Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico

[Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk>]

----- Original Message ----

From: Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>

>  My statements are consistent with a generalistic response to yours, 
> including 
>the theroies on the taxonomy of the "*Triceratops* complex" os "species" and 
>the 
>genus usage being employed by various authors. You are entirely incorrect when 
>you assume that I "don't like the Tor=Trike hypothesis," as I've never said 
>anything of the sort. What I've argued, here and elsewhere, has dealt with the 
>particulars of the argument, not the end result -- reiterating this gets 
>tiresome. It is not that difficult to "get" that an hypothesis can be wrong 
>even 
>if its result can be rightly conceived, as long as it is poorly arrived at in 
>the present. Similarly, the use of said hypothesis to judge the utility of 
>splitting or lumping taxonomy (one of the cruxes of a complex matter here) is 
>illogical, as one literally has nothing to do with the other.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


 > My reply regarded specifically the issue of Scannella and Horner 

Right. When the thread is on titanoceratops, which you don;t seem to comment 
on, 
just a pet stab at the Trike-Toro paper.

>...(and your support in their work, and your involvement in as-yet unpublished 
>work) follows previous condemnation of preconcieved lumping advocated by the 
>authors including the [hypothetical] *Pachycephalosaurus* implosion. 
>

"preconceived lumping"? it was based on histologic analysis. It may not be 
correct, but I feel that it is closer to the correct result than the previous 
state of affairs (see later)

>That it is possible -- nay, likely -- for convergence to occur in close 
>lineages 
>is an issue for reconstruction of phylogeny, rather than presumptions of 
>phylogeny before the fact.

Is it more "likely"? based on what statistics? based on what concept of 
speciation? Vrba's work? has that been shown conclusively to be the model for 
dinosaurs? Are there examples of closely related contemporaneous dino species 
that are convergent? How sure a



> Making statements about how some features (such as the criticism leveled at 
> the 
>*Torosaurus*/*Triceratops* issue -- ignoring the *latus*/*prorsus*/*horridus* 
>problem horrifically ignored by various authors) are less meaningful (again, 
>on 
>both sides) shows that the debate is based on a pre-concieved, _a priori_ 
>assumption of the end result, a lumping versus splitting mentality.

jeez. it was necessary to sink toro in triceratops before addressing the 
species 
issue, which is separate, no matter how often you keep saying it isn't. You 
know 
we have a paper coming that sheds light on this issue. Simply put: this is the 
scientific process! Torosaurus = triceratops is a necessary logical step in 
order to solve other problems! As we learn more about the ontogeny and 
stratigraphy, so the various different morphs of triceratops make more sense. 
You seem to think it should all be in one paper, but the science didn't evolve 
that way. if you did any research yourself, you'd understand that key concepts 
lead to further understanding: it doesn't all come at once.

 > This has NOTHING to do with my personal thoughts on the existence of a 
separate "generic" entity called *Torosaurus* (which I've never stated in any 
forum, nor spoken to anyone on a personal level). This has to do with 
lumping/splitting -- and the presumption that stratigraphy has a splitter 
effect 
on species.


What? stratigraphy has a splitter effect how?