analysis was conducted, previous results of updated analyses showed that Rubeosaurus ovatus and Styracosaurus albertensis were not distantly related, so the justification for naming the genus Rubeosaurus was not present, and the variability in Styracosaurus albertensis specimens also did not support the distinction of Styracosaurus ovatus, with Holmes et al. considering the latter a junior synonym of the former. The conclusion of Holmes and colleagues was supported by a later 2020 study authored by Caleb Brown, Holmes, and Philip J. Currie, who described a new juvenile Styracosaurus specimen and determined that there were several specimens that are otherwise consistent with S. albertensis have been found with inward angled midline frill spikes, though not the same degree as S. ovatus. Though they considered that S. ovatus represented an extreme end of the S. albertensis variation not only in morphology but also as it was stratigraphically younger, they cautioned that at the least the current diagnosis of S. ovatus was inadequate. Later in 2020, the supposed specimen MOR 492 was redescribed by John Wilson and colleagues, who reinterpreted its anatomy in a way that contrasted McDonald and Horner who referred it to Styracosaurus ovatus. While Wilson et al. agreed that the close relationship between S. albertensis and S. ovatus meant that the genus name Rubeosaurus should be abandoned, they cautioned against synonymization. MOR 492 was moved into its own taxon, Stellasaurus ancellae, which nested alongside Einiosaurus, Achelousaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus in a similar result to McDonald and Horner when the specimen was included as part of the S. ovatus hypodigm. Wilson and colleagues also suggested that the new taxon may have been ancestral to the later forms it was found related to, suggesting that gradual evolution through anagenesis could be the reason for the intermediate morphologies of many specimens and species found in the Two Medicine Formation, possibly also including S. ovatus. As the holotype of Styracosaurus ovatus was found in deposits much younger than the remainder of Styracosaurus specimens, and was considered to have the most extreme morphology while still falling within plausible variation as Holmes et al. had concluded, Wilson and colleagues advised that S. ovatus was retained as a separate, probably directly descended from S. albertensis, species of Styracosaurus. The immature specimen USNM 14768, referred to S. ovatus by McDonald et al. in 2011, was considered too immature to be diagnostic, and thus S. ovatus was limited to its holotype