Two scientists are arguing that dinosaurs were shape-shifters and that triceratops were just a young version of another dinosaur:
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.
Triceratops had three facial horns and a short, thick neck-frill with a saw-toothed edge. Torosaurus also had three horns, though at different angles, and a much longer, thinner, smooth-edged frill with two large holes in it. So it’s not surprising that Othniel Marsh, who discovered both in the late 1800s, considered them to be separate species.
Now Scannella and Horner say that triceratops is merely the juvenile form of torosaurus. As the animal aged, its horns changed shape and orientation and its frill became longer, thinner and less jagged. Finally it became fenestrated, producing the classic torosaurus form.
I read the article, and I have to say it doesn’t seem to me to hold water. This ‘graph in particular:
That being the case, why elvolve it at all? I’d love to read the whole study, because on the limited info available they seem to be jumping to some huge conclusions…
I’ve heard the claim about the blood vessels elsewhere. The reasoning was that it was a method of heating/cooling the blood for the animal, much like the bony fins of the stegosaurus. No idea how valid the idea is but at least it does provide an alternative evolutionary benefit.
Yeah, but at such a high cost? It would be like modern-day stags having their testicles attached to their antlers. Very cooling, but OW!
The current thinking is that the frills of ceratopsians are mainly for sexual signalling. This also explains why the frill / horn pattern is often the sole distinguishing factor between species.
Damn it, they keep getting rid of the dinosaurs I actually know. First it was the brontosaurus, now the triceratops. Next they’ll be saying that the T-Rex was actually just a deformed rat…
Horner does make similar claims about T rex, suggesting that Nanoraptor was actually a young T rex.
Oh, and Brontosaurus still exists, it’s just called Apatosaurus now.
yeah, a quick search shows that most other scientists are pretty skeptical of this claim.
According to the linked article: “Torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to Triceratops, says Horner.”
Even though the triceratops headline is popular.
This seems like a new task for “The Curious Fundie” but I’m not sure if I should bother. I may be more behind than an actual fundie. Last year or so, my friend visited me and started talking about dinosaurs. I don’t know much about dinosaurs, and so he says, “You really are a girl,” and claims some other girl on the subway looked up from her book and smiled at him. I don’t have a stake in whether this triceratops is a unique species or not, and I guess I don’t think it’s going to change my life, unless I’m trying to attract nerdy guys in particular, and I don’t think that I am.
Dinosaurs are actually the Zerg!
LIKE!
Paleontologists who like to get attention study dinosaurs because they are popular. Maybe this is how they get even more attention.
So Charlton Heston may have been right. Maybe there were no dinosaurs at all! :)
Since there is no logically reason to believe that this is going to change anybodys lives, lets all remember that perception is reality. I don’t care if scientist called it a takeadumpfromourignorantmouthasaurus. It is a freakin triceratops. How do we know that the torosaurus wasn’t some genetically mutated cousin of the triceratops or vice versa? Until we invent a time machine we’ll never really know. So why don’t all those smart scientist types actually use their brains to find out real shit, instead of arguing over linguistic nuances.
What do you mean by “real shit”? Should we not be trying to work out the relationship between different species of dinosaur?