|
Post by simon on Feb 18, 2011 2:55:27 GMT
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. Ummm...I believe that Dr. Horner (like ALL paleontologists) is always in need of funds to advance his legitimate Hadrosaurine (and other critter) research ... this "Triceratops=Torosaurus" idea is just the newest version of the old discredited "TRex is a scavenger" publicity stunt on his part. I hope Horner realizes that he loses credibility with each such stunt ... ...he's gone from being one of the two best known and respected paleontologists to one whose name now leads to eye-rolling and the inevitable "what's he saying NOW?" attitude among the part of the public that is actually paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 18, 2011 3:49:12 GMT
Erm, nope. It is actually the thesis of John Scanella. A guy who, y'know, has spent the last 5 years looking at ceratopsian skulls. Please, that is a peer-reviewed paper, quite well written, and that really tells us something. And, actually, that transition you speak of, only happened in internet forums, where everybody knows everything. But no, we have to go around demonicing his research due to his public persona. I will just tell you something: READ THE PAPER, then come back. Oh, and refute it if you can. 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 "Carcharodontosaurus and Spinosaurus were clearly aquatic animals, otherwise my theory stating large size in theropods appeared several times independently and each time closer to birds, goes down the drain. Oh, and I put Torvosaurus as closer to birds that Sinraptorids, but no worries, as Allosaurus is closer, and Acrocanthosaurus even closer!" "HADROSAURS USED SONIC WEAPONS!" "Of course I can refute your theory, I have an specimen that demostrates it. You wanna see it? NO! What do you mean I said the exact same thing before? And how could you even infer that I'm defensive just because I named those taxa?" Yeah, Bakker is so much greater... Horner at least makes some actual science and gets unknown people a chance to be paid attention to, unlike a certain media-hogging cowboy. Sereno is also turning into a celebrity as well, stating things to the press that then internet buffs who get their info from the media repeat like there is no tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 18, 2011 4:00:41 GMT
Erm, nope. It is actually the thesis of John Scanella. A guy who, y'know, has spent the last 5 years looking at ceratopsian skulls. Please, that is a peer-reviewed paper, quite well written, and that really tells us something. And, actually, that transition you speak of, only happened in internet forums, where everybody knows everything. But no, we have to go around demonicing his research due to his public persona. I will just tell you something: READ THE PAPER, then come back. Oh, and refute it if you can. We don't need to refute it--there are lots of ceratopsian specialists doing just that, and quite effectively, in peer-reviewed articles. Being peer-reviewed doesn't mean it is true--it means it passed the necessary definitions of science and followed proper conventions (and publishing really means opening yourself up to be proven wrong--like this). Here, we just discuss the implausibility. And Scanella was Horner's student--it is not unusual for a supervisor to push a pet project onto a student--and if you do it long enough, you will have to believe it (or it is hard to defend, literally). I knew a girl that had a supervisor who didn't like cladistics--and decided that her entire project would be refuting cladistics. Which makes no sense; that's like refuting electric screwdrivers because you prefer ratchets (i.e. they are just tools, use them or not). And then making an underling set the tone of their career based on that.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 18, 2011 6:42:18 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. No, it's a little over 6 ft long. And it's a moot point anyway. I'm much taller than my mother, even though she's older than me. The largest known skull is described in this paper: www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/8635_g06n3a5.pdfNote that much of the back of the frill is heavily reconstructed in plaster so it's not clear if the frill was actually solid. As always, because "it's Triceratops" the assumption is the frill is solid, based on nothing. This is the case for almost all giant trike skulls as far as I know. one thing most people miss in this debate is that, if you see a complete ceratopsid skull in a museum, it's fake. Period. Or at least mostly reconstructed based on guesswork. Also, note this bit: The largest known "Triceratops" skull comes from a juvenile. This also gets overlooked as one of Honer and Scanella's most compelling arguments. IF Torosaurus is not an adult triceratops, we must admit that an adult Triceratops has never been discovered. All solid-frilled specimens are juveniles. It's the Nanotyrannus situation in reverse. It should also be noted that Longrich's Nedoceratops paper, the only one that has yet been published containing an attempt to refute Scannella, completely ignores this point in his argument.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 18, 2011 15:58:22 GMT
Honestly I still don't think there is enough evidence to make it acceptable to consider triceratops a young toro. We need more specimens. Related similar looking animals coexist with each other all the time in nature.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 18, 2011 16:27:28 GMT
Yeah, but most of the time, 2 closely related taxa aren't made up one of just juveniles, and the other of just adults.
