|
Post by ikessauro on Feb 13, 2011 4:32:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 13, 2011 5:03:03 GMT
They say that about every new possible Triceratopsine. But so far, the only ceratopsid with consistent records about being larger, even so slighty, that Triceratops, is Torosaurus. At least the material comparable and described. And even so, the difference is negligible, and ALL those ceratopsians would feel the same size.
Oh, and I'm interested into knowing more about the 3 meter Trike skull in the Toro-Trike topic. Specimen and all of that, not just cool museum pics showing it is large.
Finally, this guy was the large Pentaceratops specimen. Nothing new, somebody though it to be separate, ceratopsian taxonomy is going to be convulted in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 14, 2011 0:01:43 GMT
They say that about every new possible Triceratopsine. But so far, the only ceratopsid with consistent records about being larger, even so slighty, that Triceratops, is Torosaurus. At least the material comparable and described. And even so, the difference is negligible, and ALL those ceratopsians would feel the same size. Oh, and I'm interested into knowing more about the 3 meter Trike skull in the Toro-Trike topic. Specimen and all of that, not just cool museum pics showing it is large. Finally, this guy was the large Pentaceratops specimen. Nothing new, somebody though it to be separate, ceratopsian taxonomy is going to be convulted in the coming years. If you read Tom Holtz's latest genus list for his encyclopedia, he already considers this (and Ojoceratops) likely junior synonyms of Eotriceratops. Ojo and Titano lived in the smae time and place and the differences between them are exremely minor, nothing that can't be explained by age or individual variation. Same for eotriceratops, though it lived much farther north and may be able to be kept separate simply by the (apparently) provincial nature of ceratopsians. But there are no important morphological differences between any of these "species". Frankly all the new ceratopsians being named reminds me of the bone Wars era of trying to get a new name attached to something by any flimsy means necessary. And yeah, at ~9m it's the same size as all the other triceratopsins. For some reason articles seem to think larger skull=larger animal, when really Triceratops just has a puny frill, so any normal ceratopsid will have a larger skull. Not to mention the frill on this thing is completely fabricated by the museum preparators anyway to look like Pentaceratops... It would have looked identical to Triceratops in life, with maybe slightly more coarse frill serrations.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 14, 2011 0:39:14 GMT
He updated it again? Then, what about "Torosaurus" utahensis? I've read about it possibly being an adult Ojoceratops if it went along the Toroceratops theory. Adult early Triceratopsin?
Still, looking at Titano at the face, it surely looks more like Trike that Penta, but the reconstructed frill surely leads one to a misinterpretation.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 14, 2011 6:14:43 GMT
He updated it again? Then, what about "Torosaurus" utahensis? I've read about it possibly being an adult Ojoceratops if it went along the Toroceratops theory. Adult early Triceratopsin? I can see that as a possibility, but more study needs to be done comparing all these directly. If that's the case I suppose the correct name would be Ojoceratops utahensis. Depending on how Arrhinoceratops fits into all this.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 14, 2011 14:43:37 GMT
Someone really does need to sort out ceratopsian taxonomy...but it's going to take some time...
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 15, 2011 0:05:06 GMT
Someone really does need to sort out ceratopsian taxonomy...but it's going to take some time... ;D They sure have made a total mess out of it!
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Feb 16, 2011 9:18:31 GMT
He updated it again? Then, what about "Torosaurus" utahensis? I've read about it possibly being an adult Ojoceratops if it went along the Toroceratops theory. Adult early Triceratopsin? Still, looking at Titano at the face, it surely looks more like Trike that Penta, but the reconstructed frill surely leads one to a misinterpretation. I believe you mean the Toroceratops "theory" purely created by horner (and no, I'm not going to honour his existence with a capital letter) to drum up money and corrupt the clueless public.
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Feb 16, 2011 9:31:41 GMT
I thought it was the same size as triceratops.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 16, 2011 17:36:58 GMT
I believe you mean the Toroceratops "theory" purely created by horner (and no, I'm not going to honour his existence with a capital letter) to drum up money and corrupt the clueless public. Poor old John Scannella...
