Triceratops 'never really existed'

[jaymq]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1299666/Triceratops-really-existed.html

Huh, wonder what PL thinks... xD

[Samhain]

So, they are just baby versions. Not a huge deal.

[Ninjinister]

Given the fact that they're renaming the Torosaurus, Triceratops, I think it's more like the former being the elder version of the latter.

[gobo]

It's the curse of Pluto! RUN FOR YOU LIVES!!

[Peanut]

Given the fact that they're renaming the Torosaurus, Triceratops, I think it's more like the former being the elder version of the latter.

Seriously. Why is the headline that Triceratops never existed if they're all being named Triceratops? Shouldn't it be Torosaurus never existed?

[TheCanadiandrome]

It's the curse of Pluto! RUN FOR YOU LIVES!!

rofl, good one :tlol:

[Koi]

I know a 9 year old who will now be devastated.

[TheCanadiandrome]

now what's to become of all the other Dinosaurs? if someone tells me that T-Rex wasn't the king of the Dinosaurs after all then i'm going to be mad!

[Ninjinister]

Seriously. Why is the headline that Triceratops never existed if they're all being named Triceratops? Shouldn't it be Torosaurus never existed?

Word.

Honestly, I used to be a huge dinosaur nerd when I was a youngin' and I don't remember ever hearing of a Torosaurus. So, y'know, like... this really doesn't effect me.

[TheCanadiandrome]

i still am a dinosaur nerd. but yeah it's no big deal. renaming of dinosaur species isn't anything new

[Warhorse]

now what's to become of all the other Dinosaurs? if someone tells me that T-Rex wasn't the king of the Dinosaurs after all then i'm going to be mad!

Well, there were several scientists that speculated that the T-Rex was a scavenger like vultures are, never a hunter, they based this claim on that their arms were too small to be of any advantage, but I have to disagree, because we've all seen what them crocodiles in Africa can do with just their mouths!

[jaymq]

Well, there were several scientists that speculated that the T-Rex was a scavenger like vultures are, never a hunter, they based this claim on that their arms were too small to be of any advantage, but I have to disagree, because we've all seen what them crocodiles in Africa can do with just their mouths!

I can see T-Rex doing both as necessary, he's a big frakking carnivore. I see him doing what ever suits him to get his food. But I find it hard to believe he' ONLY do scavenging. But who knows really.

[TheCanadiandrome]

this is also from the same group of scientists that claim Dinos had feathers and not all had scales

[XERO]

Er... yeah.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs266.snc4/39645_143209952375016_100000580378058_314382_34556 53_n.jpg

[Slap-Happy]

this is also from the same group of scientists that claim Dinos had feathers and not all had scales
Velociraptors actually did have feathers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm

[gobo]

Velociraptors actually did have feathers.
So, I was sold a defective pet velocirapter? O_o gobo pissed. :evil:

[Shredder]

Another "still a dinosaur nerd" here. :) Before reading this, I was familiar with the Torosaurus as pretty much a bigger, better Triceratops. So this makes sense and doesn't surprise me much. Still, good to know. And I agree with Peanut that this really makes the Torosaurus name "extinct" since now they'll all be Triceratops.

[Raph's Girl]

That is one totally misleading headline!! Phew.... Now I need a Torotriceratopsaurus figure....

I doubt anybody would know the difference. People still refere to the Brontosaurs even tho they're really Apatasaurs...

[ooglafina]

This kind of thing actually happens alot in the fossil record. There usually aren't enough samlpes to tell if differences in age and sexual dimorphism are really a new species or else just a difference in size. I took archaeology 101, so I'm an expert. :P They actually have skin imprints that show that some dinosaurs did have feathers, at least at some stage in their life. And t-rex was big enough that he could just take whatever he wanted from other dinosaurs. He was the biggest bully on the block.

[BubblyShell22]

This is interesting news, but I'm still going to refer to the dino as the Triceratops since that's what I know it as.

