RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico

[Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>]

Augusto Haro wrote:

  <But, in case you cannot refer Torosaurus latus to either Triceratops prorsus 
or T. horridus (suppose you cannot differentiate the old adults of these two, 
perhaps because of lack of old adults in one), there is also the theoretical 
possibility you can refer it to Triceratops as incertae sedis.>

  The ICZN (or any other Code) lacks anything about "incertae sedis." This is a 
bit of wishy-washy nomenclature dreamt up when some authors felt it easier to 
flub their contemporaries by subsuming named taxa without using said 
nomenclature. If *Torosaurus latus* (the species) is a member of a clade called 
*Triceratops*, and we accept that this clade is a genus, there are only two 
options: *Torosaurus latus* must be a species OF *Triceratops*, where A) it is 
a junior synonym of an established species, or B) is an additional, unique 
species alongside other established species.

  Note, again, that this argument is strictly nomenclatural. I do not think the 
authors have established yet an explicit species concept by which to compare or 
evaluate a morphological find (although I suspect, as has been alluded to, they 
may in the future).

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)





----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:55:54 -0300
> Subject: Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico
> From: augustoharo@gmail.com
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: df9465@yahoo.co.uk; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
>
> 2010/12/31 Jaime Headden :
> >
> >   In short, unless you explicitly synonymize *Torosaurus latus* with a 
> > specific taxon, *latus* is a distinct entity and will continue to tromp 
> > around; and unless you manage to create a genericometer by which I can 
> > determine that only one GENUS is really present, along with a method to 
> > determine -- scientifically, mind -- that only two species are present, I 
> > may still have leisure to call *latus* by a name other than *Triceratops*, 
> > and the synonymy argued by Scannella and Horner is meaningless.
> >
> But, in case you cannot refer Torosaurus latus to either Triceratops
> prorsus or T. horridus (suppose you cannot differentiate the old
> adults of these two, perhaps because of lack of old adults in one),
> there is also the theoretical possibility you can refer it to
> Triceratops as incertae sedis. This would hold in case you cannot find
> distinctions which are not ontogenetic with the previously accepted
> Triceratops species (although one may suppose that if there are
> non-ontogenetic differences between the Triceratops species,
> Torosaurus would have to -specially- resemble one of these species
> more than the other), and you want to keep the genus Triceratops for
> the two mentioned species.