Triceratops - Torosaurs

[Airbot]

Turns out Triceratops were just juvenile Torosaurus and not separate species.

DINOSAURS were shape-shifters. Their skulls underwent extreme changes throughout their lives, growing larger, sprouting horns then reabsorbing them, and changing shape so radically that different stages look to us like different species.
This discovery comes from a study of the iconic dinosaur triceratops and its close relative torosaurus. Their skulls are markedly different but are actually from the very same species, argue John Scannella and Jack Horner at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana.

More

 

[Petey7]

I've been interested in dinosaurs my entire life and am majoring in chemistry because of it (I would major in bio, but I hate bio classes). I have been reading a lot in my time and stuff like this comes out of the wood work all the time. In a few months, everyone will have forgotten about it, or it will be accepted as fact. Until a couple months have gone by, we won't be able to tell which.

Also, some have been speculating about this already, and the official name for the species would most likely be Triceratops, not Torosaurus.

 

[AvatarOfTheShip]

This kind of thing happens because its difficult to get a grant for a subject that's considered essentially complete. Dinosaurs came, prospered, got hit by a meteorite, vanished. The End. No, wait - they were shape-shifters! This is the kind of thing that intrigues the grant-granting morons and gets you a chance to take a big bite out of your mortgage. Humans are like that - nasty, biting little insects.

 

[Petey7]

Avatar, if you look at the skeletons for both species (now being considered one by many) you will see that they aren't that different. Same basic shape, just one is big and has a (somewhat) differently shaped skeleton than the other. All it means is that the triceratops never stopped growing until it was dead. And Paleontology is far from complete, and about a lot more than just dinosaurs. It pertains to all life before humans. Dinosaurs were here for longer than most types of creatures, so they get the most attention. New dinosaurs and other extinct creatures are discovered constantly. Saying the subject is nearly complete is like saying we know of every single planet in the universe and have named them all. It just sounds ridiculous to anyone that has a decent understanding of the subject.

 

[AvatarOfTheShip]

I don't mean paleontology, I mean dinosaurs. And humans are prone to such ridiculous, the-case-is-closed thinking. How many times has Physics been declared over, bar some 'mopping-up work'? Now people like Hawking, who should really know better, are at it again. String Theory, anyone? Didn't think so.

 

[Petey7]

Dude, you can't talk about dinosaurs without talking about paleontology. This just proves your lack of knowledge of the subject. If you study dinosaurs, you are a paleontologist. Even some of the most basic ideas people had about dinosaurs 20 years ago have been proven to be false since then. Like the idea that most, if not all, dinosaurs were looked reptilian, but new discoveries have proven that many species had fur or feathers instead of the reptilian looking skin the word dinosaur implies (saur is taken from the Greek word "sauros" meaning lizard/reptile).

 

[AvatarOfTheShip]

Dinosaurs are part of paleontology - they do not represent the sum total of the subject, nor even the majorty of it. Presumably there are people who have persued active and fruitful careers in this subject without concerning themselves with dinosaurs. My point is that, there is if you like 'pure' science, persued by people for whom the work is the important thing - but also even academics have to earn a living, and in the current, pop-culture-driven marketplace with its ethos of 'publish or perish', with even Physics slowly it seems becoming part of the entertainment industry, people can be driven, perhaps even against their better nature and judgement, to make somewhat 'stretched' models of reality in order to get a chair, a grant, a book deal. So yes, I don't mean paleontology, I mean dinosaurs. Clear now?

 

[xarden]

String Theory?
Sorry for my ignorance, but is that the research thats going on to figure out how long is a piece of string?

 

[Petey7]

My original point still remains. It isn't a subject that is anywhere near complete. It is currently estimated that we currently have named at most 1% of all dinosaurs. The triceratops and the torosaurus were already known to be related. In fact from the time the first torosaurus was found it was known to be more closely related to the triceratops than any other dinosaur previously found. Stating they are one-in-the-same is not a stretch. It is definitely looking like it is quickly being accepted as fact. After looking at the evidence given, it is actually pretty easy to see both as being one in the same.

 

[Lemur]

Next you'll be telling me Pluto isn't a plant. Say it aint so...

 

[AvatarOfTheShip]

String Theory?
Sorry for my ignorance, but is that the research thats going on to figure out how long is a piece of string?

Yes, and when they get the Large Hadron Collider up to speed they expect to have an answer within a decade

 

[Kirsch]

It is currently estimated that we currently have named at most 1% of all dinosaurs

Where are you getting this info? Last I heard the best estimate was that we were at 30%. If you are going to throw numbers out there let's see the source please.

 

[xarden]

It is currently estimated that we currently have named at most 1% of all dinosaurs

Where are you getting this info? Last I heard the best estimate was that we were at 30%. If you are going to throw numbers out there let's see the source please.

Doesnt matter. It has statistics. 63% of people will believe you 80% of the time, when you use statistics.