Jump to content

Talk:Triceratops/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

To Do List

Probaly better listed here than on collaboration page as the other is time limited. Cas Liber 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Triceratops is the next collaboration

(Subpage here). Diffs.

  • Status: Article status unknown.


Support:

  1. M&NCenarius 05:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. ArthurWeasley 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sphenacodon 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Cas Liber 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dinoguy2 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

To-do list

Above are the comments for the second-time round nomination to hopefully get it up to FA candidacy..Now for a to-do list........Cas Liber 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, but comparing it to Stegosaurus, I think the Paleobiology and Popular Culture sections are robust. The Discovery and History could use beefing up (someone who has Dodson's book could expand on the species and lineage hypotheses of the pre-1980s, and how that got translated to discussions of age, sexual dimorphism, and individual variation). Also, it would be nice to have a sentence or two on the various nomina dubia (what they're based on, formation and location, and that's about it). J. Spencer 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The other thing is synthesising a description subheading straight after the intro; this was something I never did when initially expanding dino entries but other FACs have all had them and the reviewers seem to think them necessary.Cas Liber 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a ton of lists in this article. Since the reviewers hate lists, those have got to be turned into paragraphs of lovely prose. Also, the pop culture section needs some serious pruning. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved the culture section into a new article. No point mixing fiction trivia with actual information on the dinosaur (c.f. astronomical articles like Vega or Europa (moon)).--JyriL talk 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, a Description seems to have been beneficial, if not essential, to get dino articles to FAs. I have rejigged and made one. Needs some work though Cas Liber 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've begun a Classification bit (like on the Stegosaurus page) which shoudl get an origins bit undeneath. Will do more later Cas Liber 07:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

References

the book "The Dinosaur Heresies" has some interesting facts and figures about Triceratop's running speed. this can be a good source. however, i do not have this book. i don't know how i can use this as a reference. ISBN is 0140100555 Author: Robert T. Bakker. --RebSkii 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm sure one of us has it Cas Liber 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Final to-do list pre FAC

OK guys, what now? It is looking alot better. Cas Liber 08:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Peer Review (?)
  • rearrange images (?)
(images): how about a left-right-left-right (so-on and so forth) formating? i'm not a fan of right-only or left-only images format. --RebSkii 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • the automated review says no links in headings (nomina dubia subheading) but I feel this is only a subheading and helps explain as the link is nowhere else in the text. What say others? Cas Liber 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If we explained it like that, we might be able to get away with it.
In general, the article seems a little short, but darned if I can find anything specifically wrong with it. It hits all the important topics. Maybe this is just the length it's supposed to be. J. Spencer 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should try to avoid technical terms like nomina dubia in headings. Maybe we could remove it from the heading, and include text immediately afterword to the effect of "the following species are considered nomina dubia ("dubious names"), and are based on remains that are too poor or incomplete to be distinguished from pre-existing Triceratops species." Especially in a featured article, a little blurb like that would help to readers understand some of the reasons these species are not valid. Dinoguy2 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant Cas Liber 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of lengthening, maybe adding something about some of the fragmentary teeth that were probably Triceratops found before 1889? Cas Liber 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of dino FAS as of Jan 18 2007:

  • Triceratops = 27.8 kB (3964 words) - comparison
  • Stegosaurus = 36.5 kB (5328 words)
  • Diplodocus = 30.5 kB (4474 words)
  • Tyrannosaurus = 57.0 kB (8268 words)
  • Velociraptor = 28.4 kB (4016 words)
  • Dinosaur = 67.3 kB (9682 words)
  • Albertosaurus = 21.2 kB (2996 words)
  • Psittacosaurus = 22.8 kB (3159 words)

Note the last 3 were granted FA status some time ago now. Would folks have wanted them longer now? Cas Liber 05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't thnk we should pad it to get to a specified length. The one thing I'd like to see added is a bit on "what" it's thought to have been eating. J. Spencer 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
subheadings are also headings. i agree with rewording Nomina dubia with a less technical term. also, the caption in one of images says: Juvenile and adult skulls — the juvenile is about the size of an adult human head i only see a single skull in that particular image, does that mean the adult and the young's skull is the same (in size or everything) also, there is a dangling modifier in the statement that followed. Does that mean that the specie (the young ones) is only as small (or big) as a human head? i'll try to reword it if no one objects. --RebSkii 16:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you may be missing something there--the juvenile skull is directly in front of the frill of the adult skull. It's a bit more brownish in color and has those stubby little horns. Dinoguy2 16:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
seen it. thanks. --RebSkii 18:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


OK - have added a bit on diet - the last bit of the function of frills and horns subheading bugs me but I can't visualise how to write it currently.Cas Liber 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on references: Some of the references seem to be formatted slightly differently than others. For example, on the years:
^ Marsh, O.C. (1889b). Notice of gigantic horned Dinosauria from the Cretaceous. American Journal of Science 38:173-175.
^ Ostrom, J. H., and P. Wellnhofer. 1986. The Munich specimen of Triceratops with a revision of the genus. Zitteliana 14: 111 - 158.
I know some of these are books, some journals, but this shows both books and journals with the year following the author's name in parenthesis. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, all years parenthesized and all vols bolded. Never know hwat to do with the page 'pp' thingies....Cas Liber 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have done it myself, but wasn't exactly sure it really was right. I didn't want to mess anything up, ya know! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
So whaddya reckon- have a tilt now or can you see other things to fix......Cas Liber 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just finished fixing some italics/puntuation issues, but the article looks fine to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
On a second glance, the lead is still a little short. Does our current lead really summarize the entire rest of the article? It doesn't really look like it. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was starting to think that on a final look. Do you wanna have a play with it or shall I...(gotta make some lunch now)Cas Liber 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on it. Happy lunching! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Right. It's a bit longer now, with stuff that wasn't summarized now included. J. Spencer helped me refine it a bit. What do you think? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - I just tweaked the last bit of the horn/frill function subsection. There is one isolated sentence hanging about sound amplification which I can't figure where to put - its just sort of hanging there. Otherwise I'm happy with the intro and the rest. Its comprehensive, easy to read, well laid out and (obviously) neutral....Cas Liber 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Right - had another look and was able to combine the sentence on noise with thermoregulation as a preamble to talking about display. I'm happy now - let's nominate Cas Liber 05:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Posture

I started a small section on posture, and added a ref in the links section... does anyone have historical references or pictures to clarify? Sphenacodon 9:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, does any research give a hint if Triceratops dragged its tail behind, or kept it clear of the ground (and how high)? Many modern reconstructions of other dinosaur species show the latter, but perhaps T. was different? --62.143.122.76 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole section is inadequate, covering only the last couple decades. In its current form, it's just better to remove the entire section, rather than claim that the section is representative of "the depiction of triceratops in popular media". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-20 13:40Z

I disagree. The section is just that: a section: a full article is elsewhere. There is no "claim" that the section is a comprehensive representation of Triceratops in popular culture, since the main article is on a separate page. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For giggles, but also as a caveat, you may with to see the "unicorn" entry on Conservapedia. It may appear familiar. Palmd001 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Naming explanation

I'm surprised this has made featured article. The leading paragraph goes over the name twice straight after each other. Surely this is overkill and unecessary - once should be enough for anyone.

