Re: New Ceratopian

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Matt Martyniuk wrote:

> Would this make the genus _Microceratops_ a nomen dubium, or are more
> species known?

If Sereno is right, and _Microceratops gobiensis_ is an invalid species, 
then _Microceratops_ is indeed a nomen dubium on account of the fact that 
the type species (_M. gobiensis_) is invalid.  If other species are known, 
and they are shown to be valid, then they cannot remain in the genus 
_Microceratops_.  This shouldn't be a problem for _Microceratops_, since the 
other species (_M. sulcidens_) seems a little iffy as well.


> I know of _M. sulcidens_, is this still considered the same
> as _M. gobiensis_?

Someone (and I can't remember who - was it Nessov?) transferred _M. 
sulcidens_ to the genus _Asiaceratops_, as the new combination _A. 
sulcidens_ (Bohlin, 1953).  _Asiaceratops salsopaludalis_ Nessov, 
Kaznyshkina & Cherepanov, 1989, the type species of _Asiaceratops_, is quite 
possibly not a valid species.  Back to square one.


Tim



------------------------------------------------------------


Dr Timothy J. Williams
USDA/ARS, Agronomy Hall
Iowa State University
Ames IA 50014

Phone: 515 294 9233
Fax:   515 294 3163

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com