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

Re: The Kosmoceratops-Utahceratops cladogram



On 22 September 2010 22:41, T. Michael Keesey <keesey@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> As PLoS ONE's figure and pdf server are currently down, for those who just
>> can't wait for the phylogenetic punchline, here it is:
>>
>> Ceratopsidae
>> |--Centrosaurinae
>> `--Chasmosaurinae
>>   |--Chasmosaurus
>>   |  |--Chasmosaurus belli
>>   |  `--Chasmosaurus russelli
>>   `--+--Mojoceratops perifania
>>      `--+--Agujaceratops mariscalensis
>>         `--+--+--Pentaceratops sternbergii
>>            |  `--Utahceratops gettyi
>>            `--+--Coahuilaceratops magnacuerna
>>               `--+--+--Kosmoceratops richardsoni
>>                  |  `--Vagaceratops irvinensis
>>                  `--+--Anchiceratops orantus
>>                     `--+--Arrhinoceratops brachyops
>>                        `--+--Eotriceratops xerinsularis
>>                           |--Ojoceratops fowleri
>>                           `--+--+--Torosaurus latus
>>                              |  `--Torosaurus utahensis
>>                              `--+--Nedoceratops hatcheri
>>                                 `--+--Triceratops horridus
>>                                    `--Triceratops prorsus
>>
>> Or, depending how lumpy you want it, the last 5 species can be "Triceratops
>> horridus"...
>
> Thanks!
>
> So ... why three new generic names when it seems like only one is
> needed (i.e., why not Pentaceratops gettyi and either Vagaceratops
> richardsoni or Kosmoceratops irvinensis)?

For exactly the same reasons as usual, of course.

The pragmatic one: when the next phylogenetic analysis comes along and
recovers the new taxa in different positions, we won't have to change
their names.

Uninomials, people!  Even if they have spaces in the middle!

-- Mike.