a)67 sounds too much already : Eris being main culprit, now 88 encompassing the whole of your natal skies, no matter hemisphere: yes, hemispheres do count as Aussie skies have nothing to do with London fog.
b)Technically, if we remove Eris and Pluto, there are only 22 main zodiacal stations in all.
c)A horoscope sign is either zodiacal or ascendant or both: e.g. Ophiuchus is both ascendant and zodiacal sign.
d)Delphinus is neither zodiacal nor ascendant but it will “soon” become one, that is ascendant. Supposedly we discover an Eris/Pluto sized planet that fares through Delphinus, we could talk of said constellation as zodiacal.
e)Popular imagination probably has it that the planets sort of follow the Sun, which conveniently crosses 13 or 12 constellations. Well, it’s 16 I fact and the Sun does not determine the zodiac. The zodiac is sum of planetary zodiacs. We therefore determine the zodiac for every planet and the Moon: sum it up and obtain 22 zodiacal stations.
f)Pluto as planet would add quite some constellations to said zodiac and Eris is simply overdue: thus our new zodiac counts over 40 constellations already. In adding the present (sic) ascendant set, we obtain 67. But what of nadir, zenith: and southern skies? In the end we are really working with all 88 constellations!
g)Unlikely the zodiacs, the ascendant sets tend to precess.
h)Modern mindset being quite uniform: one muzzle for all: we have thrice less ascendants than some Egyptians did!
i)It was easier to “believe” in “12 signs” and ascendants: something that never was in any skies and never will occur at all, being not only naively fabricated but visibly false: thus default.