Perhaps it would read better as:

It was discovered in late 1893 by esteemed and world renowned paleontologist Robby Lewis. Bearing a large bony frill and three horns on its large four-legged body, and conjuring similarities with the modern rhinoceros, Triceratops is one of the most recognizable of all dinosaurs. Triceratops was named after the three horns on its head. The name literally means "three-horned face", and is derived from the Greek tri/τρι- meaning "three", ceras/κέρας meaning "horn", and -ops/ωψ meaning "face".[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.173.199 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fix this

im not sure how to do it, but can someone remove the bob was here!!!!!!!! thing found under Description i can't find where it is int he page source, and it's annoying —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.151.13.8 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Done very well, but one thing isn't of prime quality: the link called "Dinosaur skull picture" which leads to mantyweb.com. They plea for young earth creationism and pretend the triceratops (alongside other dinosaurs) was "alive sometime in the last 6000 years". As this article on triceratops is a scientific and not a religious one, I'll now stop buking and laughing simultaneuosly and simply delete this link. I dont have an english wikepedia account yet: [1] on the german wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.65.172.73 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Question

I have a question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.218.156.193 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The answer is 42. Raul654 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

what if his question was "why did the dinosaurs die out" and that is clearly "Because you Touch ourself at night" but seriously, what be thy question.--DiogenesTheHobo 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ceratopsid" v "ceratopsian"?

E.g., in "one of the last ~s to appear before the X extinction event," the one in the summary has it one way, and the one later in the article has it the other way. Obviously article titles in references should be as they are in the original, but for the many mentions in this article, which is appropriate? I'm thinking ceratopsid, based on "ceratopsidae," and the fact that the more-visible summary bears that version of the word. 71.191.51.134 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ceratopsian refers to the infraorder Ceratopsia, which includes more than just the Ceratopsidae, a family. Either work, because it was one of the last dinosaurs in either classification. We may want to standardize, though. Using ceratopsians is a bit more dramatic because it's a larger group. J. Spencer 04:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Clarification"

I changed the "It was one of the last dinosaurs to appear before the great.." to "This genus was one amongst the last dinosaurs to appear before the great..." because it confused me to no end - it appeared to me as if suddenly article is about a species, not a genus. If somebody thinks I'm in the wrong, please correct me. Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 12:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The word species wasn't mentioned, so I'm not sure why there would be confusion at all. I'm also not sure "one amongst the dinosaurs" is grammatically correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time of the FAC, I also voiced concerns about it switching from discussing species to genus. Looks like I wasn't entirely unjustified. Circeus 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Concern was justified as it is unclear how many species are in the genus. However, the change as written by User:BraneJ was awkward so I simply added "genera" after "dinosaur" to clarify the sentence. Sheep81 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Shouldn't it be "The Triceratops was a..." instead of just "Triceratops was a..." While perhaps, grammatically correct, the current version sounds awkward. Aaron Bowen 01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Triceratops is a genus-level animal, just like Homo. It sounds a bit strange to me to say "The homo sapiens was..." Firsfron of Ronchester 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like "The ____" is used mainly with common names. For example, Rhinoceros is both a genus name and common name. Its article opens with "The rhinoceros", lower case. I agree that "The Rhinoceros" sounds and looks a little odd (it's kind of an archaic usage, I think), so I'd say the same applies for fossil genera. Dinoguy2 02:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If this was an article about one Triceratops, then yes, that would make more sense. :) Sheep81 04:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Permission has been granted for this image by Karen Carr; famous wildlife and natural history artist. If you are interested. --Random Replicator 23:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Triceratops and nest.jpg

Species in description

Could it be possible to have a description of both species in the description/anatomy section and more specifically, what (we think) differentiated them from each other? Shrumster (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Combat in Triceratops

Article currently states: "In addition to combat with predators using horns, Triceratops are classically shown engaging each other in combat with horns locked. While studies show that such activity would be feasible, if unlike that of present-day horned animals,[45] there is no evidence that they actually did so."

But now there appears to be, and we can use the images from there in the article as well: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004252 FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

About what is said about The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs programme

While the "Functions of the horns and frill" section makes an excellent case against the reliability of the Triceratops crash test, it also contains an utter lie about what was done with T.rex skull:

The fact that the show also justified the bite strength of a Tyrannosaurus rex by constructing a replica skull out of steel rather than the pseudo-bone resin of the Triceratops skull with piston driven jaws further casts doubt on the experimental viability of the entire programme.

In the programme, T.rex's bite force was calculated first and only after was realized the necessary strength of the bone which nowadays could only be replicated by using steel. In other words, the program justified the steely skull by the bite strength and not the other way round. Thus the whole "further casts doubt on the experimental viability of the entire programme" is an unjustified generalization, and I would have it changed.

, Please.

All right; it's removed. J. Spencer (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Diceratus

J. Spencer wrote in an edit summary: "does Diceratus need to be in the box? - it's just an unneeded replacement for Diceratops, after all"

Right, but an unnecessary synonym is still a synonym. And synonym A of taxon B becomes a synonym of taxon C if B is sunk into C. In short, there'll all Triceratops, man! MMartyniuk (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1080/02724634.2010.483632 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done The DOI is right but the bot didn't work. Smartse (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Torosaurus gladius, T. latus, T. utahensis

What are the accepted names now for each of these three? If I understand correctly, T. gladius and T. latus were previously synonymized as T. gladius, but I can't seem to find any up-to-date names for T. gladius or T. utahensis. Are they simply Triceratops gladius and T. utahensis, or did Horner and Scanella specify this? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the other way around, gladius is a synonym of latus. Don't know about utahensis though. From the Torosaurus article:
Marsh's original illustrations of the skulls of T. latus and its synonym T. gladius

Two Torosaurus species have been identified:

  • T. latus Marsh, 1891 (type species)
  • T. utahensis Gilmore, 1946

Another identification was subsequently regarded as a misassignment:

Ah, okay. That doesn't quite answer my ultimate question, but it does clear up the gladius/latus mess. Thanks for that. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There's another Scannella paper in the works that looks at individual species. From the sounds of it, some Torososaurus latus specimens are T. horridus, some are T. prorsus, depending on their stratigraphic level (horridus and prorsus didn't live at the same time). T. utahensis is either a third species of Triceratops, a species of Arrhinoceratops, or, a distinct genus. It's from the Alamosaurus faunal zone of the southwest, which recent stdies show represents a distinct fauna from the later, northerly Lancian fauna and there are few overlapping taxa. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What does the paper say about Nedoceratops? How doe sit fit in? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Nedoceratops is known from a single specimen that appears to be intermediate between the Toro/Tricero morphs, but its hard to tell because the skull shows signs of pathology. As the current paper doesn't deal at the species level, it doesn't say which species hatcheri is synonymous with. From the paper: "USNM 2412 possesses dorsoventrally flattened epoccipitals and subtly procurving postorbital horn cores—indicators of ontogenetic maturity. Its elongate squamosals and incipient parietal fenestra are exactly what would be predicted in a Triceratops that is transitional between the short, solid subadult frill and the elongate, fenestrated condition found in adults. We consider USNM 2412 an ontogenetically transitional specimen of Triceratops." The apparent absence of a nasal horn is due to erosion. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. When the time comes, wouldn't it be nicer with a section devoted to ontogeny, than one just titled "Torosaurus"? Could deal with all the stages, not only the synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Definitely, Triceratops ontogeny is interesting as it is even without Torosaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that nasal erosion would confuse yesteryear's paleontologists-- if it looks anything like the rhinoceros at the Mesker Park Zoo, it would at least have been evident the horn had been worn away entirely. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Remember, while we have grown up with dinosaurs, the paleontologists of the 19th century (when many of these species were discovered) were dealing with entirely new creatures that seemed like things out of myth. Also, there was great acclaim to be had for discovering new species. More of the same previously known species was boring. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Torosaurus section

