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

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Michael Mortimer
<mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Tim Williams wrote-
>
>> Hmmm... you know, I would have said the exact opposite. If a range of 
>> relationships is possible for _Ceratops_, including both *inside* and 
>> *outside* the Chasmosaurus+Centrosaurus clade being equally parsimonious, 
>> then it would seem to me that _Ceratops_ is utterly useless as a specifier.
>
> I agree in that case it would be useless as a specifier for that clade. ÂMy 
> 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.

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.

I can't think of any other existing names for the clade, though. (Did
Cope or someone of his time propose another?)
-- 
T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies
Glendale, California
http://tmkeesey.net/