[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Andrew McDonald response re: European iguanodonts
Jaime Headden <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think there's a good reason for not using *Ceratopsidae*, as *Ceratops
> montanus* may not fall in the classic formulation *Ceratopsidae* is used for.
> If we associated *Ceratopsidae* to enforce
> inclusion of its nominative taxon, it increases or decreases from its classic
> (and _currently defined_ -- however useful that is) content, but the crap
> that is the holotype lacks this quality of surety.
> *Ceratopsidae* including only *Ceratops montanus* (it's strictest use) is
> wildly divergent from its classic formulation (and definition). This is in
> defiance of the concept of "stability" that taxonomy
> is supposed to be moving toward.
There's been a lot if jiggery-pokery to keep _Ceratops_ alive as a
valid genus, simply (and solely) because it is the name-bearing genus
for Ceratopsidae. However, I have to admit that Mickey provided a
moderately convincing case that _Ceratops montanus_ might actually be
diagnostic at the species level, based on a unique combination of
So I'm willing to give _Ceratops_ the benefit of the doubt; it might
not be a nomen dubium after all. Having said that, it's status is
borderline at best, so it's a poor choice to name any coordinated
family-level clade after (Ceratopsidae, Ceratopsinae). It certainly
does not contribute in a positive way to the concept of stability that
Jaime mentioned, which should be paramount. This is the reason why we
use Tyrannosauridae in preference to Deinodontidae.