There is now a section about the proposed synonymy of Triceratops and Torosaurus, but shouldn't this wait until the actual paper is published so there is something valid to cite? FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While I think it's preferable to cite the published paper rather than a news article reporting the paper's findings, in this case I think the ScienceDaily article was pretty accurate (few glaring errors stuck out to me). Once the paper's out we should cite it; meanwhile I've completed the reference. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
.As noted on Dinoguy's blog[2], the AMNH Triceratops is a chimaera of Torosaurus and Triceratops (or rather missing parts have been restored to look like Triceratops), so shouldn't the image be removed or have an explanation in the caption? It seems that the skull in the taxobox and the skeleton at the Senckenberg Museum are based on this mount too, is that correct? FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The Senckenberg mount does look like it may be a cast of the AMNH mount, at least the skull. The one in the taxobox though looks like a different specimen and is a bit more Triceratops like in the frill. Though it may be reconstructed based on the AMNH skull's frill, but it's hard to tell at this angle. It isn't very wide;y flaring but also doesn't have the heart-shaped 'kink' at the top.
I don't think we should perform any OR in regards to the jumbled skull reconstructions pulling bits and pieces from different ontogenetic stages of Triceratops/Torosaurus just yet. But I certainly wouldn't use the AMNH skull as a scientific example of the species. It's an historical reconstruction, like the Brontosaurus with the blunt skull or the furcula-less, wide-shouldered T. rex. Really, I suspect far more mounts have little problems like this than we think. Virtually all museum mounts are composite specimens and/or extensively reconstructed based on educated guesses, often the educated guesses of the early 1900s. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been talked about on science daily, so I think that it should be made known. Paleo Kid (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the paper is out now. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I sense heated controversy among my own paleo friends outside of Wikipedia-- This being an encyclopedia, it would make sense to consider both viewpoints. Do Scannella and Horner say this is a theory or do they claim it as "fact"? If they claim it as fact, we may need to duke it out between ourselves and decide who is correct or compensate, but if it is merely a suggestion, I say we leave the article "as is", stating that's it's a theory. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "fact" in science, so I'm not sure what you mean... people produce an hypothesis, present their evidence for it, then it's up to others to either support or refute it. The paper just came out a few days ago, so clearly nobody has had a chance to respond. All we can do is report who said what. It's not our job to take sides either way. If several new papers come out supporting the hypothesis, or accepting it without comment, we can take more action. But it's two soon to tell how widely accepted this will become. As for other viewpoints, nobody has published any yet, so for our purposes they don't exist, only the older sources treating them as distinct species without question. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so there's no "debate" until an opposing viewpoint gets published, then. Makes sense to me. So at this point, what action gets taken? I stopped by the juvenile pachy pages and noticed they said very little about the recent findings and seemed to imply the genera were still valid, so is that what will happen with [i]Torosaurus[/i] and [i]Nedoceratops[/i]? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and added them as possible synonyms, and began discussing the paper in the Torosaurus section. If someone wants to flesh out the arguments Scannella presents, that would be good too. I can do it later if I have time. As for the pachies, that's probably how it should be right now. I don't think any further papers reviewing pachycephalosaur diversity or ontogeny have been published since Horners, so they're in the same place as they were a year ago. Who knows how long it will be until a consensus emerges. Science moves slowly ;) See also Baryonyx/Suchomimus/Cristatusaurus/Suchosaurus, which are all almost certainly the same thing and that's been suggested in print, but with no frther support or refutation so far. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
If there is some kind of consensus in the end, all agree on merging the articles, right? By the way, does the paper touch on the prorsus/horridus distinction? FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Touched on , yes. Thy retain both as distinct species and hint the two are chronologically separated. But it will be addressed more fully in a future paper. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In the event of scientific consensus (which is unlikely in the near future), SUPPORT. I would imagine it should; I wish I had it at my disposal. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Even if the Torosaurus and Triceratops are confirmed to be the same genus, wouldn't Torosaurus become the junior synonym, as Triceratops was described and named first? 165.91.65.26 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)RKH
Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack Horner and a friend did help make the contribution that Triceratops is a juvenile of a Torosaurus.--Dinoexpert129848 (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to carry the prejudice (I respect Horner's opinions), but that's precisely one of the reasons why this revision has been so controversial. Unfortunately, Horner has done a lot of highly controversial theorizing, which leads to a bad reputation. Just ask Galileo. A lot of folks have lost respect for Horner since he advocates Tyrannosaurus not being a strict predator. I don't hold that against him, and in fact, I support this new theory about the synonymy, but most of my friends are very hesitant to even listen to Horner at all. Also-- the correct statement would have been "Jack Horner and a friend did help make the contribution that Torosaurus is actually the adult male of Triceratops. Triceratops wins today. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Page needs to stay named Triceratops, not changed to Torosaurus

I can't post the link because for some reason examiner dot com is blacklisted, but here's an excerpt:

"Since the name Triceratops is two years older than Torosaurus, and the two genera of dinosaurs are the same, the older name takes priority according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). In short, the name that was published first is the valid name, if different growth stages are present which one represents an adult form is irrelevant." FinalWish (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Because that site is a mass-content mill that vomits out content designed around Google searches and written by uninformed nobodies for a few dollars an article, ironically based on information that they Googled only minutes before. FYI. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Where has it been proposed it should be moved? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Paleoecology error

Its says that Nedoceratops is synonomus with Triceratops but in the alongside creatures list it says Nedoceratops is a seperate species, thta needs to be fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.33.49 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC documentary

This was in the article, but hidden - it isn't the way to raise a point regarding sourcing, so I'm moving it here. It is talking about whether or not the article should use a BBC article as a source:

If you want to use this 'documentary' as evidence for a certain behaviour then don't leave out the flaws in the experiment. This particular paragraph uncritically uses this 'documentary' as evidence dspite the obvious flaws in the methodology. There is no counter claim against the 'findings' in this 'documentary' and thus can lead the reader to thinking this is an accurate conclusion, which given how it was conducted and the general method of the experiments, is not.

Smartse (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather the whole paragraph go. There's nothing scientific about those kind of shows. It would be like saying in an article that there will soon be flying cars and robo suits because Popular Science had an article about it. 69.249.239.113 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; the Walking With... Series' use a massive amount of guesswork and assumptions which are merely hypothesis rather than theories. --Kurtle (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Original research

"However, there are flaws in the methodology. The skull was fixed to a steel frame and did not have the range of motion or compression given by a flexible spine and muscular body. A Triceratops would be incapable of running and hitting something in such an unnaturally inflexible manner." This paragraph discussing how Triceratops might have defended himself partly sounds like original research, especially the part I quoted. If no one provides citations I will delete it(the part). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherentsheaf (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Skin

Looks like "bristly" skin has been discovered. Anyone know the details? kwami (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a Triceratops mummy being worked on, but probably won't be described for a while yet. The belly scales are wide, squared-off bands like the belly of a croc. The back has small scales normal to dinosaurs interpersed with larger ones that bear central nubs. One speculation not really supported by anything as of now is that these nubs represent the base of quills like in Psittacosaurus. But it's only speculation right now. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow...can't wait till something's published... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know much about the bristles myself, but the community I spend most of my time discussing such matters with has been strongly advocating these bristles now for about a year and a half now. We usually refer to and portray them as "quills", mildly comparable to those of a porcupine, but a soft sort of quill. I'll have to ask the guys and see what other information they can volunteer on the subject. Of course, the information hasn't been published, to my knowledge...one of the guys claims a paleontologist gave him the scoop a few years ago. Like I said, I'll ask around. Exciting, really. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Why would someone strongly advocate for something based on nothing but a two-line rumor posted on the internet? ;) It is on interesting possibility but personally, I'd like to see or hear about some kind of actual evidence first. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
A decent question deserves a decent answer-- the community I belong to is the Spore "Lords of the Past" community, where members design dinosaur models for the Spore video game. You'll find most ceratopsians produced by our members have quills. Anyway, you can see our discussion of it here if you'd like to learn what we've learned about it (posts 3-11 are irrelevant to the discussion, but it gets back on topic after that). The paper hasn't been published yet. (You changing your name, Dinoguy?) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, can't think of any reason not to use my real name ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm this now that it's a year later?- greenappleman7
A year? Haha! This is paleontology. Come back in a decade. It might be nearly published by then. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Highly doubtful that ceratopsians of any timeframe were feathered or 'quilled' - like sauropods, they are not on the line to birds, and the skin impressions look like the typical pebbly-skinned scales seen on stegos, hadros, etc. Talking to several paleontologists on the DML, none take it seriously. If a scientific paper comes out in support of this idea, I'm sure it will be highly disputed and the article should reflect that. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, one ceratopsian was most definitely quilled: Psittacosaurus. But there is no published evidence for these structures in ceratopsids (yet). MMartyniuk (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference Dinosaur

