RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico

[Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>]

I count 15 new ceratopsian taxa named in 2010, including 
the new genus for S. ovatus. Has anyone plotted the number 
of taxa named annually over the past 130 years or so..? 
I suspect you will see a huge spike in 2010, which in and 
of itself suggests some sort of anomaly. It's almost as if 
people are going out of their way to name new taxa to try 
to influence the trike-toro issue (or something). I tend 
to agree with Denver that things are oversplit. And i'm 
a splitter. 


--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from New Mexico
> To: "Denver Fowler" <df9465@yahoo.co.uk>, 
> Dinosaur.Mailing.List@listproc.usc.edu
> Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 6:50 AM
> 
> 1. Presentations at SVP should not be cited, and I'm sure
> the views espoused by Scanella and Horner in conference and
> print will be fully expanded upon in the future.
> 
> 2. It is problematic to argue that you see intermediates
> "everywhere" when the paper used to support the conversion
> of *Torosaurus* to *Triceratops* fails to do so in an
> explicit, provable manner:
> 
> a. Scannella and Horner do not differentiate specific
> variation, but rather use generic lumping, and extend this
> to species without explanation or data.
> 
> b. Tabulated variation and text in Scannella and Horner
> show a marked distinction between "Torosaurus" and
> "Triceratops" morphologies, with LITTLE overlapping
> specimens. When present, said overlapping specimens are
> considered "unusual" or "aberrant" but rather than
> demonstrative of the argument against which Scannella and
> Horner appear to be arguing.
> 
> c. Variation on a specific level is never quantified,
> permitting the reviewer the ability to follow a logical
> progression. Instead, the authors promote the view of
> generic condensation, and apply the specimens to this
> without providing a means of testing it.
> 
> TL;DR: Two people arguing that "my taxon is unique, yours
> isn't" 
> 
> 
> 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: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:19:02 +0000
> > From: df9465@yahoo.co.uk
> > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > Subject: Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from
> New Mexico
> >
> > It's astonishing how many of "Titanoceratops"'s
> characters are known to vary
> > (strongly) ontogenetically; I see no reason to split
> off the OMNH Pentaceratops
> > into a new genus and species: it is entirely
> consistent with being a mature
> > Pentaceratops. Should we be splitting up all the
> ceratopsid growth series into
> > different taxa? They certainly have different
> morphologies, but then that's
> > because animals change as they grow.
> >
> > I am coming ever closer to the view that we're going
> to see a schism in dinosaur
> > science; at least in ceratopsid workers, with one side
> splitting all ontogenetic
> > and stratigraphic morphs into different taxa, and the
> other studying ontogenetic
> > shifts through time. Taxa are testable hypotheses
> using ontogenetic and
> > stratigraphic data. if you are just using morphology,
> then it's a judgement
> > call, and not much different from the way taxonomy was
> conducted 100 years ago.
> >
> > I can't see it is possible to continue with one side
> trying to convince the
> > other: look at Longrich's discussion of
> Triceratops-Torosaurus. I hesitate to
> > call Triceratops-Torosaurus a complex problem (I think
> it actually simplifies
> > things), but Longrich goes into such little detail it
> feels very dismissive.
> > Saying that there are no interme
uamosals and other parts of
> the skull. Why don't we
> > find some parietals with tiny fenestrae (ie.
> intermediates)? because that's not
> > how the fenestrae form, and if you read the papers and
> look at specimens, you'll
> > see it. New specimens are revealing more data on this;
> but be patient, we
> > collected so many new Triceratops (with the essential
> strat data) it takes time
> > to prep them all. It is much more parsimonious if
> Torosaurus is Triceratops: so
> > many of the weird biogeographic and stratigraphic
> trends that we see fall into
> > place.
> >
> > To be fair this paper was submitted before Scannella
> presented at SVP, and other
> > talks at SVP (including mine) show some of the
> conclusions here to be invalid.
> > Triceratopsins in the Campani
> > e my full critique of this paper for elsewhere.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> > Denver Fowler
> > df9465@yahoo.co.uk
> > http://www.denverfowler.com
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Tim Williams 
> > To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> > Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 4:09:52
> > Subject: Re: Titanoceratops, giant ceratopsian from
> New Mexico
> >
> > > In case this new advance publication paper has
> not been mentioned yet:
> > >
> > > Nicholas R. Longrich (2010) Titanoceratops
> ouranous, a giant horned dinosaur
> > >from the
> > > Late Campanian of New Mexico. Cretaceous Research
> (advance online publication)
> > > doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2010.12.007
> >
> >
> > There seems to be a discrepancy in the spelling of the
> species name
> > between the title of the paper (ouranous) and the body
> of the paper
> > (ouranos), with the former having an extra (and
> unnecessary) 'u'.
> > Something to correct before final publication. BTW,
> the inspiration
> > for the species name is Ouranos, the father of the
> Titans in Greek
> > mythology. This is the same dude that gives his name
> to the planet
> > Uranus. Apparently, the etymology is not the same as
> that of
> > _Ourano
('ourane'), and is cognate with 'varanus'.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, back to _Titanoceratops_ (cool name, IMHO).
> Aside from
> > erecting a new genus for an erstwhile _Pentaceratops_
> specimen, the
> > paper puts forward a few more taxonomic changes
> vis-a-vis
> > _Triceratops_. The referral of _Torosaurus_ to
> _Triceratops_ is
> > explicitly rejected; a separate diagnosis is provided
> for each, and
> > the "absence of intermediate forms argues that the two
> are not part of
> > an ontogenetic series." On the other hand,
> _Nedoceratops_
> > (=_Diceratops_) and _Ojoceratops_ are referred to
> _Triceratops_ as
> > junior synonyms. For the latter: "the broad,
> squared-off end of the
> > squamosal, putatively a diagnostic feature of
> â_Ojoceratops_â is
> > approached by at least one specimen of _Triceratops_
> (_Triceratops
> > âserratusâ_, AMNH 970)." So I guess _Ojoceratops_
> is the problem.
> > more so t
> > an _T. serratus_, which I assume is safe inside
> > _Triceratops_. The status of another new genus,
> _Tatankaceratops_, is
> > given as "problematic". It "preserves a bizarre
> mixture of characters
> > seen in juvenile and adult _Triceratops_", so the
> specimen is either
> > an aberrant _Triceratops_ that stopped growing before
> reaching full
> > size, or a dwarf triceratopsin species. I wouldn't be
> surprised if
> > more taxonomic convulsions are in stall for the
> Triceratopsini.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
>     
>         
>           
>