Triceratops = Torosaurus!

[kpenguin]

A few days old, but I don't see a thread here about it. I was hoping there would be, given the dinosaur fans here, but oh well.

According to a recent study, the triceratops and the torosaurus may have been the same species! The triceratops was a juvenille form of the torosaurus... or the torosaurus was a mature form of the triceratops. Check out this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html) article and this (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/22/new-study-says-torosaurustriceratops/) one.

And, before someone brings it up, despite some new sources stating that this means "triceratops never existed", this isn't so. This isn't like brontosaurus and apatosaurus where one was just a head put on the wrong way. The triceratops existed, but it wasn't the mature form. In fact, because of the way naming works, the triceratops will remain the name for the species, with torosaurus being phased out. Triceratops came first and thus has precedence.

[TheMac04]

A few days old, but I don't see a thread here about it. I was hoping there would be, given the dinosaur fans here, but oh well.

According to a recent study, the triceratops and the torosaurus may have been the same species! The triceratops was a juvenille form of the torosaurus... or the torosaurus was a mature form of the triceratops. Check out this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html) article and this (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/22/new-study-says-torosaurustriceratops/) one.

And, before someone brings it up, despite some new sources stating that this means "triceratops never existed", this isn't so. This isn't like brontosaurus and apatosaurus where one was just a head put on the wrong way. The triceratops existed, but it wasn't the mature form. In fact, because of the way naming works, the triceratops will remain the name for the species, with torosaurus being phased out. Triceratops came first and thus has precedence.
Thank God for this. I don't think I could adjust. I'm still getting over the last childhood-rape.

[Tirian]

So is Triceratops the Rookie stage or the Champion stage?

[Danne]

Thank God for this. I don't think I could adjust. I'm still getting over the last childhood-rape.

Took the words right out of my mouth. (There are nine planets in our solar system, by golly, and I refuse to accept that "brontosaurus" isn't supposed to be used anymore.)

But still, those articles look very interesting. I'll have to check them out. Thanks for linking!

[Cealocanth]

A few days old, but I don't see a thread here about it. I was hoping there would be, given the dinosaur fans here, but oh well.

According to a recent study, the triceratops and the torosaurus may have been the same species! The triceratops was a juvenille form of the torosaurus... or the torosaurus was a mature form of the triceratops. Check out this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html) article and this (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/22/new-study-says-torosaurustriceratops/) one.

And, before someone brings it up, despite some new sources stating that this means "triceratops never existed", this isn't so. This isn't like brontosaurus and apatosaurus where one was just a head put on the wrong way. The triceratops existed, but it wasn't the mature form. In fact, because of the way naming works, the triceratops will remain the name for the species, with torosaurus being phased out. Triceratops came first and thus has precedence.

That's some interesting news. I'm surprised that I didn't find out about this earlier.

[Rae Artemi]

Also, Velociraptors had feathers.:smalltongue:

[Phase]

This... what?

I can understand a lot of reasoning, but godammit Triceratops was one of the few Ceratopsians with a solid bone frill, rather than a skin based frill over a frame. I see their reasoning in the articles, but it's a logical argument rather than an evidential one. I'm not convinced, and it's not that I'm especially attached to the species. I've been advocating for the absorption of Nanotyrannus for ages. If we make this leap, we'll be eradicating species left and right, assuming they're just juveniles.

As a scientist and hopeful paleontologist, this is not a pleasant development.

[Crimmy]

This... what?

I can understand a lot of reasoning, but godammit Triceratops was one of the few Ceratopsians with a solid bone frill, rather than a skin based frill over a frame. I see their reasoning in the articles, but it's a logical argument rather than an evidential one. I'm not convinced, and it's not that I'm especially attached to the species. I've been advocating for the absorption of Nanotyrannus for ages. If we make this leap, we'll be eradicating species left and right, assuming they're just juveniles.

As a scientist and hopeful paleontologist, this is not a pleasant development.

And even though I have always believed in you almost blindly when it came to dinos, there is some merit to the idea.

I'm still adjusting, but I can take this one better than Pluto or the Brontosaurus.

[Flickerdart]

This... what?

I can understand a lot of reasoning, but godammit Triceratops was one of the few Ceratopsians with a solid bone frill, rather than a skin based frill over a frame. I see their reasoning in the articles, but it's a logical argument rather than an evidential one. I'm not convinced, and it's not that I'm especially attached to the species. I've been advocating for the absorption of Nanotyrannus for ages. If we make this leap, we'll be eradicating species left and right, assuming they're just juveniles.

As a scientist and hopeful paleontologist, this is not a pleasant development.
Eradicating species left and right? Sounds like good huntin'. *loads gun*

[Jacklu]

How is this controversial in the least? Clearly when a dinosaur reaches a certain level of advancement it changes into a new form. Just ask any ten year old how this stuff works and they could have told you that.

[The Extinguisher]

Took the words right out of my mouth. (There are nine planets in our solar system, by golly, and I refuse to accept that "brontosaurus" isn't supposed to be used anymore.)

But still, those articles look very interesting. I'll have to check them out. Thanks for linking!

Science marches on. We can't be hung up on this or we'll never progress. (also Pluto was never really a planet in the first place. It's a glorified comet :smalltongue:)


I like discoveries like this. The past is a mysterious place, and we'll never really know what exactly went on all those millions of years ago, but these kinds of things make it clearer.

