Deltadromeus even a valid species?

[JorisVV]

Is the dinosaur, or so called dinosaur Deltadromeus Agilis an actual valid species of dinosaur. As some people claim it to be. Others do not. I do not have a clear view of the situation and I'd love someone to properly explain it.

[Troodon]

Deltadromeus agilis was described by Paul Sereno et al in 1996 so technically it's valid.   Your question is a good one and there are some who argue against it but that's very typical for the theropod dinosaurs of the Kem Kem across the board.   How many Spinosaurids or Carcharodontosaurids are present is an ongoing discussion and that's because we have very little associated material to support the different positions raised by paleontologists.   Deltadromeus is no different.

 

Here is the holotype of Deltadromeus, that's all we know...

Photo by  @AgostoPaleo

 

In a paper Motta et al. (2016) that described a few theropods from Argentina, including Aoniraptor libertatem they make the following comments:

"Aoniraptor libertatem and comments on the phylogenetic  position of some African theropods: Resemblances between the  tail anatomy of Aoniraptor and the Early Cretaceous African taxa  Bahariasaurus ingens (Stromer, 1934) and Deltadromeus agilis (Sereno  et al., 1996) are noteworthy. Stromer (1934, 1935) originally described  a large number of scattered specimens as referable to Bahariasaurus, coming from different localities. Because the specimens were found  in different localities and stratigraphic units, the referral to a single  taxon should be regarded as problematic. In this way, based on the  work of Sereno et al. (1996), the holotype and only known specimen  of Bahariasaurus only includes two caudal vertebrae (determined  as dorsals by Stromer in the original description, but the absence  of parapophyses indicates that may be better interpreted as caudal  elements), a neural arch, three sacral centra, pubes and a proximal  ischium (all illustrated and described by Stromer, 1934, but lost during  the Second World War). The remaining specimens were referred by  Sereno et al. (1996) to Deltadromeus, including pubes, femur, fibula,  and proximal tibia (Stromer, 1922, pl. 2, figs. 4,15; pl. 3, figs. 3,5,6).  In spite of noticing minor differences between both taxa, Sereno et  al. (1996) did not deny the close similarities between the materials of  Deltadromeus and Bahariasaurus, as originally pointed out by Stromer  (1934, 1935).  The then poor knowledge of theropod Gondwanan faunas,  together with the incomplete and peculiar nature of the available  specimens of Bahariasaurus and Deltadromeus, as well as the loss of  the former’s holotype during the Second World War, conspired against recognizing the phylogenetic affinities of both taxa."

 

Bottom line there is a lot of mis-information going around and our understanding of the KK theropods is a complete mess.  A complete review is needed of all the known material as well as new discoveries of associated material.