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

Re: Ceratops (was RE: Glishades ericksoni, ...)

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:
> It depends on what the agreed upon definition of Ceratopsidae is to be. If
> it is (for example) Centrosaurus + Chasmosaurus, than Ceratops might well
> be a non-ceratopsid. If instead Ceratopsidae is defined as Ceratops +
> Centrosaurus + Chasmosaurus, than it would be included by definition, but
> might be outside Chasmosaurus > Centrosaurus and Centrosaurus >
> Chasmosaurus.

Probably the best solution, since both relevant nomenclatural codes
(ICZN and the draft PhyloCode) require Ceratops montanus to be within
Ceratopsidae by definition. It does have one little drawback, and
that's that it potentially leaves Clade(Centrosaurus + Chasmosaurus)
without a name.

T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies
Glendale, California