Triceratops 'never really existed'

[gobo]

Originally Posted by Shredder

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.

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

People still refere to the Brontosaurs even tho they're really Apatasaurs...

You can blame that one on The Flintstones. ^_^

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by Slap Happy

Velociraptors actually did have feathers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0920145402.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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

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

Originally Posted by 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.

ditto

[Raph's Girl]

Originally Posted by ooglafina

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.

[ooglafina]

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

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.

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? I don't believe my eyes.

[Raph's Girl]

Originally Posted by ooglafina

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]

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

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.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

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]

Originally Posted by TMNT_Canadian

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]

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

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]

Originally Posted by ooglafina

Utahraptor is my favorite dinosaur.

Mine are Parasaurolophus and Triceratops.

[BoggleKng]

Originally Posted by moosandra

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...y-existed.html

Huh, wonder what PL thinks... xD

Peter did comment about it on his blog

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

[jaymq]

Originally Posted by BoggleKng

Peter did comment about it on his blog

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

Oooh cool. Thanks, dude.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

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.

[Shredder]

Originally Posted by Raph's Girl

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...

[ooglafina]

Originally Posted by Shredder

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]

Originally Posted by Shredder

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...

thanks Shred-man totally agree with you

[Luzmagica]

LOL!!! Interesting nice thread....
Maybe thats the reason this guys has a problem with temper.....
Donatello must explain them this news...

[oldmanwinters]

Torosaurus was a bad-lookin' dude!


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...iceratops.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!

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

[TheCanadiandrome]

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