[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
I'd say Dandakosaurus, "Saltriosaurus", "Walkersaurus", Cryolophosaurus and
"Walkersaurus" is _Megalosaurus hesperis_. A new genus might be warranted,
given that _M. hesperis_ it is not referrable to _Megalosaurus_ sensu
stricto. The species is taxonomically valid, but "Walkersaurus" is a nomen
There's also _Megalosaurus cambrensis_ (originally _Zanclodon cambrensis_),
which was also given its own genus that is likewise a nomen nudum
("Newtonsaurus"). _M. cambrensis_ is a Late Triassic theropod, though I'm
not sure if it's ceratosaur or tetanuran. Molnar (1990) and Galton (1998)
referred this taxon to _Megalosaurus), but Rauhut and Hungerbuhler (2000)
suggested ceratosaur (coelophysoid) affinities. Most recently, _Z.
cambrensis_ was mentioned in Galton's (2005) paper on the Rhaetic Bone Bed,
but he didn't really discuss its relationships (except to say that it
resembles _M. hesperis_).
Personally, I'd prefer that these names ("Walkersaurus", "Newtonsaurus",
etc) not be used at all, given that they were not validly named and only
cause confusion. Somebody might mistake them for valid genera, for example.
This is not Mickey's fault (who in fact emphasized their nomen nudum
status by putting them in quotation marks), but the fault of the person who
named them without following ICZN rules.
View Athlete?s Collections with Live Search
- RE: Tetanurae
- From: Michael Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>