Triceratops Classification

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

After researching (which is supposed to clear up confusion) I became very confused with the classification of the triceratops genus. Everything I read contradicts the previously read one. I found these two options:
1) Triceratops  is a genus of chasmosaurine, (which would make no sense with the solid frill) and ceratopsinae is not valid.
B) Triceratops, eotriceratops, and other related solid-frilled genera were ceratopsines, since most chasmosaurines have extremely elongated  frills with large fenestrae.
For this, I am planning on ignoring the toroceratops idea, because young chasmosaurus had large fenestrae in their frills.
Does anyone have any thoughts?

[Gwangi]

Triceratops was a genus in the sub-family Chasmosaurinae within the family Ceratopsidae.  Chasmosaurinae are known to have had long frills and prominent brow horns. Ceratopsinae is another sub-family with only one known genus, Ceratops. Not enough material exists for Ceratops to be of much importance. Fenestrae have nothing to do with the classification of ceratopsians as both families have them.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

Since ceratops is known only from horns, people have no knowledge of any fenestrae. I do not see why triceratops is classified as a chasmosaurine because of its short, and solid frill. If triceratops is not a ceratopsine, then it still doesn't seem to fit inside chasmosaurinae. It makes no sense for an animal to evolve from having an ornate, frill with large fenestrae to something which is smaller and less impressive. However, I am no professional and there is probably a logical explanation for triceratops being a chasmosaurine.

[Dinoguy2]

Um... Chasmosaurinae and Ceratopsinae are the same thing, like Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus. The reason Chasmosaurine, the newer name, is used more nowadays is because the older name, Ceratopsinae, is based on the genus Ceratops, which is a nomen dubnium and may be a more primitive ceratopsid.

Everybody agrees Triceratops is a very advanced Chasmosaurine that lost the holes in its frill. Alternately, it may be a juvenile of a hole-frilled chasmosaurine (Torosaurus). We don't really have any other juvenile chamsosaurines to see if the holes are present only in adults or not.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

That makes a lot of sense, being an advanced chasmosaurine. I never thought of that. I didn't see many similarities to other chasmosaurines, one of which is the lack of ornamentation on the frill, where even pentaceratops had more.

[Eriorguez]

That's because it may be a juvenile! Not to mention that, even taking Torosaurus out of the equation, older specimens have smoother frill edges. So, one can speculate and think they paid more attention to coloration and patterns that to spiky edges.

[Dinoguy2]

That makes a lot of sense, being an advanced chasmosaurine. I never thought of that. I didn't see many similarities to other chasmosaurines, one of which is the lack of ornamentation on the frill, where even pentaceratops had more.

Triceratops doesn't have frill ornamentation? What do you call these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops_skull_frills.jpg