[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Mike Keesey wrote:
> > Well....not quite a ceratopsian I guess...
> That meaning doesn't make sense -- it's certainly a ceratopsian...
My understanding is that in Russian the prefix "nedo-" is used in the same
context as we English-speakers use "under-" (e.g., underfeed, underdone,
> "not quite three horned face"). Maybe that's what the author was
I think so too, yes. I suspect that Ukrainsky had _Triceratops_ very much in
mind - either specifically, or with _Triceratops_ representing an 'apex' of
ceratopsian evolution. So the name _Nedoceratops_ is probably intended to mean
"not quite _Triceratops_" or "not quite at the _Triceratops_ stage of
evolution" rather than "not quite ceratopsian".
Lambe named _Eoceratops_ in much the same vein. Lambe intended the name
_Eoceratops_ to mean "ancestral to _Triceratops_". To quote Lambe fully: "It
is thought, as the name for the genus suggests, the _Eoceratops_ was a form
ancestral to _Triceratops_, representing an evolutionary stage of the
Ceratopsia leading to the later and culminative types (_Triceratops_ and
_Diceratops_) with immense browhorns".
So Lambe's meaning of _Eoceratops_ is much the same as that of _Eotriceratops_
("early member of the _Triceratops_ group") and (perhaps) for Ukrainsky's
_Nedoceratops_ (?"not quite _Triceratops_"), rather than "early ceratopsian" or
"early neoceratopsian" (e.g., _Auroraceratops_).
> That meaning would work if it were a basal marginocephalian, like
> _Micropachycephalosauurs_ or _Stenopelix_,
_Micropachycephalosaurus_ is a basal marginocephalian? That would make sense,
given its morphology; but the most recent study I know of (Butler & Zhao, 2008)
could not resolve _Micropachycephalosaurus_ beyond "Cerapoda incertae sedis".
Interestingly, Zhiming Dong described skull fragments for
_Micropachycephalosaurus_ which showed that the skull roof was thickened in
pachycephalosaurian fashion. These particular fragments could not be located
by Butler & Zhao (2008). So there are two possibilities: these
pachycephalosaur-like skull roof fragments never existed (although it's hard to
believe Dong could be so wrong on this point); or these skull fragments did
exist, and were misplaced. Only new material can resolve this one.