[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Ceratopsine phylogeny questions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
I definitely do NOT buy that *Nanotyrannus* is a juvenile *T. rex*=2C nor d=
o I buy that *Dracorex* and *Stygimoloch* are ontogenetic stages of *Pachyc=
ephalosaurus*. No way.
But this thing about Torosaurus being the adult of Triceratops actually IS =
pretty convincing=2C IMHO. Can't wait to see more about it!
> Date: Mon=2C 5 Oct 2009 13:17:49 +0200
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Ceratopsine phylogeny questions
>> While browsing the SVP meeting abstracts yesterday=2C This was=2C IMHO=
>> one of the more interesting ones:
> Quite so!!!
> Scannella briefly compared that situation to the synonymy of=20
> *Nanotyrannus* and *Tyrannosaurus*=2C and *Dracorex*=2C *Stygimoloch* and=
> The obvious question -- whether Scannella had looked at postcranial=20
> histology=2C too -- was immediately asked=2C and immediately answered by =
> soon as I get back to the US"=2C which means he started last week. :-)
>> As the abstract notes=2C _Triceratops_ was named before _Torosaurus_=2C
>> so it would seem _Torosaurus_ would be sunk into _Triceratops_.
>> However=2C since the type specimen of _Triceratops_ does not exhibit
>> the adult frill morphology of the genus=2C how=2C if at all=2C would thi=
>> affect the nomenclature?
> Not at all. As long as the type specimen can be shown to the new &=20
> improved *Triceratops*=2C there's no problem.
>> In addition=2C it would seem possible that _Arrhinoceratops_ from the
>> older Horseshoe Canyon Fm. might represent the adult morph (and
>> senior synonym) of the recently named _Eotriceratops_. If the latter
>> turns out to be the case=2C are there any real diagnostic differences
>> between the adult morph of _Triceratops_ and _Arrhinoceratops_ that
>> would justify separating these taxa at the generic level?
> What do you mean by "generic level"? There is no such thing as a=20
> "generic level". .-)
> As long as they can be reliably told apart=2C which appears to be the cas=
> (correct me if I'm wrong)=2C they should be considered different species=
> whether you want to consider them different genera in addition is=20
> entirely left to your (yes=2C your) taste.
>> To potentially muddy the waters further=2C where does this place the
>> taxonomic status of _Torosaurus utahensis_?
> Good question. Wasn't mentioned in the talk or the question session. I=20
> guess it could be a near-adult ontogenetic stage or a separate southern=20
> species of *Triceratops*. =0A=
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protection.=0A=