Sort of. We can hardly sort out what makes different kind of species in the present day, so we could be making a big mistake here. Who knows? That's why paleontology is so cool.

[Dexam]

Eradicating species left and right? Sounds like good huntin'. *loads gun*

Just make sure you don't step on any butterflies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder). :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

Just make sure you don't step on any butterflies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder). :smallwink:
Imagine a boot stamping on a butterfly - forever.

[Anuan]

Also, Velociraptors had feathers.:smalltongue:

And were also pretty small and easily warded off with a golf-club.

Deinonychus (CANNOT SPELL >_<) is the one you gotta worry about.

[Serpentine]

I thought it was Utahraptor.

And Extinguisher: More like an oversized asteroid, I think. But it's actually a "pseudoplanet" or something like that, anyways.

[Phase]

Deinonychus (CANNOT SPELL >_<) is the one you gotta worry about.

Utahraptor, man. Utahraptor.


And even though I have always believed in you almost blindly when it came to dinos, there is some merit to the idea.

I just... I don't see the evidence as being strong enough. In fifty percent of Triceratops skulls the lobes of the frill are a bit thinner... that totally means the frill opens up into a Torosaur skull. What next? Leptoceratops is just the hatchling form? I'm waiting on Norell's response, I trust him a lot.

What peeves me is a bunch of news sources stating this hypothesis as if the entire scientific community is in agreement and we're sure. Feh.

[TheMac04]

I thought it was Utahraptor.

And Extinguisher: More like an oversized asteroid, I think. But it's actually a "pseudoplanet" or something like that, anyways.
Or perhaps a Toronto Rapt-*shot*

[factotum]

Took the words right out of my mouth. (There are nine planets in our solar system, by golly, and I refuse to accept that "brontosaurus" isn't supposed to be used anymore.)


Anymore? It hasn't supposed to be used since 1903! :smallsmile:

[Marnath]

Golf clubs suck for killing stuff, the head breaks off too easy >.>
You want an aluminum baseball bat.

[The Extinguisher]

I thought it was Utahraptor.

And Extinguisher: More like an oversized asteroid, I think. But it's actually a "pseudoplanet" or something like that, anyways.

Utahraptors are the best kind of raptor. They're cool.

Also, "technically" but only to make it feel better. From what I understand, it's icy body and the fact that it lives with all the other comets is probably good evidence showing that it's a big comet with a more-circular than normal orbit.

But that's beside the point. Dinosaurs = awesome.

[Marnath]

For me Pluto is and always will be a planet, not a comet NANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! :smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

Also, "technically" but only to make it feel better. From what I understand, it's icy body and the fact that it lives with all the other comets is probably good evidence showing that it's a big comet with a more-circular than normal orbit.Dwarf planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet), second largest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto)... apparently more like a comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Origins) than I thought. Damn. Alright, you win this round *shakes fist*
But apparently the Kuiper Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt) probably isn't the source of comets, just comet-like objects. So ner! :smalltongue:

[Rappy]

If we make this leap, we'll be eradicating species left and right, assuming they're just juveniles.
It's coming from the mouth of Jack Horner, that's why. I've heard speculation that a lot of his recent lumping activities are the result of his personal pet hypothesis that the dinosaurs went out with a whimper, not a bang, and were already losing diversification before the Maastrichtian came to a crashing, calamatious, cosmic end.

Of course, I don't know the man personally, so I can't verify such speculation.

[hamishspence]

Most times I've seen descriptions of Torosaurus, it's shown as small bodied, with a disproportionately large head compared to Triceratops- and thus was a smaller animal.

I'm wondering how much evidence there is for this. Is there anything suggesting the solid triceratops skulls (even the largest) are subadult- like associated body bones still being part way through growth?

Conversely, are there no holed subadult Torosaurus skulls?

[BisectedBrioche]

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8013/triceratopsprotestposte.jpg

[Anuan]

I thought it was Utahraptor.



Utahraptor, man. Utahraptor.


Yeah, those too.
Deinonychus was what I was actually referring to, but Utahraptors are, IIRC, much larger...

I dunno, somehow Deinonychus scares me more because it's lower to the ground but still long, rather than being that much larger. Like a tiger, but a dinosaur.

I mean, logically a Utahraptor's more dangerous, but somehow Deinonychus creeps me more.

[hamishspence]

It's Torosaurus, not Triceratops, that will be abolished if this idea becomes totally accepted.

Still, I have a certain nostalgia for Antrodemus (Allosaurus), and Dinichthys (Dunkleosteus)

As far as I can tell in the case of Dunkleosteus, it wasn't a case of two species turning out to be the same- they simply arbitrarily decided to rename it in order to honor a Mr Dunkle.

[Serpentine]

I want one of the tiny little stegosauruses :3

[Eldan]

Noooo! Not the Triceratops, you madmen! You can't do that! The solid bone frill was always so cool!

[hamishspence]

i'm wondering where Eotriceratops fits into this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eotriceratops

3m long skull, solid, more like that of Triceratops than Torosaurus.

