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

RE: Diceratops

Christopher Taylor wrote:

Ideally, a
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 Chris mentioned).

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 Besides, Sereno believes _Microceratops_ is a nomen dubium, and it's effectively been replaced by _Graciliceratops_.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_.