[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
> > That may be largely true, but it's certainly not unanimous.
> > For example, Peter Dodson's book _The Horned Dinosaurs_ uses
> > Ceratopsinae throughout.
> And Paul Sereno (who certainly qualifies as a ceratopsian
> expert, given his
> association with Psittacosaurus in particular) uses
Good points, although Peter Dodson also co-authored the
chapter in Dinosauria 2nd Ed. which came out more recently
than The Horned Dinosaurs (and which uses Chasmosaurinae).
In any case, Ceratopsinae may not be the best name for
Chasmosaurines (this is mixed up, isn't it?) because, as
noted earlier, Ceratops is quite possibly a basal form.
Plus, there are Centrosaurines with prominent brow horns.
On the other hand, a stable nomenclature is also important,
as long as everyone knows what you're talking about. The
problem is that our best-fit trees evolve as more new taxa
(and better specimens of established taxa) are recovered.
> 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 it Centrosauridae...?
Nah. Ceratopsidae is a great name for that clade because,
again, Ceratops is likely a basal form, i.e. near the root
of Centrosaurinae + Chasmosaurinae, and it's also the
root in many existing ceratopsid generic names, e.g.
Triceratops, Avaceratops, Arrhinoceratops, etc., not all
of which are Chasmosaurine/Ceratopsine.