[gobo]

And I agree with Peanut that this really makes the Torosaurus name "extinct" since now they'll all be Triceratops.
The article I read before this thread was made said exactly that. 'Torosaurus' is the name they're throwing away.
People still refere to the Brontosaurs even tho they're really Apatasaurs...
You can blame that one on The Flintstones. ^_^

[TheCanadiandrome]

Velociraptors actually did have feathers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm

i know that. what i'm disputing is when they claim all Dinos had feathers. and it was only proven in the last 10+ years that Raptors had feathers

Another "still a dinosaur nerd" here. :) Before reading this, I was familiar with the Torosaurus as pretty much a bigger, better Triceratops. So this makes sense and doesn't surprise me much. Still, good to know. And I agree with Peanut that this really makes the Torosaurus name "extinct" since now they'll all be Triceratops.

see i wasn't familiar with the Torosaurus name before. wasn't in any Dino books i've got or had

and yeah they'll all be Triceratop regardless


I doubt anybody would know the difference. People still refere to the Brontosaurs even tho they're really Apatasaurs...

exactly, and there's several different ones

This is interesting news, but I'm still going to refer to the dino as the Triceratops since that's what I know it as.

ditto

[Raph's Girl]

He was the biggest bully on the block.

Actually the Spinosaur was bigger than ole T-rex. While T-Rex got up to 42 ft the Spinosaur got up to 59 ft. And then there's Gigantosaurus... A half ton bigger than T-Rex. :P

[ooglafina]

Actually the Spinosaur was bigger than ole T-rex. While T-Rex got up to 42 ft the Spinosaur got up to 59 ft. And then there's Gigantosaurus... A half ton bigger than T-Rex. :P

They weren't North American were they? I'll have to check. I know that there are bigger specimens, but I know that Spinosaurus' epithet is Aegypticus because he was found in Egypt. Don't know about the others.

Wikipedia says that Gigantosaurus was from South America and T-Rex was from western North America.

[gobo]

Raph's Girl outgeeked? :o I don't believe my eyes.

[Raph's Girl]

Wikipedia says that Gigantosaurus was from South America and T-Rex was from western North America.

Well yes Tyranosaurids are most commonly found in North America and Asia... Spinosaurids can also be found in Asia. But I wasn't refering to location, just size.

[ooglafina]

Well yes Tyranosaurids are most commonly found in North America and Asia... Spinosaurids can also be found in Asia. But I wasn't refering to location, just size.

Understood. Just wanted to sound smart. :lol:

[TheCanadiandrome]

Actually the Spinosaur was bigger than ole T-rex. While T-Rex got up to 42 ft the Spinosaur got up to 59 ft.

yeah remember their epic battle in Jurassic Park III?

[Raph's Girl]

yeah remember their epic battle in Jurassic Park III?

Barely....I don't really like the Jurassic Park movies since nearly all the dinos are Cretacious era (there were maybe 4 or 5 actual Jurassic dinos in the films)..... Plus the crap about the Velociraptors...those weren't Velociraptors! They were too big! Real ones were the size of turkeys! Now Utahraptors on the other hand got that big and even bigger.

[ooglafina]

Barely....I don't really like the Jurassic Park movies since nearly all the dinos are Cretacious era (there were maybe 4 or 5 actual Jurassic dinos in the films)..... Plus the crap about the Velociraptors...those weren't Velociraptors! They were too big! Real ones were the size of turkeys! Now Utahraptors on the other hand got that big and even bigger.

Utahraptor is my favorite dinosaur.

[Raph's Girl]

Utahraptor is my favorite dinosaur.

Mine are Parasaurolophus and Triceratops. :D

[BoggleKng]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1299666/Triceratops-really-existed.html

Huh, wonder what PL thinks... xD

Peter did comment about it on his blog

http://plairdblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/triceratops-no-more.html

[jaymq]

Peter did comment about it on his blog

http://plairdblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/triceratops-no-more.html

Oooh cool. Thanks, dude.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Barely....I don't really like the Jurassic Park movies since nearly all the dinos are Cretacious era (there were maybe 4 or 5 actual Jurassic dinos in the films)..... Plus the crap about the Velociraptors...those weren't Velociraptors! They were too big! Real ones were the size of turkeys! Now Utahraptors on the other hand got that big and even bigger.

ah well details details. :tlol:

[Shredder]

Barely....I don't really like the Jurassic Park movies since nearly all the dinos are Cretacious era (there were maybe 4 or 5 actual Jurassic dinos in the films)..... Plus the crap about the Velociraptors...those weren't Velociraptors! They were too big! Real ones were the size of turkeys! Now Utahraptors on the other hand got that big and even bigger.

