[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
Paul P <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> _Ceratops_ is actually excluded from
> all proposed definitions of Ceratopsidae
> ? If so, that's only because it's a nomen dubium.
Exactly. There's no doubt that _Ceratops_ was excluded from the phylogenetic
definition of Ceratopsidae for good reason. Irrespective of whether _Ceratops_
is a nomen dubium (i.e., the type material is non-diagnostic at the genus
level), the fragmentary nature of the material makes _Ceratops_ a very poor
taxon to define a clade with.
However, because _Ceratops_ may not even belong to the
Chasmosaurinae+Centrosaurinae clade (Ceratopsidae), _Ceratops_ is also a poor
choice to name this clade after. If we can't be sure that _Ceratops_ belongs
in Ceratopsidae (and we can't), then why call this clade Ceratopsidae at all?
> Btw, "Ceratopsinae" is not used by ceratopsian experts.
> already and always have used Chasmosaurinae. See
> Dinosaur Systematics, etc.
Yes. My beef is more with Ceratopsidae, a taxon that (despite being named
after a dubious genus) does have general acceptance. Perhaps we should re-name
> As for Ceratops, it may indeed be Avaceratops (or vice
> actually), but that's impossible to demonstrate because
> Ceratops only includes two horncores and an OC, and as
> Tom pointed out, there are other taxa with similar PO
> horn morphology (though only one or two).
Yes, the name _Ceratops montanus_ is really only kept alive for bookkeeping
reasons. On any objective analysis, _Ceratops_ is a nomen dubium.