[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico
In the Wikipedia article is state that it was named in 2011. I guess there is
a limitation to how many ceratopsians can be named in a 2010.
On Dec 29, 2010, at 8:09 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
>> In case this new advance publication paper has not been mentioned yet:
>> Nicholas R. Longrich (2010) Titanoceratops ouranous, a giant horned dinosaur
>> from the
>> Late Campanian of New Mexico. Cretaceous Research (advance online
> There seems to be a discrepancy in the spelling of the species name
> between the title of the paper (ouranous) and the body of the paper
> (ouranos), with the former having an extra (and unnecessary) 'u'.
> Something to correct before final publication. BTW, the inspiration
> for the species name is Ouranos, the father of the Titans in Greek
> mythology. This is the same dude that gives his name to the planet
> Uranus. Apparently, the etymology is not the same as that of
> _Ouranosaurus_, which comes from the Tuareg name for monitor lizard
> ('ourane'), and is cognate with 'varanus'.
> Anyway, back to _Titanoceratops_ (cool name, IMHO). Aside from
> erecting a new genus for an erstwhile _Pentaceratops_ specimen, the
> paper puts forward a few more taxonomic changes vis-a-vis
> _Triceratops_. The referral of _Torosaurus_ to _Triceratops_ is
> explicitly rejected; a separate diagnosis is provided for each, and
> the "absence of intermediate forms argues that the two are not part of
> an ontogenetic series." On the other hand, _Nedoceratops_
> (=_Diceratops_) and _Ojoceratops_ are referred to _Triceratops_ as
> junior synonyms. For the latter: "the broad, squared-off end of the
> squamosal, putatively a diagnostic feature of “_Ojoceratops_” is
> approached by at least one specimen of _Triceratops_ (_Triceratops
> “serratus”_, AMNH 970)." So I guess _Ojoceratops_ is the problem.
> more so than _T. serratus_, which I assume is safe inside
> _Triceratops_. The status of another new genus, _Tatankaceratops_, is
> given as "problematic". It "preserves a bizarre mixture of characters
> seen in juvenile and adult _Triceratops_", so the specimen is either
> an aberrant _Triceratops_ that stopped growing before reaching full
> size, or a dwarf triceratopsin species. I wouldn't be surprised if
> more taxonomic convulsions are in stall for the Triceratopsini.