[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Monoclonius

On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 Stang1996@aol.com wrote:

> Or, to us generic lumpers (I lump genera, but split species and families) it
> could mean that the entire subfamily Centrosaurinae or Eucentrosaurinae or
> Pachyrhinosaurinae (or whatever you wish to call it) could be sunk into the
> genus _Monoclonius_, 

I hate to give the genus-lumpers any ammunition, but it would seem not 
all that unreasonable to put _Styracosaurus_ and _Centrosaurus_ in one 
genus (_Centrosaurus_, if that stands as the name of this animal; 
_Styracosaurus_, I suppose, if not) and _Einiosaurus_, _Achelousaurus_, 
and _Pachyrhinosaurus_ in another (_Pachyrhinosaurus_).  I advocate 
non-use of _Monoclonius_, though.  

_Brachyceratops_ and _Avaceratops_ 
sound to me like they're probably valid genera, and I don't think either 
could be placed in _Centrosaurus_ or _Pachyrhinosaurus_ without rendering 
that genus paraphyletic, the sin of all sins. ;-)

> Peter Buchholz
> Stang1996@aol.com

Nick Pharris
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447

"If you can't convince them, confuse them." -- Harry S. Truman