Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

Evolution, Natural Selection, Medicine, Psychology & Neuroscience.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#1  Postby Weaver » Sep 04, 2013 3:37 pm

So it turns out that the Triceratops we all know and love wasn't a separate species of dinosaur species at all, but just juvenile members of the Torosaurus.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/03 ... tists-say/

Known for its three horns and the bony, frilled ridge around its head, the triceratops was most likely just a younger version of the rarer torosaurus, say researchers John Scannella and Jack Horner at the Museum of the Rockies in Montana.

The species were very similar. Both had three horns and each had the distinctive head frill that makes the triceratops famous. But in the torosaurus the horns and ridge were shaped differently, with the ridge appearing smoother and thinner. It also had two holes.

After studying 29 triceratops skulls, the scientists discovered the bone was thinning in the same area where the torosaurus’s holes were. Evidence began mounting as they counted the growth rings in the bones and discovered all the triceratops skulls were from young dinosaurs. What’s more, juvenile specimens of the torosaurus have never been found. They concluded the dinosaurs were actually the same, with the horns and ridge changing shape as the lizard matured.


This has very special impact for my family. Since before I was born, my folks had two small triceratops plaster heads - about 20cm long or so - which hung above a couple doorways in our houses. When I was being weaned off of my pacifier, they put one in the "baby triceratops" mouth to give me a sense of purpose in quitting. The same technique was used with my kid sister ten years later.

How wonderful it is for us to know that calling these plaster models "baby" was actually dead-on accurate. Just wish my father, who thought it up originally, was around to hear of it - he'd have laughed for weeks.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 51
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#2  Postby BlackBart » Sep 04, 2013 3:40 pm

Say what? First Pluto, now Triceratops. WTF is going on people?! :scratch:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11691
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#3  Postby Weaver » Sep 04, 2013 3:44 pm

You did hear about Stegosaurus back plates being one row, not two, right?


:D
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 51
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#4  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Sep 04, 2013 3:54 pm

I can already see creationists chalking this up as a win.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12429
Age: 52
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#5  Postby BlackBart » Sep 04, 2013 4:00 pm

Weaver wrote:You did hear about Stegosaurus back plates being one row, not two, right?


:D


Image
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11691
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#6  Postby DarthHelmet86 » Sep 04, 2013 4:10 pm

Science doesn't care about our childhoods. Science does what it wants.

It is cool that they are still learning about this stuff though, cool to see real science learning and changing as it needs to. It is a pick fuck you to all the creationists trying to claim that science knows all.
I. This is Not a Game
II. Here and Now, You are Alive
User avatar
DarthHelmet86
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10344
Age: 33
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#7  Postby Pulsar » Sep 04, 2013 4:17 pm

Stop ruining my childhood :waah:

Next they'll say it looked like this

Image
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 42
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#8  Postby Weaver » Sep 04, 2013 4:22 pm

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Science doesn't care about our childhoods. Science does what it wants.

It is cool that they are still learning about this stuff though, cool to see real science learning and changing as it needs to. It is a pick fuck you to all the creationists trying to claim that science knows all.

Last year I took an Anatomy & Physiology course as part of my Nursing program. The professor had a number of rules specific to A&P - guidelines that they are connected with each other, that you need to understand both, that sort of thing.

Then she had one about all sciences, which leads to a good mindset if properly applied:

"Everything you know about ______ is wrong." (fill in the blank).

Science isn't about dogmatic, unchanging truths. It's about learning, and modifying what is thought to be true based upon new evidence.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 51
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#9  Postby theropod » Sep 04, 2013 4:27 pm

Yeah, BUT...

We DO have specimens of baby, or at least young, Triceratops. They look like supposed adult Triceratops. Cute as hell. The fact is these could be closely related, showing the same thinning at the right area, and still be distinct species. Look at the skeletal elements of the Galapagos finches to get an idea of what I mean. Until I see confirming findings I remain skeptical.

This is all said without reading the paper...Anyone got linky?

