Talk:Ceratopia

The following comment doesn't belong in the article, so I removed it. But User:66.206.236.187 has a valid point, so I tried to factor the essential bits in:
 * [The situation concerning Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus is not perfectly analogous, as it is Ceratopsia which has strict chronological priority, and there is presently no organization relgulating the usage of the names debated here.]

68.81.231.127 04:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I fear that the misunderstanding was caused by me: I had forgotten, while discussing this issue on the discussion page of Dinosaur, that the rules of the ICZN do not regard the names of groups above family-level. Still I would hold that it is preferable to apply these rules by analogy.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 15:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Slipped by me, too... and I prefer "Brontosaurus" :) 68.81.231.127


 * For an old geezer like me it will always be Brontosaurus :0).

MWAK--84.27.81.59 14:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feeling a bit confused, I consulted the rules again and found that while rule 29.3.1 indeed orders the correct formation of family names by deriving them from the genus name, rule 29.4 states that names published since 1999 are always to be considered correct, and rule 29.5 now protects names when there is a "prevailing usage", which probably means even CeratopSoidea, CeratopSidae en CeratopSinae are correct. Glad to be a cladist. ;>)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 09:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing confusion with Ceratopsia
This should be settled for once and for all. Please look at Talk:Ceratopsia. Phlebas 00:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other Incorrectly formed taxa names...
Isn't there a similar situation with Caudipteridae (should have been Caudipterygidae)? If we're correcting the grammar of taxon names here, should this be applied throught the dinosaur entries? Dinoguy2 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Preferably :o)--MWAK 09:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)