Yes, Swoop is a Pteranodon, pterosaurs are not dinosaurs but do share a common ancestor with them, as all life on Earth does. Some dinosaurs did "technically" fly like Microraptor and some probably did swim like the therapods that were piscivores such as the spinosaurids. I always had this thought that Suchomimus may have been a sub-adult Spinosaurus. They were only separated by six million years or so, I wouldn't doubt it if these two coexisted at the same time. Nanotyrannus I feel is just a young Tyrannosaurus too. I remember watching a documentary on it with Jack Horner explaining how Tyrannosaurus aged.
I was thinking that, too. There are many many examples today of the males being larger with more prominent horns/frills/feathers, and possible that the reason that they've mostly found the smaller examples is because maybe they lived in herds with one or two males to several females and they haven't figured out how to tell the sexes of Triceratops apart yet. --Moony
I remember thinking much the same thing when Suchomimus was first unveiled, but they do seem to be quite distinct. However some think Suchomimus may actually be an adult Baryonyx!
It was once suggested that some crested hadrosaurs and crestless hadrosaurs were sexual differences between the same species, but the evidence didn't tend to support this view. In Tyrannosaurus they find the skeletons separate into those with robust builds, and others with gracile builds. Some have suggested sexual dimorphism, but it may also be age related differences, or geographic variation, others suggest a second species in addition to T.rex may be present.
So should i, put it down as a technicality.. Yes i think, kind of like Lions in a pride... But, if this is the case shouldn't there be signs of fossils, of other triceratops around them "unless" they were killed, for competitive mating reasons (etc.. like Lions) also, i have to wonder, if they have found any of the Torosaurus fossils "near" or "in" nesting areas ( i think that is, what they are called) although it isn't a definite answer.. but, it might be a clue. Sorry, if i don't sound like i know these things, But... It is because i don't know much about this type of thing.
I guess so I know that multiple fossils of Torosaurus have been found in single areas, but if Triceratops is basically a younger version of this animal that means we should find remains with those fossilized herds. Here's an excellent picture I found off of Wikipedia of Triceratops: Notice anything on the frill? There are two large indents on it. This is where the frill is at it's thinest, and because the skull is made up of metaplastic bone, the skull is able to change shape over time, lengthen and stretch out.
My favorite thing about the Triceratops is the way the neck connects to the head. It uses a ball join similar to the one in you shoulder. Which would allow the animal a very large area of movement on it.
That's in a very cool museum in Germany, I've been there. It's a cast of the AMNH's triceratops in New York. From what I've heard from people who've examined the original closely, that part of the frill may be reconstructed(not preserved in the original). It may actually be from a 'Torosaurus' variant with the holes plastered in(?!). I like how they restored the Milwaukee Torosaurus skeleton. There's no mistaking what's real and what's not here, and it's quite surprising just how big those holes could get for something that was solid bone in a younger animal.
Kinda unrelated, but on Discovey's site did you guys read about the Mojoceratops? It was a recent article under the dino section, but I'm too lazy to go there and link to it. Needless to say, it's awesome.
For some reason, I could actually see them doing that "not" knowing any better if it was a Torosaurus or not.
Riiiiight. Even if it turns out Triceratops is a Torosaurus, I'm still calling it a Triceratops. Just like I still call Pluto a planet. I even sometimes use Brontosaurus with older people. Crazy idea, y'all.
wait... isn't Triceratops 9 meters long, and also the largest species of Ceratopsian? Then how could a 'smaller' Torosaurus be a more 'mature' and older variant? Anyways, if this IS true, then I'd be wailing. Those two, aside from Pentaceratops, were my fav Ceratopsians.
Well, its far more likely that Torosaurus will be renamed "Triceratops" rather than the other way around. Either way, that would be a sad day for Torosaur fans.
Most specimens of both species range between 25-29 feet in length. It's quite possible that the animal grew to that size, then shortly after the frill would begin extending back and develop the two holes within it. Since Triceratops was discovered about four years or so before Torosaurus, in 1887, and since it is the much more well-known animal, there's no doubt in my mind Torosaurus will be re-classified as Triceratops. This would also explain why we have never found Triceratops fossils clustered together unlike Torosaurus, that the young died quickly from predators. This also means Triceratops was a very, very common animal sixty five million years ago. Sooner or later we'll eventually come across a fossil of a Triceratops with it's skull beginning to stretch out and morph, basically a transitional fossil between the two species.
Un-fucking-believable how sloppy the reporting has been on this story. I knew reporters could be careless, but damn. And it's still bouncing around the echo chamber. Seems like the majority of reports managed to get it 100% bass-ackwards. I still get people who know I'm into this stuff, coming up to me with "hey I heard Triceratops isn't an official dinosaur anymore, and it never existed". And it turns out, that's pretty much the way the story has told: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20012471-501465.html http://www.overthelimit.info/curiosity/2010/08/03/triceratops-a-hoax/ The Triceratops Never Existed | Gizmodo Australia Triceratops Protest Posters! [PIC] It even prompted so much internet outrage that a campaign was launched to "save the Triceratops". So when Jack Horner had to come out again to clarify that the study actually made Triceratops the valid name, they're all like 'yay, we won!"
The thing is 'Torosaurus' was known from far less fossils, most of which are skulls. As far as I'm aware, the 'Torosaurus' skeleton in Milwaukee is the closest thing to a complete skeleton. The skull is the largest skull of any land animal. Triceratops, on the other hand is known from numerous fossils, including several near-complete skeletons. It's the most common dinosaur fossil of its era. Basically, this means that the largest triceratops skeletons we know of were not fully mature. We don't really have a complete example of just how big this animal could get. This may also have been the case. Sort of like how a teenage human will reach their adult height, but by the time they're in their twenties, the whole frame has broadened out. And then things like the nose and ears continue to grow slowly throughout adulthood, they never really stop growing.
