Feel free to browse through five years of dino-discussion here in the Version 1 Archive! And then join in the ongoing discussion at The Dinosaur Toy Forum: Version 2
Re: BBC News Triceratops not Torosaurus « Reply #20 on Mar 6, 2012, 12:41pm »
I've always been quite skeptical about the "Toroceratops theory", and now this seems to confirm my suspects... But hey, i don't think the debate is over yet (considering we'll probably never know the turh, as in many other aspects of dinosaurs' lives) so, yeah, it seems but, or maybe, etc, etc, etc...
Re: BBC News Triceratops not Torosaurus « Reply #22 on Mar 8, 2012, 4:58am »
Let me tell you about when this was shared on Facebook. Suddenly, I saw the entirety of the MoR- lovers and the Horner fanboys and girls. Madness. Madness. *shivers*
It seems to me that the only thing that will clear this up for good is a mostly complete juvenile or hatchling of both Triceratops and Torosaurus. Or, a Triceratops that is confirmed to be fully grown and died of natural causes. Or, a heard of Torosaurus containg different aged animals. I'm not sure which case is more likely.
It seems to me that the only thing that will clear this up for good is a mostly complete juvenile or hatchling of both Triceratops and Torosaurus. Or, a Triceratops that is confirmed to be fully grown and died of natural causes. Or, a heard of Torosaurus containg different aged animals. I'm not sure which case is more likely.
But isn't there a possibillity that the two species could have herded together
Re: BBC News Triceratops not Torosaurus « Reply #27 on Mar 9, 2012, 2:12pm »
A juvenile Torosaurus proves it wrong. No juvenile Torosaurus, still not proven wrong.
This is nowhere near a crackpot theory, contrary to what some people around here may belive. What Andy Farke and John Scanella are doing is an example of science done right, unlike most of the stuff that gets published.
Oh, and science reporters are not a source of information. Too bad people still belive it.
A juvenile Torosaurus proves it wrong. No juvenile Torosaurus, still not proven wrong.
This is nowhere near a crackpot theory, contrary to what some people around here may belive. What Andy Farke and John Scanella are doing is an example of science done right, unlike most of the stuff that gets published.
Oh, and science reporters are not a source of information. Too bad people still belive it.
Crackpot or not (Horner connection I believe?) the fact is that you have to believe that the 8.7-foot Triceratops Horridus BYU skull and the 8.5-foot Eotriceratops skull belonged to juveniles in order to make this 'theory' work.
It may not be crackpot but it does seem logically insupportable.
Add to that Horner's penchant for publicity stunts .....
"Furthermore, this idea that maximum body length of individuals is somehow taxonomically significant really has to go. We know that many taxa have variable maximum body size of individuals, so having some subadults bigger than adult individuals isn't rare."
...does that look like an immature specimen to anyone? The face alone is far larger than the face of a Torosaurus skull of the same length (8+ feet)
What's the specimen number? Which paper describes how much of the frill is real and how much is reconstructed? The epioccipitals are more prominent than in other large Triceratops, leading me to think at first glance either a) most of the frill is a poorly researched fabrication or 2) this is a vary large subadult Triceratops under any hypothesis.
What's the stratigraphy? Do we know this is Triceratops and not Eotriceratops or something else?
Re: BBC News Triceratops not Torosaurus « Reply #35 on Mar 10, 2012, 5:09pm »
I am sure that a little bit of Googling will come up with the BYU site.
FYI, this is the cast of the original skull with the reconstructed part removed. I have a photo taken years ago by Luis Rey that shows the reconstructed horns that were removed for the casting.
The skull was found in the 1960s, I am sure you can find the specimen number.
BTW, Bob Bakker has studied this skull and used it as a basis for his book "maximum Triceratops", illustrated by Rey. A kids book, with some amazing art ...
You wrote:
"Without data, anecdotes like this are useless. "
I could not agree more. So, whatever happened to actually having evidence for an outlandish theory like this one? Yeah, I have reviewed "the evidence" so far and its so much speculative horse manure. In my opinion.
A juvenile Torosaurus proves it wrong. No juvenile Torosaurus, still not proven wrong.
This is nowhere near a crackpot theory, contrary to what some people around here may belive. What Andy Farke and John Scanella are doing is an example of science done right, unlike most of the stuff that gets published.
Oh, and science reporters are not a source of information. Too bad people still belive it.
LOL science reporters! Funny because this is exactly the sort of theory that science reporters are eating up like crazy and spreading around! The flashy stuff gets published and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon so they can flex their intellectual muscles at each other. Its just like that sinornithosaurus skull with a venom cavity bone damage that was written about a few years ago.
I've said it a bunch of times on here but I'll say it again. Its not like there is no chance in hell triceratops and torosaurus are growth stages of the same animal...but to say that's what it is and that's that end of story is a BIG JUMP. There is so much evidence that refutes this its really not even funny anymore. Go back a page and check out my conversation with Dr. Holtz . Most of what he said about this is based off the AMNH specimen ...which really seems to be just a torosaurus with a frill reconstructed to look like that of a triceratops.
"Science done right"? Really? Its a theory with a little bit of "evidence" in the form of "transition skulls" that could just as easily be another species living at the same place/time (a concept people apparently find so hard to grasp when dealing with extinct animals for some reason despite how nature clearly shows us just how much variety it can maintain in any given ecosystem if you just look around you) or even worse, a skull with a reconstructed frill.
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr192/EternalPan/green_t_rex_close-285x300.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[image]](http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr192/EternalPan/edmontonia123124.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://www.tonmo.com/forums/images/smilies/earlynautiloid.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k502/WeaverTealight/Icons%20for%20Me/Rigu_Djinni.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://209.85.12.232/15705/189/upload/av-66.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.dinosaurcentral.com/images/2009dinos/Austroraptor_cabazai.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1892/triceratopspainting.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://img19.imageshack.us/i/unenlagiapaintingcopy.jpg/ "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb450/SimonFoxx/P1190108-1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/photogalleries/narwhals/images/primary/narwhal2.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/66allosaur/Kidsandgiantttops6-2010.jpg "[image]")