Regarding the name Euskelosaurus: Huene didn't emend the name - he, without explaining it (1902), reverted back to the spelling proposed in the first of two papers in which Huxley proposed similar names for the same material i.e., Euskelosaurus and Euskelesaurus, respectively.
As was common in the later 19th century, Huxley proposed the name initially (7 Nov, 1866) in what would be, by today's standards, considered a proceedings abstract  (it was fine then, but is not now). That name was Euskelosaurus browni. The reporting was published in 1866.
However, the fuller paper stemming from that 7 Nov, 1866 proceedings was only published in 1867 . The name proposed therein was Euskelesaurus brownii (note the also a difference in spelling of the species).
This situation parallels the similar case of Hypsilophodon, also by Huxley (1866 - abstract; versus 1867 - short note), where the nomenclatural act of Hypsilophodon is attributed to the earlier abstract-length note.
 Huxley, T. H. 1866. On some remains of large dinosaurian Reptiles from the Stormberg Mountains, South Africa. Geological Magazine (Series 1) 3:563.
 Huxley, T. H. 1867. On some remains of large dinosaurian reptiles from the Stromberg Mountains, South Africa. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 23:1â6.
von Huene, F. F. 1902. Ãbersicht Ãber die reptilien der Trias. Geologische und PalÃontologische Abhandlungen, Neue Folge 6:1â84.
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018, 1:05:32 pm AEST, Tim Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> *Euskelesaurus* Huxley, 1867 "good-legged reptile" (*eu*- + Greek *-skeles*
> "-legged" from *skelos* "leg*)
> "An animal the thigh-bone of which approaches three feet in length, may be
> fitly said to have 'good legs,' whence I propose the generic name of
> *Euskelesaurus* for this new African reptile..."
As you would know, Huxley's original spelling (_Euskelesaurus_) was
later emended to _Euskelosaurus_ by Huene, and it's Huene's spelling
that has stuck.