[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)
Paul P <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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,
Yep, _Ceratops_ may indeed be "near the root of Centrosaurinae+Chasmosaurinae".
But is _Ceratops_ inside or outside this clade? This is what I'm driving at.
Because unless _Ceratops_ is actually *within* the
Centrosaurinae+Chasmosaurinae clade, then it is NOT a ceratopsid. In other
words, to qualify as a ceratopsid, _Ceratops_ must lie inside the clade
specified by _Triceratops_ and _Centrosaurus_ (or _Pachyrhinosaurus_, depending
on whose definition of Ceratopsidae you use).
_Triceratops_ is a chasmosaurine, and _Centrosaurus_ and _Pachyrhinosaurus_ are
centrosaurines. Thus, you cannot have either a non-chasmosaurine ceratopsid or
a non-centrosaurine ceratopsid. So there cannot be a "basal ceratopsid" that
does not belong to either the Chasmosaurinae or Centrosaurinae.