SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Triceratops might be a mythical beast
Scientists suspect the dinosaur was a young version of another species.
Tue, Aug 03 2010 at 6:01 PM
Related Topics:
MYTHICAL DINO?: New evidence suggests this triceratops skeleton might actually be a baby torosaurus. (Photo:El Bichologo Errante/Flickr)
The iconic, long-celebrated triceratops might have gone the way of the unicorn and the magic dragon. According to the Daily Mail, researchers suspect "the fearsome three-horned triceratops may never have existed." Scientists at the Museum of the Rockies in Montana have analyzed skeletons and deduced that the dinosaurs might have been young versions of another species, the torosaurus.
After comparing about 50 skulls from both species, the researchers found that both animals had three horns, but that the torosaurus had a thinner, smoother neck-frill with holes in it. The article states the triceratops' horns changed shape and hardened as the dino grew up. Researchers noted that the torosaurus' skulls were "still undergoing dramatic changes at the time of death."
The story also says the neck-frill, which was previously thought to be a defense mechanism, might simply display maturity (much like the number of points on a male deer's antlers). As a result of the new findings, the article states all the torosaurus specimens will be reclassified as triceratops — because the triceratops is the more recognizable of the dinosaurs.
CBS news reports that the scientists had never been able to see the dinosaurs as they grew and matured. The article points out that Othniel Marsh, who discovered what he thought were two dinosaurs and classified them as different species in the 1800s when, in fact, he was uncovering baby and adult versions of the same creature. The observation that the skulls changed as the dinosaurs aged sheds new light on the field of paleontology.
According to the CBS article, this new theory also suggests that there were fewer species of dinosaurs when a meteor hit the Earth end of the Cretaceous Period. The article cites researcher John Scannella, who says fewer species and a "major global catastrophe" may have combined, resulting in mass extinction of the dinosaurs.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 20 ways to reuse coffee grounds, tea leaves
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- 5 ingredients that make any meal healthier
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- How much money do you save when baking your own bread?
- Jon Stewart explains the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- Stone Age people may have battled against a zombie apocalypse
- Men and women literally see the world differently
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
If that is the case surely by that logic caterpillars don't exist? But quoting a Daily Mail article automatically discredits any scientific argument.
As a long-standing member of the triceratops species, I take umbrage in the above article. After millions of years of evolution and decades of cinematic mayhem, I believe me and my fellow tricerians deserve more respect. And another thing- why do all those Hollywood types always say- "they can't hurt you- they're vegetarians!'' No one his right mind would say that about a cape buffalo. I'm just saying...
I love that I thought I was going to make a needlessly pedantic, given the nature of the article, statement on how taxanomic nomenclature works, and the comment thread is already full of them.
Classic sensationalism: making a minor, bureaucratic change of nomenclature out to be some kind of killing blow to our imaginations. They even fudged their facts, claiming that the wrong species was "disappeared," just to tug at our heartstrings!
What the last two comments say is very fair. The headline and opening paragraph imply that Triceratops is going to be removed from the pages of prehistory, and yet the article itself says that while the two species may be one (and a theory means just that "may") that the name Triceratops would still be kept. So Torosaurus may arguably be a "mythical species" since it may not actually be a species, but then that just wouldn't sound too exciting, now would it?
I agree. Such drama. How is something that existed a mythical creature? And if a unicorn was a younger form of a magical dragon and a magical dragon was the younger form of a Lion, then they would exist too.
Are children mythical creatures?
GUYS! do you people even understand what you are reporting on? Triceratops is not a younger species of another dinosaur. Torosaurus is an old triceratops. Trikes where named first, therefore that name is the name that shall be used. Why do you people not understand this? Also it shouldn't matter what we "name" it. it still existed whether we call it Triceratops or Torosaurus. Stop being anthropocentric ninnies.