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

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

T. Michael Keesey <keesey@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree in that case it would be useless as a
> specifier for that clade.  My point is that we need to
> determine if it is a member of that clade, and if it is,
> then I would advocate using it as an internal specifier.

Easier said than done, Mike.  :-)

I still don't understand why all this effort is preferable to simply abandoning 
the name (Ceratopsidae) altogether.  Like I said previously: it's a lost cause.

> The catch is that if you don't include Ceratops montanus in
> the definition, then you can't call it "Ceratopsidae" without
> contradicting the nomenclatural codes. The ICZN doesn't
> permit it (Ceratops montanus is the only species it includes by
> definition--anything else is up to the taxonomist), and the
> PhyloCode (when it's implemented) won't permit it, either.

Exactly.  So we might as well get used to the idea of a world without 
Ceratopsidae.  We'll still have Ceratopsia and Neoceratopsia and maybe 
Ceratopsomorpha, though.  So it ain't all bad.  (Although Ceratopsoidea might 
have to go.)

> I can't think of any other existing names for the clade,
> though. (Did Cope or someone of his time propose another?)

Centrosauridae and Chasmosauridae are both available, although I'm not sure 
which one would have priority.  Both names are attributable to Lambe (1915), 
when he erected the respective subfamilies.