Re: Newtonsaurus et al.

[Markus Moser <m.moser@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>]

Stephan Pickering wrote:
> The recent attempted resurrection of "Magnosaurus" is most
> unfortunate, as von Huene's nomenclature was rather confusing: the
> name was originally in 1932 applied to BMNH R3542, a right tibia of
> the ceratosaur Sarcosaurus, von Huene naming it Sarcosaurus andrewsi
> (1932:51-52). In the same 1932 monograph, ! ! on page 219, von Huene
> gave BMNH R3542 yet a second name, Magnosaurus woodwardi! The
> ceratosaur Sarcosaurus woodi = Sarcosaurus andrewsi BMNH R3542 =
> Magnosaurus woodwardi BMNH R3542. Alas: 1932:220, von Huene stumbles
> on his shadow, when he gives the name Magnosaurus also to BMNH 41352,
> von Huene's 1926 Megalosaurus lydekkeri which is an indeterminate
> theropod tooth from Dorsetshire, his 1932 Magnosaurus being a "n.g."
> for Megalosaurus nethercombensis and, at the end of his short
> discussion, a "subgenus" of Megalosaurus. Now, we have, in 2001, the
> name Magnosaurus being used for Eustreptospondylus, which is not a
> ceratosaur.

To which Mickey Mortimer answered:
> Hmm.  I never knew M. woodwardi was the type species, nor did I know a
> Magnosaurus woodwardi existed.  Was the name Magnosaurus applied to
> Megalosaurus lydekkeri or M. nethercombensis first?  One thing I would
> be cautious about is synonymizing Sarcosaurus woodi with S? andrewsi.
> I've never seen an educated opinion of the latter, but the two species
> cannot be compared as far as I know (with S. woodi lacking a preserved
> tibia).


The complicated history can be resolved:

1) Andrews (1921) described Sarcosaurus woodi and compared it with the
Tibia [BMNH R3542] described by Woodward (1908).
Huene had finished his 1926a paper (Rev. Mus. La Plata, 29) by February,
2 of 1921, too early to get hold of the 1921 paper of Andrews.
In 1926, when his first paper (1926a) finally was published, Huene made
up a shorter version (1926b: Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9) 17) in which he
also did not cite the paper of Andrews; probably he failed to notice its
relevance then.
In 1932 Huene published a large monograph covering some hundred species
and it may be forgivable that without the aid of a computer handling a
slowly "evolving" manuscript he had just overlooked that he classified
the same remains as coelurosaurian (Sarcosaurus) and some pages later as
carnosaurian (Magnosaurus), and erecting two species names for the same
thing.
In 1956 Huene apparently corrected this quietly by applying the name
Sarcosaurus ("2 species") to material from the angulatus zone (i.e.  S.
andrewsi), and restricting the genus Magnosaurus to material from the
humphriesi zone (i.e. M. nethercombensis).
If no one has decided so far which of the names S. andrewsi Huene 1932
or S. woodwardi (Huene 1932) should have priority, then the usage of
Huene 1956 should be considered as binding by the potential First
Reviser. 
Welles (1984: 170) apparently detected the double naming but did not
take action. Rowe & Gauthier (1990: 166) regarded S. andrewsi as
indeterminate and did not mention Magnosaurus woodwardi. Molnar et al.
(1990: 203, recited by Glut 1997: 561) supposed that M. woodwardi "may
be referrable to the ceratosaur Sarcosaurus andrewsi".

Tibia from Wilmcote, angulatus zone (Lias), described by Woodward 1908
Huene 1926a     "Megalosaurus" (subgen. a) sp.
Huene 1926b: 476        [no name applied]
Huene 1932: 51-52, 295  Sarcosaurus andrewsi n. sp.
[Huene wrote p. 51: "Actually it would have been self suggesting to name
the species S. 'woodwardi', but then the two species names would sound
too similar"; concerning S. woodi Andrews]
Huene 1932: 220, 305    Magnosaurus woodwardi n. sp.
Huene 1956: 477 Sarcosaurus

[To Mr. Keesey (Dinosauricon):
Magnosaurus woodwardi has nothing to do with Walgettosuchus woodwardi
(from Cretaceous beds).
Sarcosaurus andrewsi was not originally named as Megalosaurus andrewsi.]


2) The type species of Magnosaurus Huene 1932: 220 is M. nethercombensis
(Huene, 1926) by original designation (ICZN Art. 68.2.1.). It must be
reminded that there is no "page priority", whatever the myths tell.

material from the humphriesi[anum]-zone (Dogger), Nethercomb. (earlier
references see Huene 1926a)
Huene 1926a     "Megalosaurus" (subgen. b) nethercombensis n. sp.
Huene 1926b     "Megalosaurus" nethercombensis sp. n.
Huene 1932: 220, 305    Magnosaurus n. g. nethercombensis Huene sp. 1926
Huene 1956: 486 Magnosaurus


3) M. lydekkeri was never allocated by Huene to a genus without
expressions of doubt concerning this allocation.

isolated tooth from Lyme Regis, ?bucklandi zone
Huene 1926a     "Megalosaurus" (gen. ?), Lydekkeri n. sp.
Huene 1932      Magnosaurus (?) lydekkeri Huene sp. 1926


Result:
Of the three species mentioned above only one species can be considered
as belonging to Magnosaurus (whatever that may be): M. nethercombensis,
the type species. 


I apologize if this or something similar has been written before, I did
not check younger references (Rauhut?, Pickering?; both not available to
me).


Best wishes

Markus Moser
Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie
Richard-Wagner-Str. 10
80333 München
email: m.moser@lrz.uni-muenchen.de