|
|
Post by sid on Mar 6, 2012 12:41:29 GMT
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...  |
|
|
|
Post by shadowarceus on Mar 6, 2012 16:33:40 GMT
This made my day!  |
|
weaver
Full Member
Icon by the great Djinni!
Posts: 156
|
Post by weaver on Mar 8, 2012 4:58:35 GMT
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*
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Mar 8, 2012 14:21:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Mar 9, 2012 0:01:11 GMT
So, the debate continues... 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.  |
|
|
|
Post by brachiosaurus on Mar 9, 2012 0:13:40 GMT
So, the debate continues... 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 |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Mar 9, 2012 6:06:57 GMT
Yeah a young torosaurus (as in with holes) would confirm they are still different animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Mar 9, 2012 14:12:56 GMT
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 9, 2012 14:58:43 GMT
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 ..... .... and, well, you get the idea ... |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 9, 2012 15:00:36 GMT
Just as these say for me: unicorns' horns.  ;D Ah, that was wicked of me. Mea culpa!  ;D Who would do such a thing, Twilight Sparkle and Rarity will not be pleased ;D Poor Narwhals ... |
|
|
|
Post by darwinian on Mar 9, 2012 17:03:36 GMT
Another one of Jack Horner's crackpot theories gets torpedoed. Seems to be an ongoing trend! Are you saying that T-rex was NOT a fat, ugly, scavenging juvenile brachiosaur? |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 9, 2012 18:02:42 GMT
Another one of Jack Horner's crackpot theories gets torpedoed. Seems to be an ongoing trend! ..or you could say that another one of Jack Horner's creative fund-raising ideas bites the dust ... |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 9, 2012 18:06:11 GMT
Once again, in the BYU science museum is THIS:  ...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) |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Mar 9, 2012 18:46:54 GMT
*Cough cough*. Quoting dr. Holtz: "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." |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Mar 10, 2012 12:20:42 GMT
Once again, in the BYU science museum is THIS: ...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? Without data, anecdotes like this are useless. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 10, 2012 17:09:21 GMT
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. There. I said it. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Mar 11, 2012 5:09:31 GMT
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. |
|
;D 
