Defining the Ceratop[s]idae

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

I wrote:

<<... it might be more supportable for a new family to
be coined for Chasmo and Centro, despite previous
definition and diagnoses of these as Ceratopidae.
Thusfar, we could get a new "Chasmosauridae" for this
clade, and name the node that supports Zuni +
Chasmo.>>

Jon Wagner [znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU; I don't know, I read
the handle, I see "14 *Zanclodon*"] wrote:

<Actually, Ceratopsidae == { _Triceratops_ +
_Centrosaurus_ }, so that would be the chasmo+centro
node. Indeed, according to Sereno, Ceratopsiane == {
_Triceratops_ > _Centrosaurus_ } (contrary to DeQ&G's
suggestion concerning type taxa), so Ceratopsinae
would not include _Ceratops_!>

and Dinogeorge [dinogeorge@aol.com] wrote:

<Ceratopsidae: Pachyrhinosaurus, Triceratops, their
most recent common 
ancestor and all descendants.

Ceratopsinae: All ceratopsids closer to Triceratops
than to Pachyrhinosaurus.

Note that if Triceratops is outside "Chasmosaurinae,"
this definition of Ceratopsinae might exclude the
chasmosaurines from the subfamily. And even the genus
Ceratops, such as it is.>

  Mike Keesey [tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu] also pointed out
the taxonomic tumble here for me, but I lost the
email.

  The joys of taxonomy in favoring which method or
system you would like to use when coining names, PT or
ICZN systems. On this, I have the following to say:
use of priority in naming is very strong and I feel
this should be obeyed regardless of PT, simply due to
the reduction in confusion, misleading publication,
etc. and the problems that would arise from such a
system should there be no prioritized method.

  Meanwhile, PT is useful in the coinage means by
allowing a "free form" in distinguishing nodes and
stems (per G&DeQ) without the hassles that resulted in
the mess of Titanosauriformes taxonomy.

  Establishment of "family" and "class" and "order"
level taxa should be free of these labels, and even
the supplementary taxonomic indicators of rank;
however, some of these indicators [-formes,
-morph(-a/-es), -oidea, -idae, -inae, -ini] are so
imbedded that they should be allowed, and can be
defined simply by the following method: an ini
includes at least two anchor "genera" [homage, Jon],
an inae includes two ini or more, or an ini and a
"genus" or more, etc. in siccesion, without having
"ranks", and these can be modified into [comb. nov.]
without violating PT or ICZN rules (such as I know
them).

  I'm not sure about this, and I really should sit
down and work this out to present better -- like, when
I've got more time.

  As for the spelling of the "-ops" taxa in combining
names, someone should really appeal to the ICZN on the
matter, and see what results. Make a good case for it.
Personally, with the [s] is easier to say, as a
silibant makes the word "flow," and it's absence more
labial and fricative, to many abrubt stops between
syllables. Just from an auric point of "view."

--------

Philidor11 [philidor11@snet.net] wrote to point out an
error in my previous post, where I misspelled
*Anchiceratops* with *Anchisaurus*:

<I had thought that anchisaurs were prosauropods,
ancestral to sauropods (or
not, as one must always hasten to add in
paleontology). Or was this that promised change I
heard was coming on anchisaurs.>

  Thanks for the heads up, Brian.


=====
Jaime "James" A. Headden

"Come the path that leads us to our fortune."

Qilong---is temporarily out of service.
Check back soon.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com