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

Re: Torosaurus is Triceratops



Hm... what is the problem with the type species ?

*Triceratops* Marsh, 1889
Type species = *Ceratops horridus* Marsh, 1889
*Triceratops horridus* (Marsh, 1889) Marsh, 1889
*Triceratops prorsus* Marsh, 1890

*Torosaurus* Marsh, 1891
Type species = *Torosaurus latus* Marsh, 1891
*Torosaurus latus* Marsh, 1891
*Torosaurus utahensis* (Gilmore, 1946) Lawson, 1976

Even if *Torosaurus* = *Triceratops*, none of the two species of
*Torosaurus* will have priority over one of the two valid
*Triceratops* species.
And contrary to what I saw in so many papers, the type species would
not change in any case. The type species of *Triceratops* is not
*Triceratops horridus* Marsh, 1889 but *Ceratops horridus* Marsh,
1889, now *Triceratops horridus* (Marsh, 1889) Marsh, 1889. Subtile,
yes, but important to remember. A type species is a either a
pre-existent species (= binomen) on which a new genus is created, or a
new species. Nothing else.

2010/7/14 Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>:
>
> The only unresolved issue I can think of is the separation or subsumation of 
> various *Torosaurus* and *Triceratops* species. *Torosaurus latus* was before 
> *Ceratops horridus* or *Triceratops prorsus*, such that it would require 
> re-coordination of the type species if *latus* is synonymous with *horridus* 
> (which is required to lump *Torosaurus* and *Triceratops* together. This 
> means *Triceratops latus* would be the new type species of *Triceratops* 
> under the scheme of Goodwin and Horner (2006) and Scanella and Horner (2010). 
> Note that I've not read the latest paper. If the authors do not subsume the 
> species, or can discriminate them taxically, then the genera that contain 
> them cannot be said to also be synonymous.