What kind of STUPID FUCKING NAME is that for an animal whose skull was not found? You can assume it was a fish hunter since it's assumed and proven (Baryonyx) that spinosaurids ate fish, but I would never call something a FISH HUNTER if there was no skull. If like fish scales were found within its ribs or something then...sure, but 'till this point all spinosauridae are assumed to have a strict diet of fish (this may be true for Baryonyx and possible Spinosaurus). Strict diets are always bullshit. There's something fish hunter carnivorous animals have in common: scavenging behavior. Eventually we'll find some spinosaur with an ouranosaur rib in it and call it "Sarcolestes". Wait, that already exists (it's an incertain ankylosaur). Anywho, to conclude my completely baseless rant, I wouldn't call a skull-less animal Ichtyovenator (I can't even fucking spell that right), if there is no evidence for fish eating behavior DESPITE NUMEROUS FISH EATING BEHAVIORS SHOWN FROM OTHER FAMILY. If anything this might have looked like....Torvosaurus or some other tetanuran. It's almost like calling that animal MOJOCERATOPS, which is...weird but still quite a fitting name for a ceratopian that has certainly a lot of 'mojo', whatever the fuck that means. STOP SMOKING POT PLEASE. It ruins relationships, familial and otherwise.

Conclusion: Cool name, lame circumstances. If you're gonna call something ichtyovenator, make sure it's got a mummy pouch, scales on its tummy and a skull that looks like a umm...Baryonyx or something.