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
This article 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
I'd defer to editors with more dinosaur expertise than I have, but the description in the lead as this being "primitive ceratopsian dinosaur genus" (which also appears on some lists, such as Paleobiota of the Hell Creek Formation seems wrong or at least misleading. This was one of the last ceratopsian dinosaurs on earth, the product of millions of years of ceratopsian evolution, so it was hardly a primitive form. It seems like it would be more accurate to describe it as being a "ceratopsian dinosaur genus with features similar to primitive forms" or perhaps even a "ceratopsian dinosaur genus with primitive features". Rlendog (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primitive features is what makes it primitive. FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like "a ceratopsian dinosaur genus that is a late-surviving member of a primitive lineage" would be better? "Basal" is more precise but probably too technical, and also needs more context to make any sense. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