[drakir_nosslin]

It's coming from the mouth of Jack Horner, that's why. I've heard speculation that a lot of his recent lumping activities are the result of his personal pet hypothesis that the dinosaurs went out with a whimper, not a bang, and were already losing diversification before the Maastrichtian came to a crashing, calamatious, cosmic end.

Of course, I don't know the man personally, so I can't verify such speculation.

Nah, the dinosaurs did go out with a bang, and a noble one as well.
http://www.topatoco.com/graphics/00000001/smbc-dinosave.png

[hamishspence]

Horner has a lot of pet hypotheses. Including that T. rex was a slow moving scavenger, and that even it's tiny relative, Raptorex (which had a light, fast build, and a fairly large head with big teeth) was a scavenger.

[Phase]

I much prefer Norell or Baker over Horner, personally.

I still mourn Gould's passing.

[Aedilred]

The thing about "Brontosaurus" is that the whole naming issue was resolved in like 1903. It's only the ignorance of Joe Public, fuelled by the even equally ignorant mass media, that keeps the incorrect name going; really there are very few people alive today who could claim that it changed during their childhood and thus ruined it.

That the name has stuck around for so long is probably due to its being easier to say rather than anything else.

[hamishspence]

When I was young quite a few children's books were still using the name. Along with Dinichthys, and Antrodemus. Eventually those names stopped appearing.

[The Librarian]

Wow.

A lot of my friends used to call me the Dino-Expert for all the little tidbits of information I knew on Dinosaurs. Even I'm a little awestruck by this recent revelation.

Also, R.I.P. Pluto:smallfrown::smallbiggrin:

[Rappy]

Horner has a lot of pet hypotheses. Including that T. rex was a slow moving scavenger, and that even it's tiny relative, Raptorex (which had a light, fast build, and a fairly large head with big teeth) was a scavenger.
Or, even more topic-appropriate, his suggestion that, like Triceratops, Pachycephalosaurus is a lump-species, with Stygimoloch being a juvenile specimen.


I much prefer Norell or Baker over Horner, personally.

I still mourn Gould's passing.
Bakker's pretty fun, although he's a bit kooky himself when he gets on the subject of dinosaur diseases. Personally, I'm a fan of Naish myself.

Speaking of Bakker, though...


When I was young quite a few children's books were still using the name. Along with Dinichthys, and Antrodemus. Eventually those names stopped appearing.
I'm pretty sure Bakker still uses Brontosaurus. He likes the name more than Apatosaurus, suffice to say.

[Danne]

Also, Velociraptors had feathers.:smalltongue:

My impression is that quite a few did, actually. Apparently baby T-Rex did, too, though I guess they lost them as they matured? I could be remembering that wrong.

[Phase]

Yeah, it's now believed that the majority of Theropods had feathers at at least some point in their lives.


Bakker's pretty fun, although he's a bit kooky himself when he gets on the subject of dinosaur diseases. Personally, I'm a fan of Naish myself.

Speaking of Bakker, though... I'm pretty sure Bakker still uses Brontosaurus. He likes the name more than Apatosaurus, suffice to say.

Yeah, Naish, and Mark Witton too, are some good folks, great work. I really liked that neck position study.

Also Brontosaurus is an inherently cooler name. "Thunder Lizard" is pretty badass.

[hamishspence]

Or, even more topic-appropriate, his suggestion that, like Triceratops, Pachycephalosaurus is a lump-species, with Stygimoloch being a juvenile specimen.

the point to be made is Horner may have a tendency to interpret almost any evidence to fit his theories. For a long time, he said T. rex was not adapted for speed, and when a new, small, fast dinosaur came along with the same adaptations, then he said "Those adaptations are holdovers from its ancestors-, that simply never got lost- they don't actually mean T. rex was unusually fast for its size"

Some paleontologists are more prone to this than others, though. Feduccia, for example- insisting that birds and dinosaurs are not at all closely related, even after large amounts of evidence have turned up.

[Eldan]

Can I just say that I hadn't heard the name Stygimoloch before and think it's incredibly cool? I mean, it's up there with Vampyroteuthis infernalis, Cyclops abyssorum and Tyrannophasma gladiator.

[Yora]

I'm wondering how much evidence there is for this. Is there anything suggesting the solid triceratops skulls (even the largest) are subadult- like associated body bones still being part way through growth?

Conversely, are there no holed subadult Torosaurus skulls?
One of the linked articles says all triceratops skulls show signs on a microscopic scale, that they are from not fully mature individuals.
Also, there hasn't been a sub-adult torosaurus skeleton, ever!

[hamishspence]

The aforementioned Eotriceratops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eotriceratops

has some traits in common with both Triceratops and Torosaurus.

Maybe it represents a midpoint between the two? Or an intermediate growth stage?

[Lord Loss]

Wait... NO BRONTO??? Why did they get rid of him?

[Eldan]

Rules of classification are very rigidly enforced: the oldest correct name counts, no exceptions*.

*Well, very rarely. You can try and make an appeal that one of the names is incredibly obscure and the other widespread, but good luck with that.

[hamishspence]

If Apatosaurus had not been used since 1899, and Brontosaurus had been used all the way to 2000, then it might have been kept.

