[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] Nomenclatural status of genus Altispinax v. Huene, 1923



I agree 100% with Maisch that _Altispinax_ is a valid genus.  I've
always considered _Altispinax_ to be the correct name for the theropod
represented by by the distinctive tall-spined dorsals (NHMUK 1828).
Friedrich von Huene often played fast and loose with dinosaur
taxonomy, and the entire _Alispinax_ morass is one of his worst
examples.  However, one thing is clear: Huene was emphatic that the
genus name _Altispinax_ be attached to NHMUK 1828.

Maisch is not the first to suggest that Huene's _Altispinax_ is the
valid name for this tall-spined theropod.  But he is the first to
propose that Huene erected the name _Altispinax dunkeri_ by deliberate
use of misidentification.  Thus, according to Maisch, the correct
binomen is _Altispinax dunkeri_ Huene, 1923.  This binomen is held to
be distinct from _Megalosaurus dunkeri_ Dames, 1884 (based on an
isolated tooth).

Other authors have maintained that, irrespective of the validity of he
name _Altispinax_, a new species name was required (because _M.
dunkeri_ Dames, 1884 is a nomen dubium).  Hence, Paul (1988) erected
the new species _Acrocanthosaurus altispinax_ for NHMUK 1828. It was
subsequently recognized that _A. altispinax_ deserved its own genus
distinct from _Acrocanthosaurus_.  Olshevsky's (1991) solution was to
erect the new genus _Becklespinax_ (named after fossil collector
Samuel Beckles) and the new combination _Becklespinax altispinax_,
whereas Rauhut (2000) revived Huene's genus _Altispinax_ to form the
new combination _Altispinax altispinax_.  Rauhut's approach was my
preferred option.  To my knowledge, Maisch's approach is novel, in
citing article 11.10 of the ICZN in support of the name _Altispinax
dunkeri_ as the correct genus and species (and relegating
_Acrocanthosaurus altispinax_, _Becklespinax altispinax_, and
_Altispinax altispinax_ to objective junior synonyms).



On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ben Creisler
> bcreisler@gmail.com
>
> A new paper:
>
> Michael W. Maisch (2016),
> The nomenclatural status of the carnivorous dinosaur genus Altispinax v.
> Huene, 1923 (Saurischia, Theropoda) from the Lower Cretaceous of England.
> Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen 280(2): 215-219
> DOI: 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__dx.doi.org_10.1127_njgpa_2016_0576&d=DQIFaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=pjdGhafR-idUETGTMUF8RAOEBw7MDJcQ--hYshhm3Qw&s=uh1be6IlGj1UpaIjjeJhOGFP99Ma4ZycuWhmaH6E1z4&e=
>  
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ingentaconnect.com_content_schweiz_njbgeol_2016_00000280_00000002_art00008&d=DQIFaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=pjdGhafR-idUETGTMUF8RAOEBw7MDJcQ--hYshhm3Qw&s=yWiEocg60Y5-Q0yyCX3w3jZDaBDwWpimhUifct_pTZk&e=
>  
>
>
>
> The nomenclatural status of the theropod dinosaur genus Altispinax v. Huene,
> 1923, known from a single specimen from the Wealden of East Sussex, England,
> is discussed. It is shown that Altispinax dunkeri v. Huene, 1923 is a valid
> taxon according to the ICZN, based onv. Huene’s original description. The
> species was erected by a deliberate use of misidentification according to
> article 11.10 of the ICZN, and not based on the isolated, most probably
> undiagnostic tooth from northern Germany described by Dames in 1884, but on
> diagnostic material, three articulated vertebrae, from the Wealden of East
> Sussex (NHMUK 1828). Both the specific name Acrocanthosaurus altispinax
> Paul, 1988 and the generic name Becklespinax Olshevsky, 1991 are junior
> objective synonyms.