Talk:Spinosauroidea

Move?
Move back to Megalosauroidea? J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anybody? J. Spencer (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we going by which the ICZN says is valid, or which the literature treats as valid? Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it all comes down to Megalosaurus. If Meg is in, then it's Megalosauroidea and Megalosauridae.  If Meg is indeterminate, then it's Spinosauroidea and Torovosauridae.  Right now, it seems like Meg is in. J. Spencer (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But, IIRC, the reason this page was switched to Spinosauroidea initially (I was fighting for Megalosauroidea) is that a lot of editors were pointing out that in the actual lit, even when Meg was in, authors were still using Spinosauroidea, rules of priority be damned. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Benson's using it now, FWIW (both in the Cruxicheiros description and the Megalosaurus redescription). J. Spencer (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't even have this page on my watchlist. Are we just talking the two papers here and here? A quick search of the Paleobiology database indicates Holtz (1995) was among the last authors to use Megalosauroidea, while Spinosauroidea caught on from '95 (at the naming) to fairly recent papers. Firsfron of Ronchester  12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)