Re: SVP Preview

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/27/02 12:17:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

<< What is the date for Megalosauridae? And I have a strong feeling that he
 has just been referring "megalosaurs" to the group, but that
 *Megalosaurus* will end up a nomen dubium, thus invalidating any
 suprageneric taxa supported by the ICZN. Maybe he will tackle the issue of
 "genera" and how real they actually are[n't] (depends on your philosophy;
 me, I support Flynn et al. and Brochu in disposing of the concept of a
 "genus" and just coining binomina for species). >>

Megalosauridae goes back to Megalosauri Fitzinger, 1843, also Megalosauroides 
Gervais, 1852 and Megalosauridae Huxley, 1869.

If Megalosaurus is to be a nomen dubium, then the family name Megalosauridae 
is also, and it should not be used as the name of a subgroup of 
Spinosauroidea, either. Can't have it both ways. But I think there are enough 
topotype specimens of Megalosaurus to make a diagnosable hypodigm.