This is why it's unlikely that Tyrannosaurus will be renamed Manospondylus- since the latter name has not been used since then- so even if Tyrannosaurus as a name was challenged, it's likely because of of this, that it would remain the valid name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus


Manospondylus

The first fossil specimen which can be attributed to Tyrannosaurus rex consists of two partial vertebrae (one of which has been lost) found by Edward Drinker Cope in 1892 and described as Manospondylus gigas. Osborn recognized the similarity between M. gigas and Tyrannosaurus rex as early as 1917 but, due to the fragmentary nature of the Manospondylus vertebrae, he could not synonymize them conclusively.

In June 2000, the Black Hills Institute located the type locality of M. gigas in South Dakota and unearthed more tyrannosaur bones there. These were judged to represent further remains of the same individual, and to be identical to those of Tyrannosaurus rex. According to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the system that governs the scientific naming of animals, Manospondylus gigas should therefore have priority over Tyrannosaurus rex, because it was named first. However, the Fourth Edition of the ICZN, which took effect on 1 January 2000, states that "the prevailing usage must be maintained" when "the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899" and "the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years ..." Tyrannosaurus rex may qualify as the valid name under these conditions and would most likely be considered a nomen protectum ("protected name") under the ICZN if it was ever challenged, which it has not yet been. Manospondylus gigas would then be deemed a nomen oblitum ("forgotten name").


However, it didn't work out that way for Brontosaurus.

And sadly, once a name is used, it can't be used again- which is why I'm (sadly) expecting Leviathan to be renamed.

There is an Eobrontosaurus though.

[Woodsman]

I'm going to have a hard time of it thinking of the classical Triceratops as a teenager. Or something similar.

[hamishspence]

It's possible that Eotriceratops, rather than Torosaurus, represents the mature animal. Still has a solid-looking frill, and is a bit more Triceratops-like.

[SuperMuldoon]

I always liked Torosaurus, when I read the article I was shocked and saddened that they will be "phasing out" Toro :smallfrown: I remember reading through my dino books and seeing that Torosaurus had the largest head of any land animal, and being "Wow this guy is so much more badass then Triceratops!" and then bought the Torosaurus Dino-Rider figure.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That first article’s not very good. You gotta pay to see the whole thing.


What peeves me is a bunch of news sources stating this hypothesis as if the entire scientific community is in agreement and we're sure. Feh.
That’s science reporting on everything for ya. The media always treats the smallest preliminary studies as if they were the absolute truth until something says otherwise.

[kpenguin]

That first article’s not very good. You gotta pay to see the whole thing.

Interesting. It wasn't like that a couple days ago.

[chiasaur11]

Agreeing with Phase here.

Not been keeping up as much as I once did with the whole thing, but once someone stops changing the theories to fit the evidence and starts changing the evidence to fits the theories, it stops being science and is safely ignorable.

[Rappy]

Can I just say that I hadn't heard the name Stygimoloch before and think it's incredibly cool? I mean, it's up there with Vampyroteuthis infernalis, Cyclops abyssorum and Tyrannophasma gladiator.
I agree. At the very least, it's better than poor Dracorex hogwartsia.


I always liked Torosaurus, when I read the article I was shocked and saddened that they will be "phasing out" Toro :smallfrown: I remember reading through my dino books and seeing that Torosaurus had the largest head of any land animal, and being "Wow this guy is so much more badass then Triceratops!" and then bought the Torosaurus Dino-Rider figure.
Well, it's not a done deal yet. Horner will need more evidence than at hand for a total consensus on the matter, certainly. I'd read this (http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2010/07/toroceratops.html) for a look at the pros and cons of the "Toroceratops troubles".

[Eldan]

I agree. At the very least, it's better than poor Dracorex hogwartsia.


What, really? Never heard that one. That's just stupid.
But then, we have Agathidium sp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathidium_bushi)

[Innis Cabal]

And yet it's real. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracorex_hogwartsia#Name)

[Serpentine]

I like Cherax destructor. It looks like this:
http://betta.ketviet.com/imgs/crayfish/Cherax%20destructor.jpg

Man that's a vivid blue.My ex used it in a slightly modified form (Tyrax Destructor) as the BBEG in his campaign.

Also I liked Montypythonoides riversleighensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morelia_(genus)), but they scrapped it :smallfrown:

[The Ender]

Hm. I didn't find this very convincing.

The study consisted of 9 Torosaurus fossils and 29 Triceratops, all from one location (Hell Creek). That's not nearly a sufficient sample size to make the kind of sweeping generalizations Horner wants to state as fact (...but, then, what are we to expect from the man who thinks that an animal with a bear trap for a mouth and binocular vision must be, 'strictly a scavenger' :P ).


I'm disappointed that the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology is apparently still publishing Horner's work without a very rigorous peer review process, presumably because of his star power.

[SpiderMew]

A few days old, but I don't see a thread here about it. I was hoping there would be, given the dinosaur fans here, but oh well.

According to a recent study, the triceratops and the torosaurus may have been the same species! The triceratops was a juvenille form of the torosaurus... or the torosaurus was a mature form of the triceratops. Check out this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.500-morphosaurs-how-shapeshifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us.html) article and this (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/22/new-study-says-torosaurustriceratops/) one.