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#10  Postby Bribase » Sep 04, 2013 4:30 pm

That's super old news isn't it?
User avatar
Bribase
 
Posts: 2671
Age: 38
Male

Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#11  Postby theropod » Sep 04, 2013 4:33 pm

Yep.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#12  Postby I'm With Stupid » Sep 04, 2013 5:18 pm

Why are they claiming that the triceratops doesn't exist and it's actually a younger version of the torosaurus? Why not that the torosaurus doesn't exist and is actually an older version of the triceratops? Their research probably won't get as widely noticed by saying that, I guess.
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9314
Age: 35
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#13  Postby Ironclad » Sep 04, 2013 5:27 pm

'May not be' sounds better to me.
For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 22832
Age: 50
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#14  Postby SkyMutt » Sep 04, 2013 5:54 pm

theropod wrote:Yeah, BUT...

We DO have specimens of baby, or at least young, Triceratops. They look like supposed adult Triceratops. Cute as hell. The fact is these could be closely related, showing the same thinning at the right area, and still be distinct species. Look at the skeletal elements of the Galapagos finches to get an idea of what I mean. Until I see confirming findings I remain skeptical.

This is all said without reading the paper...Anyone got linky?

RS


Sorry, all instances I found were behind paywalls. However, there's a somewhat better article about the paper at the Smithsonian website.

On the other hand, a more recent paper seems to call the conclusions of the 2010 Scannella, Horner paper into question.
Serious, but not entirely serious.

"The charm of a man is measured by the charm of the women who think he is a scoundrel."
— H. L. Mencken
User avatar
SkyMutt
 
Posts: 833
Age: 60
Male

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#15  Postby theropod » Sep 04, 2013 7:52 pm

SkyMutt wrote:
theropod wrote:Yeah, BUT...

We DO have specimens of baby, or at least young, Triceratops. They look like supposed adult Triceratops. Cute as hell. The fact is these could be closely related, showing the same thinning at the right area, and still be distinct species. Look at the skeletal elements of the Galapagos finches to get an idea of what I mean. Until I see confirming findings I remain skeptical.

This is all said without reading the paper...Anyone got linky?

RS


Sorry, all instances I found were behind paywalls. However, there's a somewhat better article about the paper at the Smithsonian website.

On the other hand, a more recent paper seems to call the conclusions of the 2010 Scannella, Horner paper into question.



Thanks for the second link, as I thought I'd read a summary of that finding.

I've worked with what had to have been a full grown adult Triceratops skull on a months long basis, maybe over a year from field to near completion of the right side alone. This was the side of the skull that was "as found" or "up" and had minimal matrix removal prior to jacketing. Actually it was lying on its left side with a slight upward tilt at the distal end, as if it had stuck it's face into the mud. Anyway, this thing was nearly 5 feet (1.75 meters) long, and the half of the frill we had exposed was a nearly third that wide. If the damned thing got much larger, as all dinosaurs did as they aged, it would have been a monster. Unless you've been in close proximity to a Triceratops skull one really can't appreciate the critters. It took some heavy machines to get the jacket to the lab, and an angle grinder to open it. WAY over a ton. Lizards indeed. This same locale had several post cranial elements that we collected, but I didn't get a chance to open those jackets before my term "there" ended. I don't know if those specimens were from the same individual that provided the skull, but there was a good chance. Scavengers alone could have accounted for the dispersal over a area where this was all found.

Like I said, I think there are too many attempts to lump dinosaur species. Look at my sig and think about it.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google



Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#17  Postby twistor59 » Sep 05, 2013 6:47 pm

Is this a new *theory* about Triceratops?

A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#18  Postby natselrox » Sep 05, 2013 7:29 pm

Feathered T-rex, no Triceratops, what other lies have they been feeding us? :mob:
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 107
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#19  Postby Horwood Beer-Master » Sep 05, 2013 9:12 pm

This isn't just one of those claims that's being reported purely because it's Jack Horner who said it, is it?
Also available on Rationalia

Image
User avatar
Horwood Beer-Master
 
Name: Ian
Posts: 2186
Age: 38

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Triceratops not a dinosaur species after all.

#20  Postby pensioner » Sep 05, 2013 9:31 pm

Feathered T-Rex some one is taking the piss. next you guys will be telling me that birds are dinosaurs, or something like that.
There’s class warfare, all right,” said US billionaire Warren Buffett a few years ago, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.
User avatar
pensioner
 
Posts: 2879
Age: 81

Country: Uk
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Biological Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest