BIG WEALDEN THEROPODS

[darren.naish@port.ac.uk]

Regarding _Becklespinax_, _Valdoraptor_ and others, George wrote..

> All three genera are from formations of different ages and 
> localities within the Wealden Group. There's no comparative evidence 
> that they're the same dino.

True - and the same goes for the miriad small theropod bits and 
pieces from the Wealden. Thus far, 21 names (this does not include 
Pickering's names, which I will never ever acknowledge) have been 
created for Wealden theropods: those that are not synonyms or 
renamings are based on elements that are simply not comparable with 
the others because they represent different parts of the animals. 
Most of this systematic chaos results from namings of the odd few
vertebrae or tibiae by Lydekker and other 19th C workers, and is a 
practise that should have died out then. Please refrain from 
Nessovism.

>  _Valdoraptor_ is pretty much junk, although it's 
> clearly not _Megalosaurus_ (the genus in which the type species was 
> originally created) and not tyrannosaurid (no pinched MT III). It 
> could be _Neovenator_, I suppose. 

The latter was an idea I looked into a few weeks ago, and will be 
something I (eventually) write up. The idea was real interesting: 
though _Valdoraptor oweni_ Olshevsky, 1991 is only based on metatarsi 
(and should not therefore have been given a name), the possibility 
appeared to exist that it could be a senior synonym of _Neovenator 
salerii_ Hutt, Martill and Barker, 1996! Dave Martill (my phd 
supervisor) thought this was quite amusing. The paper on _N. salerii_ 
is unfortunately only a preliminary description that does not figure 
enough material (Steve Hutt is working on the full description). 
However, what I have seen of allosaur metatarsi at the MIWG (some of 
which Steve Hutt says belongs to _N. salerii_) suggests to me that 
_N. salerii_ metatarsi are proportionally more elongate than are 
those _V. oweni_ - and I looked at the type of this too (BMNH R2559) 
during a recent NHM visit. What is frightening (for me) is that there 
is actually tons and tons of more big theropod material - including 
metatarsi - that has never been described or figured. I would not 
advocate naming any such material, and in fact non-dinosaurological 
academics (such as the people who are often our bosses in 
palaeontological institutions) frown on names erected in publications
they do not recognise. Thus, I'm afraid, the names _Valdoraptor_ and 
_Becklespinax_ may not receive credit in submitted manuscripts.

>  I'll write up descriptions of _Becklespinax_ and _Valdoraptor_, 
> unless somebody else physically closer to the material is working 
> on this already.

I'm working on them at the moment. It will be ages before the stuff 
sees publication, of course. 

I have a new, _Deinonychus_-sized theropod from the Wealden that is 
not the same as any of the other Wealden theropods for which tibiae 
are known. Of course, I could give it  a name were I so inclined, but 
I am not. More details on this one when my abstract on it (submitted 
to the Maastrict Third Vertebrate Palaeontology Workshop) is 
published.

"The dead are no longer lonely"

DARREN NAISH
darren.naish@port.ac.uk