Is there any information on why this particular dinosaur is the reference point for what defines a dinosaur? There should be some explanation about why this is the case. If it's arbitrary, then the article should say that. Hires an editor (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, what are you talking about? I've never come across any reference that uses a Triceratops as the icon for dinosauria. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
We're discussing taxonomy. Triceratops is most often used as one of two to three nodes to set Dinosauria apart from its nearest relatives. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, this is phylogenetics, not taxonomy. Triceratops and birds are used as the two reference points to define Dinosauria as a crown group because they represent the two suborders (Ornithischia and Saurischia). Triceratops was chosen because it was one of the last ornithischians to evolve.Tennesseellum (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible integument

New skin impressions of an undescribed specimen of Triceratops (I think it was T. horridus) have found quill-like structures on its tail. These were bristle-like structures similar to the three-horn’s ancestors, the psittacosaurs. I can imagine, with those quills, the triceratops like a porcupine, making predators, like T. rex back away, with those defensive spikes. Similar to a battle between a modern wolf and porcupine. I've heard this rumor alot, there should be a page on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.33.49 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an undescribed specimen with raised scales on the back. But it's undescribed and there's no evidence beyond idle speculation that these scales formed the bases of quills (the quills of psittacosaurs arise from the sub-dermis, not raised scales, so IMO it is extremely unlikely that that's the case.) MMartyniuk (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
What I'd like to know is why the specimen isn't yet described...it seems rather popular. Is the researcher waiting until more solid evidence surfaces so he can attempt to take a stab at what these accessories are? Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Could be a number of factors. Among them is that it's Bob Bakker working on it, and he's not exactly prolific with formal publications. But these types of specimens take time. Heck that hadrosaur mummy Leonardo still hasn't been described. Or Jane the juvenile T. rex/Nanotyrannus. Not to mention the Hell Creek caenagnathid that's been the entire basis for all reconstructions of that family since the '90s based only on online photos. I remember waiting over 15 years for the description of what eventually was named Mapusaurus (discovered and the subject of rumors shortly after the description of Giganotosaurus in 1995 or therabouts, described in 2007). So I wouldn't hold your breath. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting...longest I've ever actively waited for a publication was about a year, so that I could write the article on the psychedelic frogfish. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thats a bummer, if it indeed was in the triceratops familly that would be awesome. to bad we'll have to wait.Beefcake6412 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, what else to smarten up this page?

Votes on getting the portrait of OC Marsh?

PS: Some of the drawings from the original 1907 monographs would be cool and they'd be way out of copyright.Cas Liber 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


The image shows horns nearly the length of the man's height. The text describes them as 1m long.


-- I deleted the sentence "The large eyes and shortened features, a hallmark of "cute" baby animals, also suggest that the parent Triceratops may have cared for its young." as it is not referenced, nonsensical and totally without merit or use. 204.140.246.254 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard Horner make similar arguments for Maiasaura, so I wouldn't call it "nonsensical and totally without merit or use". Abyssal (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

-- "Hearing" Horner using it in a statement without further A) reference or B) scientific backing makes it "nonsensical and totally without merit". Mother alligators care for their young, which are not necessarily "cute". It should be deleted under Maiasaura as well.

--Horner, and many others in many fields of biology, frequently reference cuteness in scientific writings. In regard to crocodiles: Features associated with"cuteness" are actually very well documented... as neonates, their eyes are very large in proportion to their snout lengths. As they grow, their eyes get smaller in relation to the lengths of their snouts... that's cuteness. It happened with dinosaurs, too. Young Maiasaura and Triceratops also have humongous eyes in relation to their skulls.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.246.254 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

scientific name

from my personal knowledge and every other source i checked the correct scientific name is "triceratops Horridus" meaning horrid three horned face however this is not mentioned anywhere in the article is there a reason for this? just wondering is all Demigod95 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article states: from the Latin horridus; "rough, rugose", suggesting the roughened texture of those bones belonging to the type specimen, later identified as an aged individual FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The English word "horrid" does come from the Latin root which means "rough, bristly" etc, so technically the full name does mean "horrid three-horned face", but the name can be further broken down to something along the lines of "rough three-horned face", as Funkmonk pointed out is already stated in the Species section. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

Wouldn't it be better to use an image of a complete skeleton rather than just the skull in the taxobox? I just cropped this one from an existing diorama image, for example, which gives a good view of the skull profile as well as most of the body.[3]. Some areas seem slightly blurred but it probably wouldn't be evident in the thumbnail version on the page. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The image has now been changed again, but it seems that most of the available full body images show incorrect splayed front-leg posture? Are there any Triceratops mounts with correct front legs? FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, since most mounts, if not all, have pronated hands and splayed arms, including the one in the taxobox, I think we should maybe stick to the skull. Or what? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If the picture is incorrect, then it probably shouldn't be included as the default picture in an encyclopedia. Maybe lower down with a caption saying the bones are incorrectly postured. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure the image is incorrect. Splayed arms would cause the hands to be in a pronated position without physical pronation. And there's no evidence that ceratopsians could not splay their arms, just that this was probably not the normal walking posture. As a wise man once said, "real animals move" :) MMartyniuk (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
But aren't the radius and ulna crossed on the right frontleg? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Triceratops prorsus, Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Image was replaced again, seems like it's somewhat unpopular, probably due to the blurriness and low res. How about this one, at the Carnegie Museum? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Quite a dramatic photo, love it! Unfortunately, it's a bit close and makes it look awkward (you ever see a photo a girl takes of herself from arm's length away, and how it makes her face look completely different?). Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it has that Luis Reyish fish eye lens perspective to it (so did the T. rex skull image we used for a long time until we changed it to the current one of a whole skeleton[4]), but looking through the other images we have of full Triceratops skeletons, most of it is dreck. This one at least seems to have unpronated front legs. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Side view of T. horridus skeleton cast, Senckenberg Museum.
Or what about this one, which is already in the article. Does have a downturned tail, but I have seen some modern ceratopsian restorations with such tails. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
T. horridus in NHM, London
What about this image of Triceratops horridus in the Natural History Museum in London? The front legs aren't sprawling but as the article itself writes - when walking Triceratops legs were in an intermediate position and not fully sprawled. Its skull is better seen than the current picture of the T. prorsus and doen't have some diostorted perspective. MathKnight 09:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the problem isn't the sprawl, but that the palms face backwards, whereas they should face inwards. We don't have many images where this is mounted correctly,as it is a relatively new discovery. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This newer mount[5] appears to have correct feet, if cropped it might be alright for the article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Check out this figure from A REEVALUATION OF THE MANUS STRUCTURE IN TRICERATOPS by SHIN-ICHI FUJIWARA[6] FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I added the only Triceratops mount I've ever seen with correct front-limbs to the taxobox, if no one minds. The ones that are sprawled are not physically impossible though (Triceratops had to drink/sleep as well), only the ones that show pronation (which is most of them). FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue I see here is that like the Carnegie museum mount, the skull looks pretty severely laterally compressed. Are we sacrificing a nice, 3D skull (the part most people are going to notice and come away with an impression of) for a relatively minor issue like forelimb posture? MMartyniuk (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to warn for extensive ant-fuckery in the following comment, heheh... Sprawling should be fine, but pretty much all the images available (apart from the two in the article) have (biomechanically impossible) pronated hands[7], which we remove on sight in theropod-articles. The other mounts without pronated hands seem to only have four fingers instead[8][9][10][11], which is pretty inexcusable... We do have some rather good images of isolated skulls also:[12][13][14][15], or we could crop the feet out if there's a mounted skeleton which is otherwise nice, like these[16][17]. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If it turns out there are no good, accurate photos of a Triceratops mount available, I'd support using merely a skull, or cropping one, until one can be found. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll look for one, so I temporarily put the old one by Ballista in the taxobox, it was there for a long time before. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
New image[18], changed contrast, though for some reason it only shows the old version to me. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I finally found an image of a full skeleton with a non-distorted skull and modern front-limb posture (left). I think it should go in the article, but is it infobox material? FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Horns Display / Combat