And, before someone brings it up, despite some new sources stating that this means "triceratops never existed", this isn't so. This isn't like brontosaurus and apatosaurus where one was just a head put on the wrong way. The triceratops existed, but it wasn't the mature form. In fact, because of the way naming works, the triceratops will remain the name for the species, with torosaurus being phased out. Triceratops came first and thus has precedence.

I always figured they would realize its the same animal one day. As a kid i thought it was pritty obvious they were the same species, just one being less developed.

[hamishspence]

Triceratops horns are longer than Torosaurus ones. Normally, subadult members of any creature that has horns, have shorter horns than those of the adults.

Horner suggested they might have reabsorbed the horns a little- still, I remain a little skeptical.

[absolmorph]

Triceratops horns are longer than Torosaurus ones. Normally, subadult members of any creature that has horns, have shorter horns than those of the adults.

Horner suggested they might have reabsorbed the horns a little- still, I remain a little skeptical.
... Aren't the horns BONE?

[hamishspence]

Yup. I have no idea how the horns of a subadult would shrink in an adult- but that was the theory.

[Phase]

Same way it would lose the bone in its frill, through forcing the evidence to fit your theory, rather than the other way around.

[hamishspence]

I wonder- are there any other chasmosaurines that have enough skulls from enough ages, that you can say:

"It starts out with a solid frill, then two holes appear as it grows"

and it's convincing?

[SpiderMew]

What if it really isnt even another species or an aged version, what if it was sick? The orginal Neoanderthal skeleton was proven to be an old man with a bone disorder.

What if the "Torosaurus" was just a bone disorder of the Triceratops?

[hamishspence]

Some of the more aberrant Triceratops skulls were suggested as being extremely aged individuals, possibly with bone disease. The ones with an unusually rough surface, for example.

Which is why "All triceratops skulls were subadult" seems a little iffy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops


Species
Within the first decades after Triceratops was described, various skulls were collected, which varied to a lesser or greater degree from the original Triceratops, named T. horridus by Marsh (from the Latin horridus; "rough, rugose", suggesting the roughened texture of those bones belonging to the type specimen, later identified as an aged individual).

[Melayl]

I personally don't think the evidence fits the theory. I won't be changing my definition of Triceratops.

Also, to echo others:

Pluto is too a planet, darnit! And it always will be. I'm even teaching my children that.

And:

Brontosaurus is the proper name!

Some holdovers from our childhood will never end...

[kpenguin]

Brontosaurus is the proper name!

Some holdovers from our childhood will never end...

See, this confuses me. Brontosaurus has been the wrong name since 1903. Hell, I knew apatosaurus was the right name since when I was little kid with the big dinosaur picture books.

[The Extinguisher]

I personally don't think the evidence fits the theory. I won't be changing my definition of Triceratops.

Also, to echo others:

Pluto is too a planet, darnit! And it always will be. I'm even teaching my children that.

And:

Brontosaurus is the proper name!

Some holdovers from our childhood will never end...

There's a fine line between not recognizing a new theory you don't believe is correct, and willfully being ignorant of scientific progress for nostalgia purposes.

[chiasaur11]

There's a fine line between not recognizing a new theory you don't believe is correct, and willfully being ignorant of scientific progress for nostalgia purposes.

He can see the line as it sadly waves goodbye.

And man. The more I hear, the more this "theory" rubs me the wrong way. Reminds me of the computer program in Dirk Gently.

Also, 10,000 posts after this one. Wow. Been around a while now.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yup. I have no idea how the horns of a subadult would shrink in an adult- but that was the theory.
Jack Horner, Scannella's mentor at Montana State University, noted that ceratopsian skulls consist of metaplastic bone. A characteristic of metaplastic bone is that it lengthens and shortens over time, extending and resorbing to form new shapes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torosaurus#Classification_and_debate)


Pluto is too a planet, darnit! And it always will be. I'm even teaching my children that.
And this is why many people think the brontosaurus/apatasaurus thing was something in their lifetime. :smallsigh:

[The Ender]

Jack Horner, Scannella's mentor at Montana State University, noted that ceratopsian skulls consist of metaplastic bone. A characteristic of metaplastic bone is that it lengthens and shortens over time, extending and resorbing to form new shapes.

But there are large problems with Horner's guesswork:

A) He doesn't know that the bones were, in fact, metaplastic. That's just an assumption he's using that allows the data to fit his preconception. Yes, if the frill is metaplastic bone, that would give allowance to some unintuitive reshaping.

B) Even if we allow horner his assumption, that's still not the extraordinary evidence required to just erase whole branches of dinosaur taxa. Just because the frills could have plausibly reshaped themselves doesn't mean that they did. There's isn't a convergence of evidence - we don't, for example, find Torosaurus fossils intermixed with Triceratops fossils (and we don't find nearly the number of Torosaurus fossils that we do of Triceratops), like we should expect to find if Torosaurus was just the adult morph of Tricerotops.


I'd need one of the following things before I'd call this theory credible: An intermediate adolescent stage where the frill is just starting to develop it's holes, or a fossil find of intermixed Triceratops & Torosaurs that clearly shows a familial relationship (a Torosaur with some infant Triceratops, for example).

[Melayl]

See, this confuses me. Brontosaurus has been the wrong name since 1903. Hell, I knew apatosaurus was the right name since when I was little kid with the big dinosaur picture books.

Actually, when I was a kid, brontosaurus and apatosaurus were listed as two distinctly different creatures in our school science books.


There's a fine line between not recognizing a new theory you don't believe is correct, and willfully being ignorant of scientific progress for nostalgia purposes.

I haven't actually looked all that extensively into the theories of why Pluto is no longer considered a planet, which is the main reason why I refuse to acknowledge that Pluto has been downgraded. Perhaps I need to look into it further. And I had not heard until this very thread the brontosaurus/apatosaurus thing.


And this is why many people think the brontosaurus/apatasaurus thing was something in their lifetime. :smallsigh:

I should have phrased myself better. I teach my children that I still believe Pluto to be a planet, and probably always will believe it, because that's the way it was when I was little. I also teach them that what they are taught in class is what they need to remember for their educational purposes.

[The Ender]

Re: Pluto:

Pluto was re-classified (along with Charon) as a dwarf planet after the discovery of Eris & Eris's satellite. The astronomical community realized that they were looking at a new category of objects within the solar system, and that this category encompassed Pluto & Charon - small, mostly ice, nuclei of would-be comets.

As has been pointed out by many astronomers, if Pluto's orbit were to be moved to where our orbit is, it would develop a tail.

[Phase]

Actually, when I was a kid, brontosaurus and apatosaurus were listed as two distinctly different creatures in our school science books.

Three options:


Time travelling shenanigans
You're 107 years old.
You grew up in Texas.

[Serpentine]

I found the New Scientist article on it to be pretty convincing, at least of enough merit to warrant being scrapped and belittled out of hand *shrug*
B) (and we don't find nearly the number of Torosaurus fossils that we do of Triceratops)If Torosaurus is an exceptionally old version of Triceratops, this is exactly what we would expect.

I'd need one of the following things before I'd call this theory credible: An intermediate adolescent stage where the frill is just starting to develop it's holes, or a fossil find of intermixed Triceratops & Torosaurs that clearly shows a familial relationship (a Torosaur with some infant Triceratops, for example).According to the aforementioned New Scientist article (I'd link it but you need a subscription to read the whole thing anyway), many of the oldest Triceratops frills have a thinning of the bone where the holes in the Torosaur skulls are. So that would be an intermediate stage. Also, and I could be wrong about this, but I thought the Triceratops and Torosaurs were found around the same area/s.

[The Ender]

According to the aforementioned New Scientist article (I'd link it but you need a subscription to read the whole thing anyway), many of the oldest Triceratops frills have a thinning of the bone where the holes in the Torosaur skulls are. So that would be an intermediate stage. Also, and I could be wrong about this, but I thought the Triceratops and Torosaurs were found around the same area/s.

Yes, the thinning is pointed out in the paper and is Horn's best point, but that's not necessarily indicative that holes are going to eventually be formed. There should be an intermediary stage, if Horn's hypothesis is correct, where the holes are just starting to form - that is, we should be able to find a Torosaurus fossil with only partially developed holes.

The Triceratops & Torosaurus fossils used in the study were not found close together, no. They were all from the same formation (Hell Creek), but as is the case with most fossils from that area, the animals were separated by considerable spans of time & geography.

[Melayl]

Three options:


Time travelling shenanigans
You're 107 years old.
You grew up in Texas.


It was Iowa in 1985. No time travel involved. I remember it quite clearly, because I wished to become a palentologist at the time.

[The Extinguisher]

Actually, when I was a kid, brontosaurus and apatosaurus were listed as two distinctly different creatures in our school science books.



I haven't actually looked all that extensively into the theories of why Pluto is no longer considered a planet, which is the main reason why I refuse to acknowledge that Pluto has been downgraded. Perhaps I need to look into it further. And I had not heard until this very thread the brontosaurus/apatosaurus thing.



I should have phrased myself better. I teach my children that I still believe Pluto to be a planet, and probably always will believe it, because that's the way it was when I was little. I also teach them that what they are taught in class is what they need to remember for their educational purposes.

The philosophy of "but this is they way I learned it" is hardly productive to scientific thinking as a whole.

Also, I don't think it's a good idea to teach your kids that what they learn in school is only important to know in a school related context.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I'd need one of the following things before I'd call this theory credible: An intermediate adolescent stage where the frill is just starting to develop it's holes, or a fossil find of intermixed Triceratops & Torosaurs that clearly shows a familial relationship (a Torosaur with some infant Triceratops, for example).
Question: In the absence of this theory, what is the likelihood of such a stage being recognized as intermediate rather than a Torosaur with exceptionally small holes or a triceratops with a damaged/defective/deformed skull?


I haven't actually looked all that extensively into the theories of why Pluto is no longer considered a planet, which is the main reason why I refuse to acknowledge that Pluto has been downgraded. Perhaps I need to look into it further. And I had not heard until this very thread the brontosaurus/apatosaurus thing.
It’s not so much a matter of theory as definition. Astronomers realized that the previous definition of “planet” was too broad. The number of newly discovered objects that could qualify as a planet was too large for the definition to be useful anymore. So they reworked their classifications. Unfortunately, the definition that worked best contained a requirement that Pluto doesn’t meet.


