Talk:Eoceratops

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Low‑importance This redirect 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 redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There appears to be an error with regard to the name Eoceratops. It is given as "Hatcher, 1905"; as far as I can tell the name was created by Lawrence Lambe in 1915.[1]RandomCritic (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lambe 1902 named Ceratops canadensis. In Hatcher 1905 created the new genus Eoceratops for the species. So the species is Eoceratops canadensis (Lambe 1902) and the genus is Eoceratops Hatcher 1905. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's what it says in the article, but what's the source? In his 1915 article, Lambe calls Eoceratops a genus novum (meaning it had not been created before) and says that Hatcher called the dinosaur Ceratops in 1907 (not 1905), and that he (Lambe) had first assigned it to Monoclonius, not Ceratops. Is Lambe totally wrong? RandomCritic (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is complex. As far as I've been able to determine the sequence is : Monoclonius canadensis Lambe 1902; = Ceratops canadensis (Lambe 1902) Hatcher vide Stanton & Hatcher 1905; = Eoceratops canadensis (Lambe 1902) Lambe 1915; = Chasmosaurus canadensis (Lambe 1902) Lehman 1990. So Lambe did create a genus nova but was incorrect in assuming that Hatcher (1907) was the first occurrence of Ceratops canadensis.--MWAK (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why is this article a stub? seems pretty unstubby to me Clone commando sev (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]