Re: QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF BREVICERATOPS

[Randy King <randyk@ims.com>]

At 04:25 PM 1/20/98 EST, Tetanurae wrote:

>First off, the type skull of _Protoceratops_ is not complete, it is missing
>the rostrum and the frill, but fairly complete in other areas.  What is
>striking though is that the skull does not particularly resemble any other
>skull refered to _Protoceratops_: ie, the famous male/female morphs that
>everyone knows and loves as _Protoceratops_.

So where does one draw the line between such a morph and a different
species?