Monoclonius

[Stang1996@aol.com]

<<>I've become rather confused about the status of Monoclonius. It doesn't
seem
>so long ago that some authors were trying their hardest to put Avaceratops,
>Brachyceratops etc into Monoclonius, but recent postings to this list
>suggest strongly that Monoclonius species are likely to be juveniles of
>other ceratopian species. So, just what is the current position? If
>Monoclonius is juvenile of other unknown species, is Monoclonius retained as
>a genus until the "unknowns" are identified; does it become a nomen dubium,
>or what? And why the change? Is it due to new material, or re-investigation
>of old stuff (after all, Monoclonius material has been around for a long
>time)?

_Monoclonius_ is retained as a separate but indeterminate genus in subfamily
Pachyrhinosaurinae (other people's Centrosaurinae). Because of its antiquity,
it has priority over virtually every other genus in the family. Scott Sampson
tells me that none of the species presently referred to _Monoclonius_ is
based on determinate material; they're all _nomina dubia_.>>

Or, to us generic lumpers (I lump genera, but split species and families) it
could mean that the entire subfamily Centrosaurinae or Eucentrosaurinae or
Pachyrhinosaurinae (or whatever you wish to call it) could be sunk into the
genus _Monoclonius_, though the type species would probably be _appertus_
(from _(Eu)Centrosaurus_).  There however would be subgenera; none of them
being _Monoclonius_ though (don't you love this?).  Actually _Brachyceratops_
and _Avaceratops_ wouldn't be subgenera either.  But then the subfamilial
name would have to be changed to Monocloninae (don't you love this?).  This
is _Hadrosaurus_ all over again!

Peter Buchholz
Stang1996@aol.com

Don't you love this?