'Vagaceratops' possibly a species of Chasmosaurus

[Halichoeres]

This study examines some new skulls from the Dinosaur Park Formation in Alberta, Canada, expanding the range of Vagaceratops irvinensis, such that it seems to overlap with both Chasmosaurus belli, and C. russelli, suggesting they all lived around the same time. Their phylogenetic analysis recovers Vagaceratops nested within Chasmosaurus, suggesting it is just another species in the same genus.

In the tree below, the black stars represent individuals in V./C. irvinensis, and all other specimens in the orange box represent various Chasmosaurus species. Biologists like genera to be monophyletic, so if this hypothesis holds up, the correct name would be Chasmosaurus irvinensis.



Open access in Vertebrate Anatomy Morphology Paleontology: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/vamp/index.php/VAMP/article/view/29356

[suspsy]

Well, I guess that's good news for the Canadian Museum of Nature given that they never bothered to change the labels on their displays in the first place!

[Shonisaurus]

That news comforts me. I have always complained about not having in my collection an acceptable chasmosaurus in my collection and now I realize from that news that vagaceratops and chasmosaurus is the same dinosaur. I'm glad Safari made a vagaceratops in its day and picked it up in its day.

[Dinoguy2]

That news comforts me. I have always complained about not having in my collection an acceptable chasmosaurus in my collection and now I realize from that news that vagaceratops and chasmosaurus is the same dinosaur. I'm glad Safari made a vagaceratops in its day and picked it up in its day.

I would definitely not say they're the same dinosaur. Even the two original species of Chasmosaurus are fairly different looking.

Remember: genera are all 100% fake. Species are only slightly better but as far as dinosaurs go, species are what matter.

[Halichoeres]

Quite so. Reassigning its genus doesn't change the animal's distinctiveness. It only changes its name.

[Funk]

It seems to hinge on its position to the two other Chasmosaurus species. If it turns out to be basal further on, it will probably stay in its own genus.

Also, there's a  whole different group of researchers who consider Vagaceratps closer to Kosmoceratops, so this isn't settled yet, it is an ongoing debate with various interpretations.

[Sim]

I think it's worth noting that this is another paper that considers "Mojoceratops" a synonym of Chasmosaurus russelli.  Personally, I don't find there's enough for me to consider Vagaceratops a species of Chasmosaurus.  It's different enough to deserve its own genus, at least if its position relative to other ceratopsians is unclear as @Funk mentioned.  I do support "Mojoceratops" actually being Chasmosaurus though, and think it shouldn't have its own genus in any case considering it forms a natural group with Chasmosaurus species and it's basically identical to Chasmosaurus russelli.  I also support Spinops and Coronosaurus being considered additional species of Centrosaurus as they form a natural group with Centrosaurus apertus and they only differ slightly from it.