[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: When carnivores kill other carnivores...
On 3/10/06, Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mickey Mortimer wrote:
> That would mean that _Altispinax_ was never actually described by Huene in
> 1923. However, the name _Altispinax_ may not be a nomen nudum, if in a
> subsequent publication it was treated as a valid genus and accompanied by a
> description (much like what happened with _Jibeinia_ and _Rinchenia_).
> However, if it was named _Altispinax dunkeri_ in any of these publications,
> then the implication is that _M. dunkeri_ is the type species.
I'm trying to figure out what ICZN rules
(http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp) say and they're giving me a
headache. All I can figure out so far is that genera named before 1931
need not necessarily have a designated type species. However, Huene
(1923) didn't assign *any* species to his name "Altispinax"; rather,
he suggested the name for a specimen in the eventuality that it might
represent a new species (at least, that's what you say Rauhut says; I
don't have Huene 1923 on me). Paul (1988), then, was simply following
Huene's suggestion, except that he used the name as a trivial epithet
(for a new species of _Acrocanthosaurus_) rather than for a genus.
> Looks like I may have to brush up on my German and dust off those old
Ich mÃchte sie auch sehen.
Here's what Paul (1988) says under the entry for _Acrocanthosaurus?
altispinax_ new species:
"The type, which is just three tall-spined trunk vertebrae, was first
placed in the much earlier _Megalosaurus bucklandi_ [sic] by Sir
Richard Owen in 1855. By 1926, Friedrich von Huene had associated them
with another supposed megalosaur, _M. dunkeri_, noting that neither
could be _Megalosaurus_ and proposing the new generic title
_Altispinax_. But the type of _M. dunkeri_ is only a tooth that may or
may not go with the vertebrae, and a new species name has never been
proposed, so von Huene's generic name has never been validated.
Besides, the vertebrae are very similar to _Acrocanthosaurus
atokensis_, and are best placed in that genus. Because this British
acrocanthosaur is somewhat older than the American one, a new species
is prudent, so I reemploy the name von Huene invented for it...." (pp.
> You see, I told you the _Alltispinax_ issue was complicated. In fact, it's
> even more complicated than I first thought. :-)
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com