Re: Status of Brachyceratops and S. ovatus??

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-01-31 13:19:13 EST, PATG@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA (Pat Grant
(Library: Serials Catalog) writes:

>As has been discussed, "Monoclonius" material is subadult and
>non-diagnostic.  The type material of Brachyceratops is juvenile, and
>probably not very diagnostic either.  There are some referred adult
>bits, supposedly from much the same stratum.  What is the current
>official status of all this stuff?

Brachyceratops still seems to be a valid genus. There was initially some
speculation that it is based on juvenile _Einiosaurus_ material (or, rather,
that _Einiosaurus_ is based on adult _Brachyceratops_ material), but this has
not proved to be the case.

>And what about Styracosaurus ovatus?  I encountered some speculation
>that it was referrable to something else (don't remember what)--is it
>still valid, referred, or anyone's guess?

This one also still seems to be a valid species of _Styracosaurus_.