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

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

Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk> erote:

> Mmm.. yes probably, but if we can get a good fix on exactly
> where the specimen was collected (which is possible,
> although it will require a bit more work on one of our
> current projects at the MOR), then given the
> stratigraphically restricted nature of dinosaur taxa, we
> could probably near-as-dammit say to which (other) taxon it
> belonged. Not ideal for sure, but a bit closer than "we'll
> never know".

Great point.  Topotypic material might be useful, although upholding the name 
_Ceratops montanus_ might still require a switch in type material and 
designation of a neotype.  The current type material for _C. montanus_ is 
certainly non-diagnostic at the genus or species level, and that is unlikely to 

> As someone who works on ceratopsids, some discussion on the
> clade name is pertinent, since I suspect we are starting to
> get to the point where pre chasmosaurine-centrosaurine taxa
> split taxa (other than Zuniceratops et al, which are way way
> back in the spiky past) are beginning to be recognised, or
> at least, are about to be discovered.

Hence the need for some clarity regarding what is or what is not a 
"ceratopsid".  Using _Ceratops_ as a specifier is only going to add to the 
confusion, because the current _C. montanus_ material could belong to a 
centrosaurine, a chasmosaurine, or to neither.