![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Specimens
editThe way I read the new PLOS article is that only one of the juvenile specimens previously referred to Brachyceratops can safely be referred to Rubeosaurus, and it is not the holotype, USNM 7951, which figured in this article previously. About the holotype:
"As thoroughly explicated by Sampson et al. [29], the holotype (USNM 7951) and other specimens from the type quarry of Brachyceratops are juvenile centrosaurines. USNM 7951 exhibits an unfused nasal horncore, a feature concordant with juvenile status (Fig. 3A). Furthermore, the two well preserved partial parietals from the Brachyceratops quarry (USNM 7951 and 7950; Fig. 3B, C) are missing most of their caudal bars and do not display features that could be classified as incipient versions of the diagnostic epiparietal morphologies in the frills of adult Rubeosaurus, Einiosaurus, or Achelousaurus. Finally, no elements from the Brachyceratops quarry exhibit autapomorphies or a unique combination of characters by which the taxon could be diagnosed. Brachyceratops montanensis should therefore be considered a nomen dubium."
It appears that the only specimen of Brachyceratops that has been referred to Rubeosaurus in that paper is USNM 14765. Another specimen, MOR 492, is also referred to Rubeosaurus, but it does not seem to ever have been included in Brachyceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, the specimens from the 1913 quarry worked by Strayrer were not referred to Rubeosaurus. Of course, had they been referred that would have made Rubeosaurus a junior synonym, so in either case the pictures have their rightful place here ;o). I'll reinsert them, putting the painting in the taxobox because the skeleton picture is not clear enough, I think, to give the reader the necessary Gestalt imprint.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)