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 17, 2011 5:33:02 GMT
I believe you mean the Toroceratops "theory" purely created by horner (and no, I'm not going to honour his existence with a capital letter) to drum up money and corrupt the clueless public. Poor old John Scannella... Not to mention Denver Fowler. Reading boards like this it seems like Horner and Bakker are the only names any paleontology fans have ever heard of. Also I have no idea what you mean by "drum up money..." the theory is among the results of the Hell Creek Project, a ten-year effort to collect as much fossil material as possible to finally understand this important ecosystem. a project which has since ended, which is why all these papers are being released now as the result of all that research. In other word's it's over. Why would they need to drum up more money? and... how? And why would they want to "corrupt" the public? These are scientists, not Emperor Palpatine.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Feb 17, 2011 10:57:02 GMT
Perhaps it's just as well that other Palaeontological names are not so often mentioned. They at least escape some of the abuse.
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Feb 17, 2011 12:41:11 GMT
Seems to me Horner & Bakker are more like reality show stars then paleontologists.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 17, 2011 17:13:44 GMT
And why would they want to "corrupt" the public? These are scientists, not Emperor Palpatine /David Cameron. QFT.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 18, 2011 2:26:25 GMT
I believe you mean the Toroceratops "theory" purely created by horner (and no, I'm not going to honour his existence with a capital letter) to drum up money and corrupt the clueless public. Hooray for Horner hate getting in the way of objectiveness. I bet that, if Bakker was behind the theory, everybody would love it. Heck, if it was, instead of a lump, a split of Triceratops, everybody would love it. Despite the fact that the number of morphs in Hell Creek ceratopsians remains constant.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 18, 2011 2:28:41 GMT
I believe you mean the Toroceratops "theory" purely created by horner (and no, I'm not going to honour his existence with a capital letter) to drum up money and corrupt the clueless public. Hooray for Horner hate getting in the way of objectiveness. I bet that, if Bakker was behind the theory, everybody would love it. Heck, if it was, instead of a lump, a split of Triceratops, everybody would love it. Despite the fact that the number of morphs in Hell Creek ceratopsians remains constant. Well, objectively, Torosaurus is MASSIVELY different from Triceratops, and is significantly SMALLER than Triceratops. Hence this latest 'theory' doesn't pass the smell test.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 18, 2011 2:30:51 GMT
He updated it again? Then, what about "Torosaurus" utahensis? I've read about it possibly being an adult Ojoceratops if it went along the Toroceratops theory. Adult early Triceratopsin? Still, looking at Titano at the face, it surely looks more like Trike that Penta, but the reconstructed frill surely leads one to a misinterpretation. I believe you mean the Toroceratops "theory" purely created by horner (and no, I'm not going to honour his existence with a capital letter) to drum up money and corrupt the clueless public. *LOL* No, actually, I believe that Horner had one of his assistants/students float the 'theory' ... ... therefore he retained what in Washington they call "plausible deniability" when its patent silliness was pointed out ...
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 18, 2011 2:31:12 GMT
I believe you mean the Toroceratops "theory" purely created by horner (and no, I'm not going to honour his existence with a capital letter) to drum up money and corrupt the clueless public. Hooray for Horner hate getting in the way of objectiveness. I bet that, if Bakker was behind the theory, everybody would love it. Heck, if it was, instead of a lump, a split of Triceratops, everybody would love it. Despite the fact that the number of morphs in Hell Creek ceratopsians remains constant. Bakker is just as consistently mocked as Horner--but this time, Horner brought it upon himself. The hypothesis (this is not a theory) is too far-fetched to be taken seriously, by anybody. Pretty much every paper that comes out these days that has anything to do with North American ceratopsians seems to need to take at least a small swipe at it. But mostly, the fact remains that the hypothesis is poorly thought out. Until something supportive--other than statistical data mining--comes to light.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 18, 2011 2:32:04 GMT
I thought it was the same size as triceratops. The largest Triceratops skulls (yes, with the typical short Triceratops solid frill) are almost 10 FEET long. That would make the animals far larger than the biggest Torosaurus known ....
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 18, 2011 2:33:18 GMT
Seems to me Horner & Bakker are more like reality show stars then paleontologists. Except that "Uncle Bob" Bakker is a lot more entertaining and not nearly as "out there" as Horner ... ;D
|
|