|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
Please take a look at the picture. I downloaded it from stock.exchng, and the caption there says: Torosaurus. A real torosaurus skull however has two large holes in the frill. So, could anyone tell us whether this is a Triceratops or some other dino. Still it's a cool pic, showing its nice frill. — Phlebas 20:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your doubts were justified: it's indeed a Triceratops :o).--MWAK 10:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Diabloceratops & Utahceratops
- To the best of my knowledge, they are not yet scientifically described, and should be left alone until then. Let's not jump the gun! J. Spencer (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the taxonmoy section's arrangement. It looks like some sort of hierarchy was being idicated, but there was no explanation. It certainly was not an evolutionary sequence. Anyway, it looks better without the staggarding. CFLeon 06:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Could be leftover from my early attempts at these taxonomies. I agree staggaring should only happen if preceeded by a valid taxon name.Dinoguy2 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
controversies and issues
Is it worth having a heading touching on controversies here eg. validity of Monoclonius and Brachyceratops (immature form of........what?), Agathaumas & Ceratops here or leave them on their respective pages? Cas Liber 09:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think those issues should be discussed on the more specific pages for individual genera. This page should discuss ceratopsians in general.Dinoguy2 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Chasmosaurinae vs Ceratopsinae
AFAIK, Lambe named the two subfamilies in 1915 Chasmosaurinae and Centrosaurinae. Why is it now Ceratopsinae? I wasn't aware of higher classifications automatically following on from their most senior genus. Cas Liber 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Can anyone please add a note to this article clarifying correct / current usage, why changed, etc? Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk)
- I can try to find one, but basically Ceratopsidae was named before either of those names, and by the ICZN rule of coordination all family names containing Ceratops must follow that name due to priority. The first author of one family-level name (such as -idae) is considered to have named all possible family level names (-oidea, -inae, -ini) at the same time even if they did not do so explicitly. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
descriptions of subfamilies and tribes
I guess it makes sense to have the subfamilies and tribes discussed at the end of this page rather than hive off to separate pages?Cas Liber 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Relationships of ceratopines
Remove the question mark next to Ceratops because, according to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=82, the horn cores of Ceratops are large in size and similar enough to Chasmosaurus to place Ceratops in Chasmosaurus. The PhyloCode will use Ceratops montanus as the specifier for Ceratopinae, once the new material of Ceratops from Colorado is described.
My provisional phylogeny divides Ceratopinae into two separate tribes: Chasmosaurini (Agujaceratops, Ceratops, Chasmosaurus, Dysagnus, Pentaceratops) and Torosaurini (Agathaumas, Anchiceratops, Arrhinoceratops, Diceratops, Polyonax, Torosaurus, Triceratops, Ugrosaurus).
- Ok, but since this is provisional, it should not be included. Published sources take priority whenever possible. As you didn't sign your message I'm not sure who you are, so if this information is published, please provide a citation, and it may be included. Sereno seems very certain of the chasmosaurine status of Ceratops, has this been published? Dinoguy2 05:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
My name is Vahe Demirjian.
- Only if this specimen has been described in print someplace other than a thesis... MMartyniuk (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Autochthony writes: at 2140Z 26 November 2011, several paragraphs in the article have been repeated, word for word. They are reasonably well-written, so I doubt I would 'improve' the article significantly by rewording the repeats. However, the repetitions do not improve this article. Perhaps an expert could expand - and, incidentally, reword them a little. That would be good. Autochthony wrote: 2145Z 26 November 2011. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)