[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 Altispinax was intended to be attached to the vertebrae.  Rauhut (2000) 
was using a 1926 paper for his argument.  But Tim, I'm surprised to hear you 
support Maisch's use of Article 11.10 to validate Altispinax dunkeri.

Article 11.10 is- "Deliberate employment of misidentifications. 
If an author employs a specific or subspecific name for the type species
 of a new nominal genus-group taxon, but deliberately in the sense of a 
previous misidentification of it, then the author's employment of the 
name is deemed to denote a new nominal species and the specific name is 
available with its own author and date as though it were newly proposed 
in combination with the new genus-group name (see Article 67.13 for fixation as 
type species of a species originally included as an expressly stated earlier 
misidentification, and Article 69.2.4 for the subsequent designation of such a 
species as the type species of a previously established nominal genus or 

So because Huene (1923) said the vertebrae referred to Megalosaurus dunkeri 
should be separated as Altispinax but never suggested a new species, Article 
11.10 deems that to be the creation of the species dunkeri for Altispinax, 
different from Megalosaurus dunkeri which is based on a tooth.  How is this 
different from the implicit creation of family-level group names when an author 
names one family-level group?  Surely it's at least as subjective.  I mean, 
I'll follow it because I think Maisch got the rules right, but rationally I 
agree with Rauhut that the first explicitly proposed species name (Paul's 
altispinax) should count.  Or do you merely follow whatever consensus is, which 
is here Altispinax and there Tyrannosauridae?

Mickey Mortimer

> Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 18:02:38 +1000
> From: tijawi@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu
> Subject: 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.
<div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6;">
        <td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a 
 " target="_blank"><img 
 " /></a></td>
                <td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 15px; color: #41424e; 
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 
18px;">Virus-free. <a 
 " target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"