sometime.
> Have you forgotten the relatively recent discussion about HP Ronan Allain's paper on
> the Streptospondylus altdorfensis material from Normandy? :-)
Yes, actually I did forget about that paper. If only I could read French.... It seems to indicate Streptospondylus IS the correct genus for the theropod, and not a crocodylian as was said before. Can anybody substantiate this?
>> Proceratosaurus is NOT a ceratosaur,
> Who after Huene has suggested that? Since PDW it has always been somewhere in
Madsen and Welles (2001) have an extremely archaic classification in their Ceratosaurus monograph. Indeed, their classification is internally inconsistant (Podokesauroidea is claimed to contain only Podokesauridae, but is also listed as including Dilophosauridae), has redundant taxa (Dilophosauridae with one subfamily, Dilophosaurinae), absolutely horrible characters diagnosing families (Podokesauridae- small size, no cranial crests [ever heard of Syntarsus kayentakatae?], jugal low and slender, etc.), ignores abelisaurs and has Proceratosaurus listed as a ceratosaurid.