Talk:Breviceratops

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breviceratops article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Synonymy with Bagaceratops

AFAIK, this taxon is now considered synonymous with Bagaceratops (by everybody now? I don't know). Thus, vote on whether redirect or just add to this page explaining controversy and plenty of links to Bagaceratops Cas Liber 09:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty late response, but yeah, it should be merged. Wasn't Gobiceratops maybe a synonym too? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on these things can shift pretty quickly. Will try to get an idea from the books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bagaceratops article says: "Juvenile remains, initially tentatively named Protoceratops kozlowskii, and then renamed Breviceratops kozlowskii by Kurzanov in 1990 are now felt to be juvenile Bagaceratops. Sereno (2000) explained this by extrapolating that the juvenile Breviceratops would grow into a mature Bagaceratops." FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good enough for a merge for me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googled a bit and found this: http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Sep/msg00382.html Seems like it is still a bit problematic, but it should certainly be mentioned in the affected articles, problem is I can't find the full citation for Sereno 2000... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]