I should have phrased myself better. I teach my children that I still believe Pluto to be a planet, and probably always will believe it, because that's the way it was when I was little. I also teach them that what they are taught in class is what they need to remember for their educational purposes.
Scientific definition isn’t a matter of belief. It’s a matter of whether or not something meets a set of specific criteria.

Now, some definitions can get a little fuzzy, opening room for debate. But that’s a matter of criteria that are by nature vague, not a matter of personal belief. And it is simply not the case with Pluto.

[Melayl]

It’s not so much a matter of theory as definition. Astronomers realized that the previous definition of “planet” was too broad. The number of newly discovered objects that could qualify as a planet was too large for the definition to be useful anymore. So they reworked their classifications. Unfortunately, the definition that worked best contained a requirement that Pluto doesn’t meet.

Scientific definition isn’t a matter of belief. It’s a matter of whether or not something meets a set of specific criteria.

Now, some definitions can get a little fuzzy, opening room for debate. But that’s a matter of criteria that are by nature vague, not a matter of personal belief. And it is simply not the case with Pluto.

Thank you for the information. I can accept that, I guess. I don't like it, and in my heart I will view it as a planet, but that's probably just part of my stubborn nature. That's also likely what I will tell my children.

[Eldan]

The problem was, as has been said, that they found more and more small, planet-like objects like Pluto. At the last count, I think, nearly a dozen of them. Pluto was just the first one discovered. So either we have a lot more planets, or Pluto isn't one.

[Tirian]

It’s not so much a matter of theory as definition. Astronomers realized that the previous definition of “planet” was too broad. The number of newly discovered objects that could qualify as a planet was too large for the definition to be useful anymore. So they reworked their classifications. Unfortunately, the definition that worked best contained a requirement that Pluto doesn’t meet.

Now, some definitions can get a little fuzzy, opening room for debate. But that’s a matter of criteria that are by nature vague, not a matter of personal belief. And it is simply not the case with Pluto.

And do keep in mind that this isn't the first time we've been through this. Ceres was counted as a planet when it was discovered in 1801. Over the course of the next half-century, they realized that there were an uncountable number of objects halfway between Mars and Jupiter and so they all got demoted to "asteroids". This is just the same thing happening with the Kupier belt. If you accept that Pluto is worthy on its merits to be a planet, then your children are going to have to come up with a mnemonic that includes Eris, Sedna, Orcus, Makamake, and shall I go on?

[absolmorph]

And do keep in mind that this isn't the first time we've been through this. Ceres was counted as a planet when it was discovered in 1801. Over the course of the next half-century, they realized that there were an uncountable number of objects halfway between Mars and Jupiter and so they all got demoted to "asteroids". This is just the same thing happening with the Kupier belt. If you accept that Pluto is worthy on its merits to be a planet, then your children are going to have to come up with a mnemonic that includes Eris, Sedna, Orcus, Makamake, and shall I go on?
I don't think I'd have much trouble remembering Orcus, Makamake or Eris, personally, without a mnemonic.
'course, I've never really used mnemonic devices, so that could just be me.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I heard about this on "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me" it was a mojor bummer. I liked the joke they got out of it though "Land Before Time, you've lied to me for the last time!" lol. :smallannoyed:

[Tirian]

I don't think I'd have much trouble remembering Orcus, Makamake or Eris, personally, without a mnemonic.
'course, I've never really used mnemonic devices, so that could just be me.

Point is that there could easily be hundreds of Kupier Belt objects that are as significant as Pluto, and so I think the IAU made the right decision to define "planet" in such a way that there are only a handful of them in our solar system. It's not as if we're ever going to forget that Pluto was the first trans-Nepturian object to be discovered, so we shouldn't give it a scientific designation that gambles that it is the most relevant of them.

[MartytheBioGuy]

Regarding the whole pluto-as-a-planet business... would you still consider a dwarf person a person? I'm just saying, that while it is not the "9th planet" anymore, its classification still leaves open the interpretation of pluto as a "planet". But if you play that game, then so is Ceres, Eris, Makamake, Orcus, and Haumea. And probably many, many others.

Regarding the torosaurus thing... well, I'm torn. I've always thought that we split dinos far more often than we should, rather than assuming lumping as a more likely solution to our apparent plethora of species. But I favor the concept more in terms of Nanotyrannus, Dracorex, etc. The ones that actually look like they make sense in an Ontological analysis. The idea of dinosaurs having primarily plastic bone structure that changes that dramatically seems more than slightly irrational.

But the scientific community will ultimately have to make that decision.

[Orzel]

This is a lie. Untrue. Torosaurus and just triceratops who got shot with laser beams.

[The Ender]

Question: In the absence of this theory, what is the likelihood of such a stage being recognized as intermediate rather than a Torosaur with exceptionally small holes or a triceratops with a damaged/defective/deformed skull?

Not terribly likely; you'd have what still looks like a Triceratops frill (remember that Torosaur and Triceratops frills look quite distinct, even apart from the holes), but with holes forming within the indentations.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Not terribly likely; you'd have what still looks like a Triceratops frill (remember that Torosaur and Triceratops frills look quite distinct, even apart from the holes), but with holes forming within the indentations.
Is the difference in the overall frill shape without the wholes that different to automatically classify new species? I ask this while thinking about those species living today that have pretty members with dramatic differences but are nonetheless the same species. Though, admittedly, the most dramatic differences are usually the result of selective breeding by humans. For instance, chihuahuas and St. Bernards are both Canis lupus, but if all that were left of them a few million years from now were fossils and no other records, would the scientists of that time be able to figure that out?

