[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Christopher Taylor wrote:
replacement name should be coined as part of a review of the genus in
question. Note that _Diceratops_ only requires a replacement name if it
is regarded as a valid genus (no point in coining a new name if it's
never going to be used), which in this case is a whole different
cauldron of mullet.
The _Diceratops_ homonymy thing has been kicking around the 'net for a while
now. Like _Ingenia_ and _Microceratops_, this issue is still unresolved (as
Forster thought _Diceratops_ was a valid genus (Forster, 1996) and unless a
more up-to-date review is in the works, the honor of re-naming the genus
should perhaps go to her. (Ironically, the senior homonym was named by
someone named Foerster!) I'd rather it be a paleontologist that gets the
opportunity to provide a new name, rather than an entomologist. No offense
- some of my best friends are entomologists - but the entire
_Syntarsus_/_Megapnosaurus_ thing doesn't need repeating.
_Diceratops_ Hatcher can't be re-named _Biceratops_ - that name is taken (by
a trilobite). Perhaps it is poetic justice that the name _Diceratops_ is
preoccupied - the beast probably did have a nasal horn in life.
It's amazing how many non--ceratopsian genera end in -ceratops. I've
already mentioned _Microceratops_ (another pesky insect) and I'm not sure if
_Microceratops_ Seyrig, 1952 is valid. Besides, Sereno believes
_Microceratops_ is a nomen dubium, and it's effectively been replaced by
_Graciliceratops_. There's also _Tetraceratops_, _Megaceratops_,
_Bolboceratops_, _Cyphoceratops_ and _Camptoceratops_.