Re: Regarding Spinosaurus

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/8/02 12:14:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com writes (quoting Rauhut, quoting Huene):

<< "...if it were certain that such dorsal vertebrae belong to Megalosaurus 
dunkeri, it would be necessary to put it into a distinct genus, for which the 
name Altispinax, gen. nov., might be reserved." >>

Please note the CONDITIONAL nature of the proposed name Altispinax: "If it 
were certain that..." It is not and can never be >certain that< the dorsal 
vertebrae belong to Megalosaurus dunkeri. Huene does not explicitly put the 
vertebrae into the genus Altispinax, he puts the species Megalosaurus dunkeri 
into the genus Altispinax if it can be shown that the vertebrae are referable 
to M. dunkeri, which is not quite the same thing. I went through this more 
than a decade ago, tried to save Altispinax but was unable to get by Huene's 
wishy-washy phrasing. Rauhut apparently hasn't read this passage correctly. 
Not to mention that you cannot propose a name conditionally under ICZN rules 
these days anyway (if you ever could). The question is settled, the name is 
definitely Becklespinax, and Altispinax is forever tied to the M. dunkeri 
tooth by authors (e.g., Kuhn, 1939) prior to Rauhut who likewise misread 
Huene. Rauhut's combination Altispinax altispinax is unjustified, since it 
cannot be shown that the species Becklespinax altispinax is referable to the 
genus Altispinax.