If there’s a more appropriate example involving wild rather than selectively bred animals, let me know. This is probably apples/oranges on a few levels I’m not even aware of. But that’s the best I can come up with right now.

[The Extinguisher]

We define modern species into sub-species based on all sorts of things. There's no reason that species like dinosaurs wouldn't have the same kind of sub-species.

[kpenguin]

Hell, the names we know them by aren't species names anyway. They're genus names.

you know, other than tyrannosaurus rex.

[hamishspence]

Triceratops, at least prior to Horner's speculation, was split into two species- Triceratops horridus, and Triceratops prorsus.

There were others for a while- but they ended up being split off into different genera, or being considered damaged or aberrant specimens of the main two species.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

We define modern species into sub-species based on all sorts of things. There's no reason that species like dinosaurs wouldn't have the same kind of sub-species.
Yeah, that’s basically my point. What is it that would keep Triceratops and Torosaurus so different to begin with?


Hell, the names we know them by aren't species names anyway. They're genus names.
Which makes this even more interesting, when you have some genera that look like they are even closer than some subspecies of a particular species.

[Phase]

Hell, the names we know them by aren't species names anyway. They're genus names.

you know, other than tyrannosaurus rex.

And even rex is neccessary to differentiate from T. bataar, the Mongolian variant which until recently was Tarbosaurus bataar.

[hamishspence]

Last I checked Tarbosaurus was still generally accepted as a separate genus- there were some people making it Tyrannosaurus bataar- but in general the skull structure is different enough that the similarities are mostly believed to be convergent evolution.

Tarbosaurus, from what I remember, is believed to have evolved from something akin to Alioramus, whereas Tyrannosaurus is believed to have evolved from something akin to Daspletosaurus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarbosaurus

[Phase]

Looking more at it, it's a damned confusing issue.

Maybe Horner's right, maybe we do need fewer dinosaur genii...

But Torosaurus is still Torosaurus until I get better evidence.

[hamishspence]

And when it comes to sharks, there can be even more contention. The debate over whether C. megalodon and C. carcharias should be the same genus or different genera has been going on for decades with no end in sight.

On Torosaurus- I wonder why most estimates of its length place it as 25 ft, to Triceratops's 30+ ft?

Maybe they are based on the size of the few non-skull bones found in Torosaurus, compared to those in Triceratops?

If Torosaurus had smaller shoulder-blades, and the size of the non-frill part of the skull was noticably smaller than that of Triceratops, this might explain it.

If (excepting the frill) the ratio of head size to body size is the same for most large ceratopsians, this would explain where size estimates for very incomplete skeletons come from.

[hamishspence]

Continuation of the Triceratops/Torosaurus debate:

http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2010/08/torosaurus-latus-is-not-sp.html

It has some interesting points.

[chiasaur11]

Hmm.

Yeah, looking at the graphs Horner seems even more full of it.

Good to know.

[Elana]

For all I know there were only 3 dinosaur species at all.

Just look at todays species like dogs.

If in 65 million years archaeologists look at the bones of a wiener and a great dane, how many will think that that are bones from the same species?

[hamishspence]

That's an example of artificial selection- and many of the differences are superficial.

The dinosaurs, as a group, are far more diverse than, say, any two breeds of dog.

[Rockphed]

Continuation of the Triceratops/Torosaurus debate:

http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com/2010/08/torosaurus-latus-is-not-sp.html

It has some interesting points.

I like how he looked at the data and took it to its natural conclusion.

[Elana]

That's an example of artificial selection- and many of the differences are superficial.

The dinosaurs, as a group, are far more diverse than, say, any two breeds of dog.

Well, I said 3 species and not one for a reason :P

But the thing is a wiener and a great dane look like vastly different species if you have just the bones.
(And never even heard of a dog before)

And to make things more complicated, scientists in 65 million years could build something out of the bones of a wiener dog and a cat.
And believe for decades that this was how the animal looked like, before they find enough bones to change their theories.

Our current knowledge of dinosaurs is just a bunch of educated guesses.

And there isn't much chance of getting any actual knowledge, unless we finally go around and invent time travel.
(How hard can that be? We have all the geek power you could ever need right here, so go on and invent, I already have a car that can go the required 88 mph :D )

[hamishspence]

But the thing is a wiener and a great dane look like vastly different species if you have just the bones.
(And never even heard of a dog before)


true up to a point- but the current methods of classification are less about superficial things like size, and more about the shape of various minor bone structures.

You can tell that, for example, Raptorex and Tyrannosaurus are closely related, even though one far bigger than the other.

In the same way, a daschund and a Great Dane would, under the superficial differences, appear remarkably similar.

Selective breeding may change superficial traits- but they don't hide general relationships.

And given the sheer number of skeletons we have, our knowledge of how they are interrelated, is a bit more than "educated guesses", at least now.

Dinosaur social organization- whether the fact that many carnivorous dinosaur skeletons were found together in conjunction with a prey skeleton is evidence of pack hunting or not- that is more a case of Educated Guessing.

But not the fact that there were very many different types of dinosaur.