I wish OP's would read articles properly first. I also wish respondents would research (ie check the validity of) what they read before replying.

Triceratops and Torosaurus both "existed" but are not separate species....anymore. As a consequence of the research Torosaurus will now be called Triceratops. This is not the only dinosaur that needs to be "merged".

Damn, lousy, evil, fasciest scientists!

First, they took away my Brontosaurus and replaced it with the totally lame Apotosaurus, now they're going after the Triceritops?!!!


That's probably one of the biggest kid favorites of all time. These G-D scientists keep taking away my favorite childhood toys and reclassifying and eliminating them.


You just watch, they'll try to take away the T-rex next and when that happens, the public will finally rise up and say "Enough is enough!"

Then the scientist heads will roll in the streets!


Bwoohahahah!

Shoulda happened when they took away the Brontosaurus IMO!

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Leave it to Jack Horner to be behind this new theory. He was always quite the maverick when it came to saurian paleontology.

Yea this happens a lot. For example, the raptors of Jurrassic Park never existed. They were custom made dinosaurs for the film.

Thanks for clearing out the ignorance.

When you get right down to it, it would not surprise me any if a lot of these Dinosaur descriptions are wrong and we have them depicted in a complete opposite way than what they actually were.

I know I'm late. I just want to say that this is an interesting, whether you believe in it or not.

You know, it does not shock me one bit. We simply do know what we think we know about the Dinosaurs. It would not surprise me if we have many many others depicted wrong.

Something just doesnt add up concerning large dinosaurs!
Recently in south america 70% of a new species of giant dinosaur was found. The herbivorous Futalognkosaurus.
This compares with on average only 10% complete finds of all other large dinosaurs.
Yet surprisingly experts can piece together the complete animal in entirety, the rest of the skeleton, muscle, skin type, and colour.
Even its environment and its role within it. It would seem alot of what paleontologists do is make educated
guesses using what we know from existing ecosystems. When watching a documentry on dinosaurs theres no mention of we "think it looks like" or "most likely ate whatever", no its all told as accepted knoweledge.
Well i dont accept it!

To get the full article you have to subscribe. Does it say how long the life span is for these? Wouldn't it have to be long for these changes to occur?