RE: T. rex and other large carnosaurs"

["Williams, Tim" <TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu>]

Stephan Pickering wrote:

>"Carnosauria" is paraphyletic, and should not be used. 

Not if it's paraphyletic, I agree; but Carnosauria has been re-defined so
that it is monophyletic.  Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

>Altispinax lydekkerhueneorum Pickering 1990
>(unless I exist in a time-warp, 1990 comes bef! ! ore 1991, and I
>published my revision in 1990;  I am the first reviser under Article 24
>of the ICZN, 

And both 1990 and 1991 come *after* 1988 - the year that featured Greg
Paul's published revision of the vertebrae as _Acrocanthosaurus altipinax_.
Irrespective of what you prefer to call the genus, _altispinax_ is still the
correct trivial name.

>I believe "Spinosauridae" to be a
>nomen dubium. A convenient name, predicated upon drawings of a lost
>specimen, 

Do you apply the same standard to _Poekilopleuron bucklandii_ (which I see
you put in the Megalosauridae)?  Most of its material was lost (during
"excavation"), and most of its bones are now known only from
Eudes-Deslongchamps' excellent figures.

>and in the absence of skull/skeleton of a growth series of
>individuals for comparative analyses, is not acceptable.

I have no idea what this has to do with the validit (or otherwise) of a
taxon.



Tim