Re: [dinosaur] Fwd: Party like it's 1758!

[Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com>]

On Monday, June 29, 2020, 05:50:43 AM UTC, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Indeed.  It's worth adding that a name (such as _Styracosaurus ovatus_) is 
attached to a certain specimen (the holotype).  So the name goes wherever that 
specimen goes.  As everyone knows (especially Paul), _Styracosaurus ovatus_ is 
a current example of changing
taxonomy...


Wow, I had downloaded Wilson et al. (2020) but hadn't got around to reading it 
yet and didn't realize that 11869 had been referred back to Styracosaurus. 

Certainly possible that R. ovatus is better considered S. ovatus (as it used to 
be) and not a distinct genus, although there is some degree of subjectivity 
there. I mean, based on this cladistic analysis, is Nasutoceratops then a 
species of Avaceratops..? (Don't ask me--I'm focused on ankylosaurs these 
days.) Is Pentaceratops a species of Chasmosaurus..? (possibly.) Magnirostris 
dodsoni might better be considered a species of Bagaceratops but is almost 
certainly not conspecific with rozhdestvenskyi, so again it's the generic 
question. 

I don't think characters such as "P4 processes (spikes) less than half as long 
as P3" are overly convincing when based on a single specimen, i.e. MOR 492. 
Anyone want to take bets on how long "Stellasaurus" will last? 

Also a good point that species are tied to holotypes.

    Paul P.