You really don't like the Jurassic Park movies? Now them's fightin' words! ;) But seriously, I think the title was just because it sounded good. Let's face it- "Cretaceous Park" just doesn't flow as well. Plus, the word "Jurassic" brings up prehistoric images, so it certainly serves the purpose, even it it isn't perfectly historically accurate. Also, about the movie Velociraptors, I agree that they really were more like Utahraptors but you also have to keep in mind that the first two movies were based on the books (okay, loosely based in the case of The Lost World), the first of which was written in 1990. Since, as we know, what we "know" about dinosaurs changes all the time with new theories and discoveries, some information just wasn't known or popularly accepted when the first book came out (such as velociraptors having feathers). Also, even if the name "velociraptor" wasn't really accurate, similar actual dinosaurs did exist in the same family, so it's not too far off. Plus, can't you just chalk it up to the fact that things might have changed as a result of them being genetically engineered? ;) Okay, I think I'm done taking this way too seriously, but I've been a Jurassic Park fan from the very beginning. Back to the Triceratops/Torosaurus talk... :D

[ooglafina]

You really don't like the Jurassic Park movies? Now them's fightin' words! ;) But seriously, I think the title was just because it sounded good. Let's face it- "Cretaceous Park" just doesn't flow as well.

Wasn't that a deal in the book, where they say something like Jurassic Park sounded better when our hero scientists inquire about it? I read those books a really long time ago, but I thought that Crighton had done it on purpose. And I heard Stan Winston saying that he knew that raptor-like dinosaurs may have had feathers so they tried a redesign by the third movie to incorporate a hint at that.

[TheCanadiandrome]

You really don't like the Jurassic Park movies? Now them's fightin' words! ;) But seriously, I think the title was just because it sounded good. Let's face it- "Cretaceous Park" just doesn't flow as well. Plus, the word "Jurassic" brings up prehistoric images, so it certainly serves the purpose, even it it isn't perfectly historically accurate. Also, about the movie Velociraptors, I agree that they really were more like Utahraptors but you also have to keep in mind that the first two movies were based on the books (okay, loosely based in the case of The Lost World), the first of which was written in 1990. Since, as we know, what we "know" about dinosaurs changes all the time with new theories and discoveries, some information just wasn't known or popularly accepted when the first book came out (such as velociraptors having feathers). Also, even if the name "velociraptor" wasn't really accurate, similar actual dinosaurs did exist in the same family, so it's not too far off. Plus, can't you just chalk it up to the fact that things might have changed as a result of them being genetically engineered? ;) Okay, I think I'm done taking this way too seriously, but I've been a Jurassic Park fan from the very beginning. Back to the Triceratops/Torosaurus talk... :D

thanks Shred-man totally agree with you

[Luzmagica]

LOL!!! Interesting nice thread.... :tgrin::tgrin::tgrin:
Maybe thats the reason this guys has a problem with temper.....
Donatello must explain them this news...
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5765/tricep.jpg (http://img190.imageshack.us/i/tricep.jpg/)

[oldmanwinters]

Torosaurus was a bad-lookin' dude!
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/adamwinters/random%20pics/DRTorosaurusARMORED1a.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/adamwinters/random%20pics/DRTorosaurusARMORED3a.jpg
http://www.toyarchive.com/DinoRiders/DRTorosaurus.html

It's too bad we have to settle for a merging of the Toro with the Triceratops.

I was very familiar with both concepts, courtesy of Dino-Riders cartoon and toy-line. In the show, the Valorians (good guys) used the Torosaurus in their battles against the Rulons (villainous reptiles and insects bent on tyranny) who captured all the Triceratops courtesy of their Brain Boxes:
http://www.toyarchive.com/DinoRiders/DinoRidersTriceratops.html

But the Torosaurus always struck me as the more impressive of the two and he was cool since he was more than happy to be fitted with battle armor and laser blasters in the fight for good! And his main caretaker was a grizzled military man named Gunner, voiced by none other than the great Peter Cullen himself!

Video Goodness!
NQZDn8avH6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQZDn8avH6k

[TheCanadiandrome]

Dinoriders! loved that show! wish it was on dvd!