RE: Diceratops

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Christopher Taylor wrote:

> Ideally, a
> replacement name should be coined as part of a review of the genus in
> question. Note that _Diceratops_ only requires a replacement name if it
> is regarded as a valid genus (no point in coining a new name if it's
> never going to be used), which in this case is a whole different
> cauldron of mullet.

The _Diceratops_ homonymy thing has been kicking around the 'net for a while 
now.  Like _Ingenia_ and _Microceratops_, this issue is still unresolved (as 
Chris mentioned).

Forster thought _Diceratops_ was a valid genus (Forster, 1996) and unless a 
more up-to-date review is in the works, the honor of re-naming the genus 
should perhaps go to her.   (Ironically, the senior homonym was named by 
someone named Foerster!)  I'd rather it be a paleontologist that gets the 
opportunity to provide a new name, rather than an entomologist.  No offense 
- some of my best friends are entomologists - but the entire 
_Syntarsus_/_Megapnosaurus_ thing doesn't need repeating.

_Diceratops_ Hatcher can't be re-named _Biceratops_ - that name is taken (by 
a trilobite).  Perhaps it is poetic justice that the name _Diceratops_ is 
preoccupied - the beast probably did have a nasal horn in life.

It's amazing how many non--ceratopsian genera end in -ceratops.  I've 
already mentioned _Microceratops_ (another pesky insect) and I'm not sure if 
_Microceratops_ Seyrig, 1952 is valid.  Besides, Sereno believes 
_Microceratops_ is a nomen dubium, and it's effectively been replaced by 
_Graciliceratops_.  There's also _Tetraceratops_, _Megaceratops_, 
_Bolboceratops_, _Cyphoceratops_ and _Camptoceratops_.

Cheers

Tim