There is no consensus over what the horns were used for. All of the major species alive now with horns use them for defense from predators, combat, and sexual display. Basically it kind of makes sense that a nice rack of defensive protection makes you more sexually attractive since it would imply you're pretty fit to survive and so would your children. That though is obviously just an opinion and has no place here. This 2009 study though says that the horns were used for combat: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/01/28-02.html so I think that this article is being a little bit too strong in terms of its conclusions that there is some kind of consensus on the horns being used for display only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.185.126 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. All the statements in this article that mention the functions of ungulate horns/antlers only cite sources from dinosaur researchers, while there are no sources from experts in ungulate biology. In fact, the referenced statements themselves are little more than bare assertions.
However, the Wikipedia articles about horns and antlers contain references statements that ungulates use their horns/antlers for many functions other than "display" (including intra-species combat and defense against predators), which calls into question the validity of the arguments about the function of ceratopsian horns/frills.
But, I'm not sure how to apply Wikipedia policy here: is it appropriate to bring in expertise from ungulate biology for this article? Or, do we need to only report what ceratopsian experts are arguing, even if it seems to conflict with relevant research on other organisms? Tennesseellum (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
We would need sources saying this specifically for ceratopsians, or it would be original research/synthesis. However, the Farke paper mentioned in that article seems to be a valid source for the combat idea. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree: the "other side" is well represented here, so I'm not concerned with the article being unbalanced. I guess the only concern I have is that the statements in this article about modern animals' horns/antlers are not only made by people who aren't experts in those animals, but also seem to contradict information from relevant experts.Tennesseellum (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agathaumas

Shouldn't it be in the taxobox under possible synonyms? FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, I'd suggest some of these dubious probable synonyms could be safely merged in here under possible species above Nedoceratops. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexander, R.M. (1985). "Mechanics of posture and gait of some large dinosaurs"

Anyone has access to that paper? I want to know if it really mentions a range for Triceratops of 6-12 tonnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.BRZ (talk • contribs) 22:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Teeth

There is a mention of Triceratops teeth being among the most abundant fossils in the Late Cretaceous Period of Western North America, I have seen references on Ebay selling triceratops teeth a having been "shed". Has anyone who has studied this dinosaur at a more academic level then ebay (snicker) come across a reference to it shedding teeth once they were wore and growing them back? I have read that many dinosaurs had the ability like many of todays animals to grow back lost teeth, to shedding of worn teeth, has anyone heard of that?Pissedpat 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientists can tell by looking at the dinsaurs teeth, what it ate. Since it was on all fours, that can conclude that it must have eaten low-lying vegatation, like ferns. It seems also that it would have been able to graze on some tough plants because it has a tough beak. I'm wondering(since it lived in the late Cretaceous period) did it get used to the modern-day plants that were evolving with its tough beak that it had? Also, how can scientists conclude what specific vegatation it ate if it had no teeth? What I mean is that with teeth they could conclude specific plants they ate by looking at what kind of teeth it had, if it was really blunt, or a little sharp, but Triceratops had a beak?--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have seen Triceratops teeth on Ebay(what the heck, I might as well buy one!). Yes, Triceratops had a beak and teeth, but I have never heard of them shedding teeth. I can't imagine that the people on Ebay really know what they're talking about, so someone should check. Paleo Kid (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

--I've dug in the Hell Creek many times. Triceratops definitely shed its teeth, and you find them everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.223.45 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Genders

The female Triceratops has a smaller neck frill than the male Triceratops. Punk18

Cite? ;) Dinoguy2 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but you have not provided a source and there is no Frill size variation to that extent inbetween all known specimens. please check this page for more information WP:CITE 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Relation?

Is the rhinoceros a descendant of triceratops?--70.189.248.92 00:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Triceratops had no descendants. It was the last of the Ceratopsians, a group of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were reptiles. The rhinoceros is related to tapir-like animals, and is a mammal, jut like you and me. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Recent discoveries show that dinosaurs were NOT actually reptiles. They were warm-blooded and had 4-chambered hearts. (Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded and, with the exception of some in the Order Crocodilia, have 3-chambered hearts.) We know this because the outline of a Tyrannasaurus rex heart was found in one very well preserved fossil a few years ago. According to Natural History Magazine (and yes it is affiliated with the Natural History Museum), the animals we call birds are not merely descendant from dinosaurs, but ARE in fact present day dinosaurs. So, I think Wiki should check outside sources on that class taxon. Based on that fact from Natural History Magazine, these ancient monsters should be considered early members of the Class Aves. You are right about the part where rhinos are not descended from Triceratops. The Classes Aves and Mammalia diverged separately from the Class Reptilia. Rhinos are mammals, not birds, so you're right on that part. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.173.60.135 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

N-O! Dora Nichov 09:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I laughed... priceless. Pissedpat 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

that reminds me of an old book i had that stated really dumb things like a Giraffe being a Sauropod, or a book about Archosaurs that i still have that was actually pretty good for its time (like a feathered Coelurus fragilis) Dated to 1979, said book Reconstructed the frill on ceratopsians as a mount for absolutely massive neck muscles to "chew up tough woody fibers", obviously it looked ridiculous and had no sources. also just because something is warm blooded that does not mean its a mammal, birds are warm blooded for example.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What about Chameleons? Some horned chameleons are dead ringers for Ceroids, except their feet don't resemble Elephant/Rhino feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.234.80 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are Archosaurs (that means they are closer to birds and crocodiles), and not Lepidosaurs (Like Chameleons)--65.96.242.22 (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, any superficial resemblances ceratopsid dinosaurs may have to rhinos or chameleons are, at best, simple convergent evolution. And as a reply to the third entry in this section: dinosaurs are still taxonomically classed as reptiles. Granted, reptiles that are quite different from any existing today, but reptiles nonetheless. And since birds are dinosaurs they are consequently considered reptiles too, surprisingly enough! --24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Difference between T. horridus and T. prorsus?

