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

Re: New Ceratopian

Matt Martyniuk wrote:

Would this make the genus _Microceratops_ a nomen dubium, or are more
species known?

If Sereno is right, and _Microceratops gobiensis_ is an invalid species, then _Microceratops_ is indeed a nomen dubium on account of the fact that the type species (_M. gobiensis_) is invalid. If other species are known, and they are shown to be valid, then they cannot remain in the genus _Microceratops_. This shouldn't be a problem for _Microceratops_, since the other species (_M. sulcidens_) seems a little iffy as well.

I know of _M. sulcidens_, is this still considered the same
as _M. gobiensis_?

Someone (and I can't remember who - was it Nessov?) transferred _M. sulcidens_ to the genus _Asiaceratops_, as the new combination _A. sulcidens_ (Bohlin, 1953). _Asiaceratops salsopaludalis_ Nessov, Kaznyshkina & Cherepanov, 1989, the type species of _Asiaceratops_, is quite possibly not a valid species. Back to square one.



Dr Timothy J. Williams USDA/ARS, Agronomy Hall Iowa State University Ames IA 50014

Phone: 515 294 9233
Fax:   515 294 3163

Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com