User Avatar Image

Tricerotops study

posted by BLACK_HAWK94 on - last edited - Viewed by 269 users

We all know and love the Triceratops, wich was brought to life in Jurassic Park and has been known for being the defense force of herbivores from the ferocious Tyrannosaurus Rex, but I found out not too long ago that scientists now belive Triceratops wasn't Triceratops!
After studying the skull, some scientists belive that the Triceratops is merely a Torosaurus, that hasn't fully developed its large crest, like a jouvenile.

What do you guy's think?

10 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @BLACK_HAWK94 said: We all know and love the Triceratops, wich was brought to life in Jurassic Park and has been known for being the defense force of herbivores from the ferocious Tyrannosaurus Rex, but I found out not too long ago that scientists now belive Triceratops wasn't Triceratops!
    After studying the skull, some scientists belive that the Triceratops is merely a Torosaurus, that hasn't fully developed its large crest, like a jouvenile.

    What do you guy's think?

    I read about this information a few months back. You have it backwards. Torosaurus is considered an elder Triceratops, the latter being discovered and named 2 years prior.

  • @Tyrannosaur87 said: I read about this information a few months back. You have it backwards. Torosaurus is considered an elder Triceratops, the latter being discovered and named 2 years prior.

    That's what I ment, I must of worded it wrongly, I ment Triceratops is a young Torosaurus.

  • It thought is was that Torosaurus was a young Triceratops. Torosaurus is smaller than Trikes.

  • Any articles to link I do find it interesting.

  • @evolution_rex said: It thought is was that Torosaurus was a young Triceratops. Torosaurus is smaller than Trikes.

    Yes, that's correct. Tecnically, Torosaurus never existed. But you never know with these things, its always changing.

    However, they both look pretty similar, so there's not much trouble in which is which to be honest.

  • @Trenchfoot said: But you never know with these things, its always changing.

    That's the beauty of Paleontology

  • @Irishmile said: Any articles to link I do find it interesting.

    I don;t have a link unfortionatly, I saw it in a article on Yahoo, mabye you can search it there.

  • Probably not the link you read, but it's generally the same information

    http://www.physorg.com/news198306111.html

  • A fascinating theory, as it would dynamically change what we know of dinosaurs and how they grew, if it's true. As with many theories in paleontology this discovery is met with skepticism and is still in the process of peer review and debate. As more evidence is presented and opponents to the theory are allowed to challenge it, it may turn out to not be true in the end at all.

    It is necessary for the news media to simplify scientific findings in order to make the information accessible and understandable to the general public, but unfortunately that usually results in coming across as "this scientist says this, therefore it must be true," when actually (especially in paleontology) there is much more to the process than that. Only after peer review and further study will there be a verdict on whether this theory is accepted or rejected.

    As this theory is presented by the same group who once made the now-generally-rejected claim that pachycephalosaurus, dracorex, and stigymoloch were the same dinosaur by studying model replicas and not even looking at the actual fossils, I'm taking the "triceratops = torosaurus" claim with a grain of salt.

  • @jurassiraptor said: A fascinating theory, as it would dynamically change what we know of dinosaurs and how they grew, if it's true. As with many theories in paleontology this discovery is met with skepticism and is still in the process of peer review and debate. As more evidence is presented and opponents to the theory are allowed to challenge it, it may turn out to not be true in the end at all.

    It is necessary for the news media to simplify scientific findings in order to make the information accessible and understandable to the general public, but unfortunately that usually results in coming across as "this scientist says this, therefore it must be true," when actually (especially in paleontology) there is much more to the process than that. Only after peer review and further study will there be a verdict on whether this theory is accepted or rejected.

    As this theory is presented by the same group who once made the now-generally-rejected claim that pachycephalosaurus, dracorex, and stigymoloch were the same dinosaur by studying model replicas and not even looking at the actual fossils, I'm taking the "triceratops = torosaurus" claim with a grain of salt.

    Very true, and I personally am waiting for the final verdict

Add Comment