When I read this article years ago, I was puzzled by the fact that there were two species mentioned, but no differences between them were listed. And it seems to be this way with other multispecies dinosaur articles as well. I think it is important to point out such differences, but I'm not sure how to find the info. Greg Paul's 2010 Field Guide states horridus has shorter horns and a shallow snout, whereas prorsus has longer horns and a deep snout. Is there anything to this? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and if I remember well Horner and Scanella pinted that the diagnosis of both species await for more data. Maybe this paper could be useful (only abstract):Species resolution in Triceratops: cladistic and morphometric approaches.--Rextron (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to be the paper that first proposed the two species model, no? If anyone has access, please add a short description of the differences! FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
There are some mentions of differences in this video, if we can cite that. [19] MMartyniuk (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure, had the video been published in a more formal venue than Youtube? On the museum's website itself, perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Longrich N.R., Field D.J., 2012, "Torosaurus Is Not Triceratops: Ontogeny in Chasmosaurine Ceratopsids as a Case Study in Dinosaur Taxonomy", PLoS ONE 7(2): e32623 states: "Triceratops prorsus exhibits three additional derived characters that distinguish it from Triceratops horridus and Torosaurus: squamosal with a strongly convex lateral margin, nasal process of premaxilla vertically oriented, elongate nasal horn." Of course, if Scanella should prove that T. prorsus originated by anagenesis, as has been announced, part of that proof will no doubt consist in specimens showing an intermediate morphology. It is then a matter of choice whether one would like to see Triceratops as a single chronospecies T. horridus or designate the Idealtypen at the beginning and end of the process as different species.--MWAK (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That sounds pretty subtle. Are there stratigraphic differences? FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I know of no more recent data on this than Scanella & Fowler (2009). They reported a complete stratigraphic separation — of course, it better hadn't been too complete if anagenesis is too be proven :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the differences listed by Gregory Paul are valid? If so, I will also add that to the article (if no one else does). FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, a very tricky question :o). Paul indicated only a few "anatomical characteristics". One of these, "brow horns longer" (i.e. than nasal horn), is a symplesiomorphy shared with T. horridus (so it isn't supposed to mean that the horns are longer than those of T. horridus — with the latter, Paul simply saw it as redundant to mention this as the nasal horn is short). One, "nasal horn moderately long", is in essence the same trait as Longrich's "elongate nasal horn" — that nasal horn is only to be seen as elongated in comparison with T. horridus. Another, "snout deep", seems new but in fact was mentioned in Longrich & Field (2012) who described T. prorsus as having a "short snout". For some reason they did not include it in the diagnosis. I fear they simply took it for granted or saw it as implied in "nasal process of premaxilla vertically oriented" — although it is quite possible to combine this trait with a long snout, namely by an elongation of the posterior parts of the praemaxillae and nasalia. Finally, there are two traits that are connected with the Torosaurus controversy. Paul in this takes a "Hornerite" position, accepting that Torosaurus is Triceratops. He then astutely observes that it are never the T. prorsus specimens that show the full "toromorph" condition and thus includes the trait "frill never elongated". However, as he explains here: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=283 , he has identified a specimen from the Frenchman Formation, EM P16.1, with a large but short frill, that has very large parietal fenestrae. As the Frenchman Formation apparently has brought forth only T. prorsus specimens, Paul includes the trait "openings may develop when fully mature". The problem is, as Paul admits himself, that the shape of the frill and holes is totally different from the Torosaurus condition. The frill is rectangular in top view, instead of triangular; the parietal fenestrae are triangular instead of transverse ovals, and there are apparently large squamosal fenestrae. See the right top image in: http://www.gspauldino.com/tritoroskulls.jpg . Paul offered the alternative explanation that this specimen represents a totally new taxon. It would be interesting to include as an OTU in a cladistic analysis :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Heheh, I'm not sure how to word that concisely! But I think the info is worthy of addition. Perhaps GSP's wording is more layman-friendly? And it could be supplemented/elaborated with the features mentioned in the PLOS paper. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Torosaurus-related traits are too contentious. So, it all boils down to adding "deep, short, snout". Quite concise :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Herbivory

Changed reference in lead to T. as omnivorous to herbivorous, in accordance with article text. No reference to possible non-herbivory in article. AFAIK, the standard consensus is currently that T. was herbivorous. If anybody wants to add mention of hypotheses to the contrary, please cite. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe in the sandman? Otherwise watch the teeth of that species a bit closer. Without any doubts they were carnivors. But I'm the guy that says that also Brachiosaurus was carnivor, you just need to look at his skull and teeth, dude. --178.197.236.151 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nedoceratops

This article was recently made into a redirect, but appears there is still controversy over this, see: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016196 FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We must remember that Wikipedia is not a textbook, so we don't have to choose between competing hypotheses. Keeping an article is not a choice for or against some hypothesis but should be simply be motivated by the historical importance of some concept. If enough relevant information can be provided about a certain genus name and that information is not identical to the main body of an article dedicated to its senior synonym — as would be the case with Brontosaurus vs. Apatosaurus — that name should have an article of its own. Consider it a split if you like :o).--MWAK (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not arguing for a split of Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus, but just splitting valid names, or names that are not universally considered synonyms, like Nedoceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I was a bit ambiguous. In the case of Brontosaurus vs. Apatosaurus the information would be "identical to the main body of an article dedicated to its senior synonym" :o). BTW, there are some nice free images to be had from the PLoSone article that would be much appreciated by the other Wikis, even if en: does not reinstate Nedoceratops! Just a hint ;o)--MWAK (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Heheh, hint taken. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get why it should be a redirect. Even in the article it says Nedoceratops is a possible synonym, not a synonym. It would be like with Tatankaceratops, a possible synonym with its own page. If we keep Nedoceratops as a redirect than it would be like redirecting Nanotyrannus to Tyrannosaurus, Dracorex and Stygimoloch to Pachycephalosaurus, Homalocephale and Sphaerotholus to Prenocephale, Torosaurus, Agathaumas, Polynax and Tatankaceratops to Triceratops, Ojoceratops to Eotriceratops, and Podokeosaurus, Megapnosaurus and Gojirasaurus to Coelophysis. If we redirect one page to a possible senior synonym than we should redirect all other possible junior synonyms to their possible senior synonyms page. Do I have any agreement? As this will involve many pages I would like anyone that has an opinion on this matter to voice it no matter what that opinion is. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. It still seems unresolved (I think the synonymy is likely, but my opinion is irrelevant), and we would be taking sides by redirecting. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I just posted a message on your talk page about this. It seems a little late now. Should we distribute this the message about this? If we do then we will have a larger group of opinions, which would give it a broader consensus. Reid,iain james (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the relevant editors have this on their watch list anyway. They'll see it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You sure? Its already been over 24 hours. Reid,iain james (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but you can go ahead and ask if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I, at least, would like to express my support for having a separate article. An adequate treatment of this subject would result in a chapter that because of its length (about 15 Kb) had better been split off anyway under the policy of WP:Summary style.--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Size etc. of triceratops article means I'm happy for separate article too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to see if Dinoguy2 has anything to say. If you check the history of Nedoceratops you'll find after it was made separate earlier he was the one who reverted the changes. Should we wait for his opinion or just go ahead and separate it? Iainstein (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you can just go ahead, seems there are no objections. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Representing the Witton hypothesis

I know, I know, it's a Flickr post and not a scientific journal, but I figured I may as well put it in anyways, whilst of course avoiding violating the NPOV policy. The Flickr post is sadly all we have right now since it's not in a paper, but consensus for those who've seen it is that the idea is plausible, so I added it as a possibility. Feel free to revert if you feel it's not required. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't published science, we can't use it at all. It is just speculation. Who knows, maybe Tyrannosaurus supplemented its diet with fruits once in a while, like some crocodiles apparently do. But we can't add that, unless it is actually based on something. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia uses sources that are not published science quite regularly; we can't be quite so dismissive here. In any case, this is in fact published science. It isn't peer reviewed and is somewhat casual, but it is scientific in nature and it is published. I sort of feel like the article is a bit too speculative to warrant the treatment here, though. I'm not sure. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it science at all. It is as scientific as the Tyrannosaurus example I gave above, there is no actual evidence for it. Furthermore, it isn't specific for this genus at all, so I have no idea why it should be placed here. And Flickr posts aren't reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Not science and not intended as science. If we include this we need to include all the the content in All Yesterdays and the "hypothesis" by Stan Winston that Dilophosurus had a frill. Are are speculation/thought experiments and intended as such by their authors. Even if it were a scientific hypothesis, it would be excluded due to WP fringe policy, as it has only been proposed by one researcher and not taken seriously by others (not because it's implausible, but because it wasn't intended as science). If an author brings up the topic in a scientific context and cites Witton's blog, then it would become legitimate. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to argue that we should keep this section (as I noted it seems too speculative, although I didn't read it to be quite as daydreamy as All Yesterdays) but in general Flickr can be used as a source subject to the usual caveats about self-published sources. There is nothing particularly insidious about Flickr that would preclude us using it. Although again for something like this you'd probably expect a peer-reviewed article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Unless someone finds a ceratopsian with bone fragments of other dinosaurs in its stomach, or ceratopsian bite marks on bones, this can be based on nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean to address this to me? You've indented it as if it were a reply to my post at 17:30, but given its content I'm not sure, sorry. (And the article does say "the stomach content of one Psittacosaurus contains the necessary bones to directly prove it." hopefully a proper description is forthcoming!) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a general comment. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There may be a legitimate argument to be made by analogy to extant analogues in terms of the structure of the beak and jaws (turtles and parrots have similar beaks and tend to be omnivores). It's just that nobody has really made that argument formally, and even if they had, it hasn't been picked up. I personally find it laughable that any supposedly strict herbivorous dinosaurs would not opportunistically eat meat, as nearly all modern herbivores do. But somebody needs to point this out in print, and then it would apply generally to all herbivorous dinosaur (and indeed animal) groups, not just ceratopsians or Triceratops. I don't see them mentioning in Deer or Crocodilian that deer eat eggs, chicks, fish, and squirrels and alligators and caiman regularly eat fruit. We like our just-so stories about "carnivores" and "herbivores". MMartyniuk (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I did edit Broad-snouted caiman to include that, didn't touch the cow or deer articles, though. Might do that now. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Exist

