Brohisaurus may be an exception, but most of Malkani's sauropods seem to be nomenclaturally valid as of his 2006 publication. There you get proposed diagnoses of Pakisaurus, Sulaimanisaurus, Khetranisaurus, Balochisaurus, Marisaurus and for theropods Vitakridrinda. Speaking of the latter, I forgot that Malkani had the croc snout, supposed braincase, proximal ?femora and supposed tooth section all as the holotype specimen. His removal of the snout as Induszalim leaves Vitakridrinda's syntypes as Archosauria indet..
Reference- Malkani, 2006. Biodiversity of saurischian dinosaurs from the Latest Cretaceous park of Pakistan. Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences. 1(3), 108-140.
From: John D'Angelo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 11:56 AM
To: Mickey Mortimer; DML
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Middle Jurassic vertebrate assemblage from Siberia + dinosaurs of Pakistan + Arctic dinosaurs
Are any of Malkani's taxa actually available names according to the ICZN?
Brohisaurus kirthari lacks a diagnosis. The section titled "Diagnosis" lists characters which allegedly place it in Titanosauria, but those characters are not "purported to differentiate the taxon." This would seem to fail to meet article 13.1.1, so the name would be a nomen nudum, consistent with Malkani calling the taxon "purely tentative."
Almost everything else (at least, sauropod-wise, I'm not sure of the rest) Malkani has published was originally named in something that is inadequate for article 8.1.3, and subsequently published in a work which does not state they are new taxa (violating 16.1).
So as far as I understand it, all of Malkani's sauropods are nomina nuda (or unpublished entirely).
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 2:54 AM Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> wrote: