Names

Palaeontologists, like all scientists, are obsessed with naming things. A prime example of palaeontology's love of nomenclature is illustrated left. This trilobite (a type of extinct arthropod distantly related to living horseshoe crabs) is depicted in dorsal view and labelled appropriately. Of course there is an equally bewildering set of labels for the ventral view. And that’s just the external shell. We haven't even considered the soft parts (legs, antennae, etc). And although these are rarely preserved at all, you can bet your bottom dollar they have their own set of labels as well.

Fig. 1 A trilobite, labelled in dorsal view.

The reason for this terminology torrent is fairly straightforward. Names are useful 99.9% of the time. If, for example, you are describing the pointy bits at the back end of a trilobite, it’s much easier to call them pygidial spines than describe their location each time you want to mention them. There is, however, the dreaded 0.1% of names that are frustratingly irrelevant. So without further a due, allow me to introduce Becklespinax.

Becklespinax is a dinosaur from Hastings, East Sussex. However, it is known from only 3 vertebrae. These are unusual in that they each possess a rather elongate neural spine. This new discovery needed a name and it was decided that the vertebrae belonged to the dinosaur Altispinax dunkeri. Unfortunately, A. dunkeri itself is only known from a handful of teeth. It is what’s known in the trade as a nomen dubium (literally dubious name) Linking some dubious vertebrae with some dubious teeth is unsurprisingly pretty dubious, so before long the vertebrae were attributed to Acrocanthosaurus, a fairly well studied genus. A new species of Acrocanthosaurus was established, named confusingly A. altispinax. But before long it was decided that the vertebrae were sufficiently different from those of Acrocanthosaurus to warrant a new genus of its own. Thus Acrocanthosaurus altispinax was abolished and Becklespinax altispinax was erected. Alas this isn't the end of the story. There is a rule in palaeontology that states that only the first name described to a fossil is credited. This means that if the same fossils is found in separate locations and given different names, it is the first name that is credited while the second name (which is now regarded as a junior synonym) is discarded. The crux of the Becklespinax story is that there is no way to disprove that the teeth attributed to Altispinax are in fact from the same species as the vertebrae attributed to Becklespinax. This means that Becklespinax could be the junior synonym of Altispinax, a nomen dubium. Furthermore, Becklespinax itself could be regarded as a nomen dubium as it is only known from a few vertebrae. This means that Becklespinax Altispinax is potentially a nomen dubium junior synonym of a nomen dubium. Confused? So am I.

Becklespinax as a term is almost completely useless. However it does have some redeeming features. As dinosaur names go it’s a good one. In addition, the name describes a BRITISH dinosaur from Sussex, and a fairly odd one at that. I must admit I have a soft spot for Becklespinax, maybe because I can draw some similarities with myself. Were both problem children from the south, beloved by few and exasperating most.