"re: T. rex and other large carnosaurs"

[StephanPickering@cs.com]

"Carnosauria" is paraphyletic, and should not be used. Megalosaurus = Torvosaurus (on the basis of the extensive, thoroughly described/illustrated hypodigm of the former I am about to publish, the latter cannot be separated from Megalosaurus Buckland 1824).  Megalosauridae Huxley 1869 nomen conservandum is a clade of basal Tetanure consisting of (in chronological order): Megalosaurus nethercombensis, M. bucklandii, Metriacanthosaurus reynoldsi, M. brevis, Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis, Metriacanthosaurus parkeri, Megalosaurus phillipsi, Poekilopleuron bucklandii, Megalosaurus tanneri. Streptospondylus altdorfensis is more closely related to Allosaurus fragilis and Allosaurus whitei AMNH 666 (+ AMNH 5735 topotype) than it is to Megalosauridae. Altispinax lydekkerhueneorum Pickering 1990 (unless I exist in a time-warp, 1990 comes b!
ef!
!
ore 1991, and I published my revision in 1990;  I am the first reviser under Article 24 of the ICZN, and my revision will be reappearing in my book-in-progress Mutanda Dinosaurologica; end of an unnecessary discussion re: my original scholarship) is Tetanurae incertae sedis.  Proceratosaurus is NOT a ceratosaur, but shares interesting similarities to Ornitholestes, being in my book Maniraptoriformes incertae sedis. Ceratosauria may yet prove to be paraphyletic, Liliensternus + Dilophosaurus + Walkersaurus hesperis being more closely related to each other than to Coelophysis/Syntarsus, Merosaurus newmani, Sarcosaurus, Elaphrosaurus. Ceratosaurus needs to be subjected to a thorough, robust cladistic analysis. As I have noted previously, I believe "Spinosauridae" to be a nomen dubium. A convenient name, predicated upon drawings of a lost specimen, and in the absence of skull/skeleton of a growth series of individ!
ua!
!
ls for comparative analyses, is not acceptable.