The Triceratops Never Existed?

page: 1
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It was actually a younger version of another dinosaur. So say scientists, John Scannella and Jack Horner.


Supposedly,

the Triceratops dinosaur—you know, the three horned one—was actually a juvenile form of a Torosaurus, the three horned dinosaur you don't know. Apparently, dinosaurs' skulls can shape-shift.




The scientists... believe that the Torosaurus and Triceratops are actually of the same species. According to the them, as a Triceratops aged, its horns and frill became more similar to that of a Torosaurus. Short becomes long, saw-edged becomes smoothed and so on. Having them be the same species would explain why there were never any young Torosaurus fossils discovered.

The duo say there is a clear transition from triceratops into Torosaurus as the animals grow older. For example, the oldest specimens of triceratops show a marked thinning of the bone where Torosaurus has holes, suggesting they are in the process of becoming fenestrated


Original Article

What's next for someone to disprove? The Loch Ness monster? Santa Claus?
Maybe even George W. Bush.
Pluto isn't even a real planet any more. Sometimes science can be a real bummer....




[edit on 1-8-2010 by webpirate]




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Interesting article. Looks like they're onto something. Check out these pictures.

Here's a detail drawing of a Triceratops


Also here's a detail drawing of a Torosaurus


What do you guys think of these pictures?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
A bit of a correction to your post. The original article is here. It is quite a bit longer.

They also discuss other species which are now being merged as they are being identified as immature versions of another. Very interesting find.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


Thank you. I linked the wrong one. I linked where I found it, not the original. I made the correction.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Regardless of whether or not these dinosaurs truly were the same species, the Triceratops still existed in that form. There is no reason that the juvenile form of this creature could not still be known as the Triceratops.

They are being a bit too dramatic about the distinction I think.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


Hmmm..

Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner.

Link

Weird theory, though after reading seems fairly plausible.
Glad Triceratops gets to keep its name - was one of my favourites when I was little


S&F!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I'm inclined to agree.

It's almost like saying caterpillars don't exist, they are just young/early versions of butterflies (stretching for an analogy here).

The triceratops better not turn into the pluto of the Dinosaurs, I used to have so many of its figurines as a child!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 

I agree. If the Triceratops was first anyways in being identified, then why not make the Torosaurus part of the Triceratops instead of the other way around?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Should edit the thread title to say that 'Torosaurus Never Existed'

Which came first?


The Triceratops!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FunnyLittleFrog
reply to post by webpirate
 


Hmmm..

Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner.

Link


That is apparently the only sentence in the entire article I missed. The original place I read this had the title I used, but I am glad they will stick with Triceratops as the name, since a lot more people are used to that name than the other.

I had often wondered about finding younger or older versions of existing known species possibly being misclassified as different or other species. And not just of dinosaurs....



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


Haha I'm glad too, I wasn't even aware of Torosaurus..


And my little childhood toys won't be redundant either!

But do you guys reckon this theory could extend to others?
Say the different types of Tyrannosaurids? They came in all shapes and sizes under one umbrella group..



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Good find. Reading this I was reminded of how the Bull moose when in velvet (early summer to early fall) spends its time in water and around evergreens . But when the rut starts and the velvet comes off its time to rumble ...Man they can do a job on small tree.
good post and find peace



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This shatters my whole perception of reality!


Here's a cool vid of Walking With Dinosaurs with an animatronic Torosaurus!




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Was I suppose to see a difference in the two species? They do look related. I am not too sure I notice any "shapeshifting".

I think this is just someone that is justifying their job when there isn't anything left for them to discover personally, so they sit and write they have discovered some sort of revelation and it is all just common sense. I am sure there were several hundred species in this family and each had a different variation of colors, behaviors, and crest shapes.

It is sort of like when they came out publicly and said "Birds are Descendants of the Dinosaur". LOL Yeah I knew that when I was 7-years-old and that was my own observation.

Too funny that the obvious is twisted and reshaped to warrant a paying job.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


That was amazing!

How I never heard of Walking with Dinosaurs Live, I'll never know..




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
thankyou for making the land before time redundent to me. you just ruind a VHS classic. i hope your happy with your self



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


I think we're idiots and don't know half of what we say is fact.
But it gives us a reason to get together and hmmm and haaa at each other boosting our egos.
We may never know.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


When I look at Rebels pictures. I don't see reptiles. I see hybrids.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Hybrids? What are you referring too? I must be missing something here.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Interesting and looks very possible indeed.

This Dutch site has a picture of the skulls compared.

Link

Thanks OP.





top topics
 
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join