sbell, read papers. Scanella IS the guy doing the research, not getting a pet theory shoved down; you do science by looking at the matherial and reaching conclussions, and that's what was done in this case. Does not compare with "scarvenger Tyranno". In fact, the sole paper Horner has published in that regards REFUTES the sole scarvenger hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 18, 2011 16:47:42 GMT
Yeah, but most of the time, 2 closely related taxa aren't made up one of just juveniles, and the other of just adults. sbell, read papers. Scanella IS the guy doing the research, not getting a pet theory shoved down; you do science by looking at the matherial and reaching conclussions, and that's what was done in this case. Does not compare with "scarvenger Tyranno". In fact, the sole paper Horner has published in that regards REFUTES the sole scarvenger hypothesis. I was going to respond in some detail but then I realized--whatever . This will be decided by the people that do the actual studies anyway. Good for Scanella for getting published, but most workers (all of the others) at this time are highly skeptical of the conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 18, 2011 16:51:42 GMT
Honestly I still don't think there is enough evidence to make it acceptable to consider triceratops a young toro. We need more specimens. Related similar looking animals coexist with each other all the time in nature. Actually, to be correct, we would be considering Torosaurus to be an adult Triceratops.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 18, 2011 19:26:30 GMT
Yeah, but most of the time, 2 closely related taxa aren't made up one of just juveniles, and the other of just adults. sbell, read papers. Scanella IS the guy doing the research, not getting a pet theory shoved down; you do science by looking at the matherial and reaching conclussions, and that's what was done in this case. Does not compare with "scarvenger Tyranno". In fact, the sole paper Horner has published in that regards REFUTES the sole scarvenger hypothesis. I was going to respond in some detail but then I realized--whatever . This will be decided by the people that do the actual studies anyway. Good for Scanella for getting published, but most workers (all of the others) at this time are highly skeptical of the conclusions. I don't think it goes in such a black and white matter. So far, there has been only a paper against it, and it leaves some details untouched. Also, nowadays everybody looks for the tiniest difference to erect a new genus. Lumping 2 that have been separate for 130 years sounds sacrilegous. Still, the papers are there.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 18, 2011 21:27:44 GMT
The largest Triceratops skulls (yes, with the typical short Triceratops solid frill) are almost 10 FEET long. No, it's a little over 6 ft long. And it's a moot point anyway. I'm much taller than my mother, even though she's older than me. The largest known skull is described in this paper: www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/8635_g06n3a5.pdfNote that much of the back of the frill is heavily reconstructed in plaster so it's not clear if the frill was actually solid. As always, because "it's Triceratops" the assumption is the frill is solid, based on nothing. This is the case for almost all giant trike skulls as far as I know. one thing most people miss in this debate is that, if you see a complete ceratopsid skull in a museum, it's fake. Period. Or at least mostly reconstructed based on guesswork. Also, note this bit: The largest known "Triceratops" skull comes from a juvenile. This also gets overlooked as one of Honer and Scanella's most compelling arguments. IF Torosaurus is not an adult triceratops, we must admit that an adult Triceratops has never been discovered. All solid-frilled specimens are juveniles. It's the Nanotyrannus situation in reverse. It should also be noted that Longrich's Nedoceratops paper, the only one that has yet been published containing an attempt to refute Scannella, completely ignores this point in his argument. Respectfully, dinoguy2 - You are mistaken. Exhibit 1: Eotriceratops - 3 METER (9-foot) skull: Exhibit 2: "Triceratops Maximus" - actually just a very large Horridus with a 9.5 foot (3.3 METER) skull; photo of plaster cast of the actual skull - NO RECONSTRUCTION - in the BYU science museum:
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 19, 2011 6:13:17 GMT
Actually, not only is the frill of the gigantic BYU skull not complete, it's explicitly discussed in the original Scannella & Horner paper.
Note that 250cm is 8ft, not ten feet (though it is bigger than the Paris specimen by a bit).
And what does Eotriceratops have to do with anything?
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 19, 2011 13:20:15 GMT
And there is also the fact that, even if Torosaurus is separate, Eotriceratops was found to be basal to Triceratops+Torosaurus anyway, so it is as much of a factor in determining the relationship between those two as Styracosaurus or Protoceratops (well, a bit more, but it cannot be used as a free card).
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 20, 2011 7:59:24 GMT
"Yeah, but most of the time, 2 closely related taxa aren't made up one of just juveniles, and the other of just adults."