Scientist now think Triceratops didn't exist. Check out news for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.244.79 (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reporters now have no idea what the scientists are trying to tell them. News at 11. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Providing a link would help. --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.newser.com/story/97112/triceratops-never-existed.html They think it was just a young version of Torosaurus24.94.244.79 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"Torosauruses"? FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"Read less. Know more." Indeed. mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You can't believe everything you read in newspaper headlines. Scientists aren't stupid. If a scientist observes a caterpillar developing into a butterfly, does that mean it's a good idea to write an article that says scientists think caterpillars don't exist?Gary (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
These articles are either cases of reporters not comprehending the information they're reading or being told, or editors trying to attract more views with a controversial headline. Some articles out there accurately report that Torosaurus is the name that is going away, but the headline still says "Triceratops didn't exist", because sometimes a lie is more shocking than the truth. Basically, never, ever believe a word you read in a mainstream news article about dinosaurs. They're written by incompetents and liars. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
So as soon when they give us more info, should torosaurus be merged into this article? Then everyone can pretend that there was never a mistake made in the first place.:P--24.147.62.26 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm kind of skeptical of this discovery, considering triceratops is supposed to be the largest of the two.--24.147.62.26 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The largest skulls are Torosaurus. If the largest body remains lack skulls, they're usually referred to Triceratops by default. Is there actually good evidence the latter was larger? MMartyniuk (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
From what I've read from the media reports I think that scientists are certain that torosaurs are just large triceratops, or as certain as you get in science. I'll probably read something about it in a New Scientist magazine sometime, then I'll know better. I think Torosaurus will probably be merged into here sometime, and redirect to here too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This one team of scientists are certain, yet. It remains to be seen if further studies will appear to support of refute their work. The article is fine as it is until a consensus begins to emerge, or at least a follow up paper or two. Science is a slow working process, no need to jump the gun. MMartyniuk (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I remember that headline rather well-- got quite a laugh out of it the moment I saw it, since I had heard the true story already. Upon reading the "Triceratops didn't exist" article, it was VERY evident the editor had clearly misunderstood the entire situation and got it backwards. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to delete all these news articles, I can only find two bloody results that don't say "Triceratops never existed", it's Torosaurus that's no longer a valid genus (makes more sense than saying that it "never existed"), so let's clear this up before too many seven-year-olds start crying to their mommies after stumbling across one of these articles while researching for a school project on dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.152 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Which articles are you talking about? I don't see any linked on the page right now. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have made my comment more clear, these articles are not on wikipedia, just type in "triceratops" on google and you'll be surprised how many people enjoy crushing childhood memories by taking the name Triceratops away when Torosaurus is the name that should be removed from the scientific community's vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.152 (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well then the answer is no, unfortunately Wikipedia can't make science news reports less stupid ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of news articles I'd like to edit, they just released a very misleading one about Balaur stating it used its arm knobs to catch small dinosaurs with large feathers even though no one knows of any from that time period. Sometimes the media makes me sick... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides, we're not even 100% sure that the two are synonyms, but if they are, it is Triceratops that will be the accepted name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The hell with all who say "Triceratops never existed", they may have taken Brontosaurus and Pluto, but scientists would never take our beloved Triceratops from us! They are not that cold hearted. Triceratops remains a truly awesome and fascinating creature, and as for Torosaurus going away, the only people who care are "Walking with Dinosaurs" addicts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Triceratops was the first ceratopsian discovered, and it was so radically different from other dinosaurs known at the time that they weren't sure how to classify it. I'd say that alone is proof right there that Triceratops can't possibly be taken away unless someone can prove all known specimens of it were fabricated, since the ICZN demands the earliest name dominate. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, several ceratopsians were found first (including Ceratops itself!), but they were mostly thought to be hadrosaur-like creatures, until Triceratops gave us a complete skeleton of one. Agathaumas in particular is almost certainly a specimen of Triceratops and was named earlier. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, is this one of the examples of where a name became valid because it was "more popular for 100 years" or whatnot? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No, just that Agathaumas has traditionally been considered a nomen dubium (since it lacks a skull, and scientists have usually assumed that ceratopsids can't be distinguished from each other by anything but the frill). If it turns out to be valid, Triceratops will have to go (or, more likely, be conserved by an act of the ICZN). See my post here: [20] MMartyniuk (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did early palaeontologists name so many different species that turned out to be the same thing. It's all their fault that we've been losing some of the most beloved dinosaurs. Brontosaurus, Trachodon, and Triceratops is next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you were a paleontologist, the most impressive thing you would likely ever achieve is discovering a skeleton of a dinosaur and describing a new species or genus. Many paleontologists go into a project with the mindset that they are going to make big headlines and this psychologically impacts how they interpret the fossil. In the case of Diceratus, the paleontologist saw the nasal horn was missing, and, rather than reasoning that the horn had worn away from a Triceratops, decided it was something new. In defense of this argument, a recent study published within the past month or so proves that the more taxa a paleontologist describes in his lifetime, the more likely it is that every single one of those taxa was misattributed to a new taxon.
Oh-- and we haven't lost Triceratops. Rather, we've realized that Torosaurus is a mature adult Triceratops, and it is now being called Triceratops as well. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get the mentality that we've "lost beloved dinosaurs" in these cases. It's only the names that have changed. I guess it's really the names of the dinosaurs that people like, not the animals themselves. Seems to tie into the mindset of dinosaurs as characters, which is why people try to add "Filmography" sections to their pages like an actor. I've never seen anyone try to add a pop culture section to Antelope listing every discovery channel program it appeared in, but there's a whole page like that for T. rex. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Some extant animals do have such roles also, see Cultural depictions of lions and similar. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I believe they should remain separate. I get the high juvenile mortality rate and all, but still...they must have been dropping like flies, given the number of skeletons they have. Plus, if Triceratops is considered a juvenile, why are there so many scratch marks on their frills? Young Triceratops probably did mock horn fights with each other, but the aim wouldn't be to hurt anyone. You'd expect more deliberate force with adults in real fights for dominance. Just what I think, though. Crimsonraptor (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The theory says that what we've called Torosaurus is elderly, not that what we've called Triceratops is juvenile. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Just from the point of view of energetics and populations: if the things bred at Triceratops stage, why go through the bother of extensively remodeling the skull afterward? i.e., who is going to be impressed? If they bred at Torosaurus stage, what is the selection pressure to go from Triceratops-like to Torosaurus-like when there were no other abundant chasmosaurs (or ceratopsids for that matter) to be confused with, and what is going on with the horrendous mortality just shy of breeding? J. Spencer (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The "torosaurus" might be analogous to the large, battle-ready alpha male in a harem of females. This would mean that a Triceratops which is well-suited for matches is able to prevent smaller adults from mating with its females, even after the alpha male loses its fertility. In this manner, small Triceratops may be discouraged from reproducing until they are strong and large enough to take over a new harem, or until the alpha male becomes too weak to defend. Because the alpha male "torosaurus" has likely impregnated all its females, its genes are passed along to the next generation. Also, infant genocide by a new alpha male is an effective way of cutting off a considerable portion of the previous alpha male's genes, so if a "torosaurus" could topple an alpha male that was smaller, it might also kill off any and all hatchlings and eggs. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, this isn't strictly the place to get into the conversation, but I was thinking more along the lines of "adolescent genocide" instead of "infant genocide," as (admittedly anecdotal) observations about the commonality of identifiably Triceratops skulls would imply that a lot of them got right up to pre-Torosaurus stage (including being at more or less elephant-size) and then died. The Torosaurus-Triceratops thing leads to a lot of interesting questions about their population structure and selective pressures, and lord knows if there's any dinosaur with enough skull material to ask these questions, you can't do much better than Triceratops. (well, Psittacosaurus and Protoceratops) Unfortunately, there's a lot of heated and frankly dogmatic/partisan back-and-forth obscuring things (search for "Toroceratops" on the "When Pigs Fly Returns" blog, for example). J. Spencer (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm still theorizing of course, but perhaps during the battles for the harem, the loser was slaughtered. Voila, the adolescent dies. But I haven't examined any fossils, so for me to make any of these guesses is largely hypothesis I'm unable to even test. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Why continue the bone remodeling? For the same reason that humans continue to grow hair and nails after reproducing. Not growing and remodeling the skull after reproductive age would require a change in the genes controlling such things, letting things continue as before doesn't. Since such a mutation would, by definition, not have any effect until after the animal has ceased reproducing, there would be no pressure for it to be spread. It might occur in some individuals, but it would not tend to spread. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the fossils identified as Triceratops are still juveniles of fossils identified as Torosaurus, but they represented adolescents instead of infants. While they were still a bit young to be fighting over mates and territories, the scratch marks on their frills could have been from clashes with predators like T-rex, remember. They were certainly old enough and big enough to defend themselves against such dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.146.193 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing they're infants, that's just ridiculous. Adolescent to sub-adult is more like it. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying! We have already found infant Triceratops and most of them are roughly pig-sized. Torosaurus would have had to be pretty big to lay an egg that could contain a 30-foot Triceratops. The fossils identified as Triceratops are definitely adolescents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.146.193 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

