>>13335275There is a point of view that, as long as you can find some character you can describe as diagnostic, you might as well name your fossil; just so that you don't have to go around calling it 'MNHN GDF 330' or 'that fragmentary spinosaurid jaw from Niger'.
There is, of course, not enough evidence to say that it really represents a new species; but then 'species' is only vaguely defined anyway, and the same is true even for much better preserved fossils. Only very rarely do we have large enough samples of a fossil dinosaur species to be able to make judgements about variation within a species, and without knowing that how can you judge whether a new fossil lies outside that variation.
Short answer to OP - don't worry about it, they're just labels.