What do you mean most of the time? How many torosaurus skulls are there in the fossil record? And every single Triceratops skull is a younger animal than any of the Toro skulls? If I'm not mistaken there are LOTS of triceratops skulls and only a handful of toros. I would think that the ratio would be a little less steep if they were indeed the same species. I'm just saying that with the material there is to work with right now its too much to assume that two animals so different in appearance are really the same. There would need to be a Toro skull found amongst some Triceratops and/or a gigantic toros skull bigger than the biggest trike. I just am very hesitant to jump to a conclusion like Horner has without real solid evidence. Which there isn't. Same can be applied to the pachycephalosaurs.
"Actually, to be correct, we would be considering Torosaurus to be an adult Triceratops."
Boooooo I knew that. You should also know that I know, that cut me some slack please.
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 20, 2011 9:06:29 GMT
There would need to be a Toro skull found amongst some Triceratops To be testable this hypothesis requires the assumption that this animal lived in groups, when actually it's likely Trike was a mainly solitary species. There's also evidence form other dinosaurs that the ones that did live in groups, only did it when they were "teenagers", so actually we wouldn't necessarily expect adult skulls to be mixed with subadults. To be scientifically valid, any idea needs to have a way to prove it wrong. The Toroceratops can be proved wrong if a juvenile Torosaurus skull is found that clearly differs from Triceratops. Or if a fully mature Triceratops skull (that is, cranial sutures fully fused) is found that clearly differs from Torosaurus. The alternate, the idea that Triceratops is NOT Toro, can be proved wrong if... well I can't think of anything. If nobody can, it's not scientific. That means the burden of proof is on the traditionalists right now. All this nonsense about size that people throw around online has no bearing on the question. Individual or population variation is too big a factor to make a difference. The question needs to be answered by anatomy. I personally don't think it's been answered. Neither side has not yet made a compelling case. But I also know that Horner's side has enough data to keep publishing papers for the next five years, and talking with Denver fowler etc., it seems like they really haven't even begun to present their case yet. The current paper is only an outline. Which, in hindsight, was probably a bad idea. They should have waited for study to be complete, and published a huge monograph all at once, to avoid these kind of debates where people (on both sides) don't have all the facts to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 20, 2011 14:54:58 GMT
"Yeah, but most of the time, 2 closely related taxa aren't made up one of just juveniles, and the other of just adults." What do you mean most of the time? How many torosaurus skulls are there in the fossil record? And every single Triceratops skull is a younger animal than any of the Toro skulls? If I'm not mistaken there are LOTS of triceratops skulls and only a handful of toros. I would think that the ratio would be a little less steep if they were indeed the same species. I'm just saying that with the material there is to work with right now its too much to assume that two animals so different in appearance are really the same. There would need to be a Toro skull found amongst some Triceratops and/or a gigantic toros skull bigger than the biggest trike. I just am very hesitant to jump to a conclusion like Horner has without real solid evidence. Which there isn't. Same can be applied to the pachycephalosaurs. "Actually, to be correct, we would be considering Torosaurus to be an adult Triceratops." Boooooo I knew that. You should also know that I know, that cut me some slack please. I know, but I think it is important to phrase it correctly--there are enough people thinking that their beloved Triceratops is going to go the way of the name 'Brontosaurus'.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 20, 2011 17:50:39 GMT
Brontosaurus went its way over 100 years ago, museums were just cheap and didn't change the labels in their exhibits.
The holotype of Apatosaurus and the one of "Brontosaurus" seem to be different species. The problem is that there are also two other Apatosaurus species, and splitting one out, well, will lead to some complications. (Add to that that I am a lumper and eager to throw Supersaurus into the mix of Apato species with the information I have, which I admit is not too great).
TrikeToro? They need to get more papers out, but, also as far as I know, separate papers give you more money. Because, y'know, we are in a financial crisis and everybody needs money.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 20, 2011 20:15:20 GMT
Erm, Simon, I don't think so. I just cannot see how you find it absurd based on evidence, because, unless you and me read different papers, saying that it is absurd is going with a preconception.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 20, 2011 20:22:47 GMT
Erm, Simon, I don't think so. I just cannot see how you find it absurd based on evidence, because, unless you and me read different papers, saying that it is absurd is going with a preconception. Well ... you got me there ... I am admittedly speaking from preconception... I actually read some stuff since my last post, and, while the idea may not be absurd, its far from proven. Incidentally, I had never before seen this excellent Torosaurus skull before:
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 20, 2011 20:24:53 GMT
Eotriceratops, BTW looks like a giant Triceratops. How do we know its not the same species as Triceratops proper - perhaps the species existed for longer than initially thought?
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 20, 2011 20:32:55 GMT
"Triceratops" isn't a species, it's a genus that is currently thought to contain two species (T. horridus and T. prorsus). If Eotriceratops were ever to be lumped into Triceratops, it would presumably become T. xerinsularis.
|
|