[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Ceratops analyzed in the Sampson et al. (2010) matrix
On Thu, 23/9/10, Michael Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Well, it found Torosaurus and Triceratops (and Nedoceratops) to be
> sister taxa. They were entered as separate OTUs, so their distinction
> was assumed by the authors. But being sister taxa in the cladogram is
> just as congruent with the hypothesis they're synonymous.
What's the bootstrap support? Unless it's high, then you effectively have a
> At worst,
> this could make Utahceratops a junior synonym of Ceratops.
Never gonna happen.
> As for Eoceratops, Longrich notes the long brow horns and hooked
> squamosal distinguish it from Chasmosaurus, but he doesn't say anything
> about comparison to Agujaceratops or other long-horned ceratopsines.
> Just because a specimen is juvenile is not a reason to ignore it as a
Given the poor track record of ceratopsians that have immature specimens as
theirholotypes (_Brachyceratops_, _Monoclonius_), then I think we have strong
grounds to regard _Eoceratops_ as a nomen dubium.
Just to be clear... I'm not arguing that ALL genera based on juvenile/immature
specimens should be dismissed as nomina dubia. Otherwise _Apatosaurus_ would
be sunk in favor of _Brontosaurus_. Hmmm... now there's an idea. ;-)