RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico

[Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Augusto's idea is better expressed by latus being an indeterminate species of 
Triceratops.  I agree with Jaime you can't just throw a species away as 
"Triceratops incertae sedis" or "Triceratops indet." *cough Mochlodon cough*, 
but you can have Triceratops latus as a species which is not a definite synonym 
of another species, and is also not necessarily unique.  Not that I have an 
opinion on the actual Triceratops vs. Torosaurus issue.

Mickey Mortimer

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 14:50:42 -0700
> From: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> To: augustoharo@gmail.com; Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
> Subject: RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico
>
>
> Augusto Haro wrote:
>
>   
>
>   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.
>