[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 don't have a strong opinion over whether the species name for
_Altispinax_ should be _A. dunkeri_ or _A. altispinax_.  Maisch's
argument regarding Huene's misidentification, and _A. dunkeri_ Huene,
1923 thereby being the correct name, seems to hold water - but there
may be contrary opinions.  I certainly concur with Maisch (and Rauhut
before him) that _Altispinax_ is the valid name for the genus (not
_Becklespinax_).

When it comes to naming genera and species, I'm perfectly happy to
have the ICZN govern this aspect of biological nomenclature - even if
I find some of their decisions bewildering (especially w.r.t. the
ICZN's indulgence of rogue taxonomists).  I just don't see the need
for the ICZN to decide which 'family-level' clade names should have
priority.  When it comes to Tyrannosauridae versus Deinodontidae, I
think professional consensus wins out, and so Tyrannosauridae (a
defined clade) should be used.


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Mickey Mortimer
<mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
> 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 subgenus)."
>
> 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;">
>         <tr>
>         <td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a 
> href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Demail-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail-26utm-5Fterm-3Dicon&d=DQIF-g&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=IVzdMGFnKCZxDMz48hV0_75NdVULU5Q4MqZRzY29czA&s=qq7v0sk0ltNAcrTh6-3ZyAIXyBfyCK6gygxoDErTF_U&e=
>  " target="_blank"><img 
> src="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ipmcdn.avast.com_images_2016_icons_icon-2Denvelope-2Dtick-2Dround-2Dorange-2Dv1.png&d=DQIF-g&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=IVzdMGFnKCZxDMz48hV0_75NdVULU5Q4MqZRzY29czA&s=j5_XX6Uw9ux0HrIRyH0R3LL7Buflr6LsT4-K3-BRQVk&e=
>  " /></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 
> href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Demail-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail-26utm-5Fterm-3Dlink&d=DQIF-g&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=Ry_mO4IFaUmGof_Yl9MyZgecRCKHn5g4z1CYJgFW9SI&m=IVzdMGFnKCZxDMz48hV0_75NdVULU5Q4MqZRzY29czA&s=vRP10VBip8HEu-GzPdXSRine9vTV1htlhitfE5KsZwU&e=
>  " target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
>                 </td>
>         </tr>
> </table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" 
> height="1"></a></div>