Talk:Nedoceratops

Stub

I'm removing the stub category for this. It seems very thorough. Anybody who thinks I'm wrong should just add it back on.

Devotchka 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pre-occupation of the name Diceratops

The Nomenclator Zoologicus entry for Diceratops (http://www.ubio.org/NZ/search.php?search=Diceratops&quickSearch=QuickSearch&selectall=Check+All&colname=on&colcategory=on&colauthority=on&colcomments=on&page=&vol=) shows that Diceratops Hatcher vide Lull, 1905 is pre-occupied by Diceratops Förster, 1868 (a ichneumonid hymenopteran insect). Because Diceratops is pre-occupied, put Diceratops in quotes, and a replacement name will assigned. I guess that the replacement name for Diceratops will be Diploceratops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Original research, unfortunately. Ubless the fact that Diceratops is preoccupied is published somewhere, it's not our place to point that out here. Dinoguy2 05:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Relationship to Triceratops

It looks like there is some evidence that Nedoceratops might in fact be some stage in the life of Triceratops. Though till we get stronger evidence, its probably better to keep them separate, we might wanna mention the possibility somewhere. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/22/new-study-says-torosaurustriceratops/ 71.234.123.137 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• New paper, not sure what the conclusion is: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081608 FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make definitive conclusions about Nedoceratops, but at least argues that Triceratops and Torosaurus are distinct, valid taxa. I've added its findings to the article, along with another arguing that all three are Triceratops.--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ceratopsia or Ceratopsidae

The description of Diceratops hatcheri was planned for Hatcher, Marsh, and Lull's monograph The Ceratopsia. The article currently says that it was planned for a monograph on the Ceratopsidae. The monograph treats animals that are currently classified in the Ceratopsidae, whereas Ceratopsia refers to a broader group which includes Ceratopsidae. That being said, it is titled The Ceratopsia and throughout Marsh's writings, Ceratopsia is much more frequently used than Ceratopsidae. I think it would be better to refer to it in this article as the Monograph on the Ceratopsia as this is the actual title and not inaccurate, although it is limited to a subgroup of the Ceratopsia. But I'm putting this on the talk page because I want to hear other people's thoughts before making the edit. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ceratopsia is probably more correct, but its important to note that when it was published, the only ceratopsians known were ceratopsids so the alternative is not untrue. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)