People it's May 2011 now. 90% of people recognize these two dinosaurs as the same, time to merge. By the way, because Triceratops was named first that is the valid genus, torosaurus is invalid. You guys merge, or I'll merge 'em. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.42 (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment at Talk:Torosaurus. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really starting to get tired of all these sensationalists writing articles with headlines such as "Triceratops never existed", "Triceratops not real, "Triceratops young Torosaurus". Listen, people, it's as simple as this, Triceratops was named first, therefore, it is the scientifically valid genus. We're not even sure yet that they even ARE the same, it's just a widely accepted theory. Has anyone actually ever seen a living Triceratops grow into a Torosaurus? No, its just speculation based on the different shapes of various skulls and the fact that no baby Torosaurus are known from fossil evidence. The point is, I have an actual fossil rib from a Triceratops in my collection, and I'm not giving it up any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.159.8 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Could The adult Trikes be explain by sexual dimorphism? The females wouldn't need large display structures so they look like the traditional triceratops and the males are torosaurus. On a side note could somebody at least mention the possibility of it being an omnivore in the diet section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.37.92 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Can this please be over? I haven't seen one single serious suggestion for this hypothesis, only sensationalists saying "Triceratops isn't real and dinosaurs are ruined forever!". Triceratops is distinct from Torosaurus until solid evidence is discovered. So please stop. talking about it now is meaningless and bloats this page even further.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Challenge accepted by Longrich and Field

Well, Scanella and Horner finally have an official pair of challengers: Longrich and Field. Thus continues the battle of Triceratops versus Torosaurus. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Bob the Wikipedian: Actually, I think Horner has been contradicting himself this entire time. In 2006 he published a paper with Mark Goodwin, in which he stated these words: "Furthermore, we propose that the sympatric and closely related ceratopsid Torosaurus, differentiated from Triceratops on the basis of a fenestrated parietal–squamosal frill, ...". The title of the paper is "Major cranial changes during Triceratops ontogeny" and it can be found here. It seems that Horner isn't always lumping taxa together, and since this publication he has even been contradicted by himself. If it is not already (I haven't checked) in the article, it should be included, under paleobiology. IJReid (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what you're trying to say... how can an older paper contradict the statement in a newer one? This is science-hypotheses change with new data. An older hypothesis can get replaced with a newer hypothesis. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I was saying that Horner wasn't always a pro-lumper, and that his old paper shows that he used to believe that Torosaurus was separate. I probably had a bad word choice when I used contradicting, changing his opinion would have been better. IJReid (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, so what's the point? A good scientist changes their opinion if data suggests the opinion was wrong. Obviously Horner was not born believing in the ontogeny hypothesis ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rquesting New Images

we can infer from smaller ceratopsians like Psittacosaurus that Triceratops likely had unbristled feather shafts running down its tail, no images of the animal have this feature. what should we do about this? 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. Chimps have thick hair all over the body, we don't. Lions have manes, tigers don't. Etc. And those species are much closer related to each other than Triceratops is to Psittacosaurus. Only a single specimen is known with this feature, who knows if it wasn't even sexually dimorphic? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

we still should propose that it is possible 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Restoration with bristles
There has been some speculation that some skin impressions showed something that could be the base of bristles, but not anything in published scientific papers yet, so we'll a have to wait for that. We already have a drawing ready for when that happens, see on the right. A bit over the top though, in my opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

i never imagined it like that, but i am glad Wikipedia is prepared for a discovery like that 50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I still think this is a good candidate for inclusion in the article, since it does not contradict the fossil record and is a solid possibility for the life appearance of this animal. It is certainly interesting, if unlikely. I've always known that Psittacosaurus had quills like these, but I'd never considered the possibility of this feature existing in larger, more derived ceratopsians. Funny to imagine a Tyrannosaurus with a mouthful of bristles resulting from an attempted attack on one of these "porcupine" Triceratops. --24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration with quills
There's a more subtle image (right) that shows quills on the tail. But it has some issues, the hands are wrong, and the tail may drag too much. I can correct it, but is anything else wrong with it? The limb posture? FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately the scales are ll wrong in that image. The Triceratops mummy nicknamed "Lane" shows the scales looked like this--[21] large, irregular polygons, some with raised "nipples" possibly supporting spines, with smaller, rectangular croc-like belly scutes. Here's an interpretation showing more accurate scallion [22] MMartyniuk (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Should be a possible fix. Doesn't it mean all our images are wrong then? FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Most will be yeah. The one here by NT with the really long quills seems to have skin based on Lane though. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems to have wrong hands instead, though! FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Oops, yup, it does. And the quills are a little on the extreme side... So currently, no accurate restorations of one of them oat famous dinosaurs :) MMartyniuk (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to Photoshop them by this week. Which one of the three is closest to being correct (or in other words, will be best for the article once corrected?)? FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Honestly I'm not that satisfied with any of them really... the original NT one isn't too bad if the skin was corrected, and the new one has some weird perspective issues in the head. The DB one has some issues with musculature, eg legs/hips way too narrow at the top, but is the best starting overall quality IMO. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Too bad that two of the most prolific Wikipedia palaeoartists have become inactive, but good that their style is pretty easy to modify and replicate! I'll try with the DB image then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Weird. I personally think that they were misidentified, and are actually partial pachycephalosaur skulls, but this might mean that we need to redo our images again, with these things along the neck and upper torso. IJReid (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a very old book, so the fossil has no doubt been identified as something else since, but as what? This restoration from the same book seems to show them above the shoulders: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/62388#page/10/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triceratops/Archive_1&oldid=1137267427"