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

QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF BREVICERATOPS



If any of you don't have this paper yet, it should be searched for if only for
the figures and drawings and a photograph of the actual type specimen of
_Protoceratops andrewsi_:

Granger, W and Gregory, W K.  1923.  _Protoceratops andrewsi_, a pre-
ceratopsian dinosaur from Mongolia.  American Museum Novitates 72:1-6.

I had chanced upon this paper a few months ago, but have just recently been
able to comment on it in any detail.

First off, the type skull of _Protoceratops_ is not complete, it is missing
the rostrum and the frill, but fairly complete in other areas.  What is
striking though is that the skull does not particularly resemble any other
skull refered to _Protoceratops_: ie, the famous male/female morphs that
everyone knows and loves as _Protoceratops_.

Of particular interest is the skull named _Breviceratops kozlowskii_ some
years later.  Everyone knows what this skull looks like, and oddly enough, it
is near identical to the type of _Protoceratops andrewsi_ (but again, not very
similar to the famous male/female morphs).

My question is, has anyone ever caught this before, and if so what has been
done?  Is it possible that the nomen nudum "Graciliceratops" named in Forster
& Sereno's chapter could be applied to the male/female morph taxon?  Does
anyone know?

Peter Buchholz
Tetanurae@aol.com