[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, a new hadrosauroid from Montana)
Tom Holtz <firstname.lastname@example.org. wrote:
> I do support the use of Saurolophinae for "the clade
> formerly known as
> Hadrosaurinae", and by similar token would go back to the
> main herd in the
> use of Chasmosaurinae for the Chasmosaurus-Triceratops side
> of Ceratopsidae.
> (Ceratops itself may well fall outside Chasmosaurus +
> Centrosaurus, now that
> we know the brow horn morphology it possesses is shared by
> Centrosaurinae, most Chasmosaurinae, and near outgroups to
To complicate things even further, it has been suggested that _Ceratops_ may be
the same as _Avaceratops_ (i.e., that the type of _Avaceratops_ is a young
_Ceratops_). _Avaceratops_ has been considered a centrosaurine (e.g., Ryan
, in the description of _Albertaceratops_).
Considering the unstable position of _Ceratops_ (chasmosaurine, centrosaurine,
or outside both), it's a poor choice as an eponym. Therefore, it's probably
best to abandon Ceratopsinae - and perhaps abandon the name Ceratopsidae too.
_Ceratops_ is actually excluded from all proposed definitions of Ceratopsidae,
a clade which is anchored in _Triceratops_ and _Centrosaurus_ or
_Pachyrhinosaurus_. As Tom says, _Ceratops_ may fall outside of the
_Chasmosaurus_ + _Centrosaurus_ clade. In this case, Ceratopsidae would not
include _Ceratops_ itself.