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

Re: Albertaceratops (simpson's bi-annual b*tch about dino naming)

I am in awe that there has been virtually no discussion at all on any
other aspect of this paper other than the choice in naming.

"Postcranial characters are excluded because 1) the two ceratopsid
subfamilies are diagnosed almost exclusively on cranial characters; 2)
complete postcranial material is even less well known for some taxa
than is the cranial material; and 3) postcranial characters have
proven to be of limited utility in higher level ceratopsid diagnoses
-Ryan, 2007 (p. 390)

I'm only vaguely familiar with Chinnery's subsequent publication (2004
POSTCRANIAL SKELETON" JVP 24(3): 591-609), and perhaps I'm not
recalling properly but I don't recall this being stated explicitly or
implied in her work.

I can somewhat accept the exclusion of the postcranial characters, but
I am skeptically curious about the choice in scoring for the
Chasmosaurus OTU, especially given the apparent separation of C.
mariscalensis from other Chasmosaurus species. Additionally, I suppose
I'm surprised by the rather limited scope of the overall analysis. I
really had thought there would be more building, a more inclusive
sense to the phylogenetic work, instead, this is almost reminiscent of
what was being published on hadrosaurids in the earlier part of this
decade. I suppose overall, I'm finding myself continually dismayed by
how little it seems that ornithischian phylogenetics are progressing
compared to other dinosaur groups that shall not be named.

S'up DML

Nick Gardner