Torosaurus. ITs own Genus? or A Mature Triceratops

[Kovu]

From a purely, "which has a nice ring to it", I like Triceratops latus. And that would definitely be unique.
Not necessarily scientific, but...

[Takama]

And if in the chance that the debate is Settled in favour of keeping them sperate. a proper Triceratops will be made, and the old model will be called Torosaurus

[Kovu]

All your bases will be covered. Or, you could just be really vague and call it T. latus and not designate what the T is for...

[Takama]

All your bases will be covered. Or, you could just be really vague and call it T. latus and not designate what the T is for...

Excellent idea!!!!!!

[Sim]

Ok I relly want to make a Torosaurus. But IT will be called a Triceratops(Torosaurus) and a species epitatate. now which species should it be?  Triceratops(Torosaurus) latus or Triceratops(Torosaurus) horridus.

Does any palaeontologist actually consider "Triceratops latus" a valid name?  I thought those arguing that Torosaurus is Triceratops think the Torosaurus specimens belong to an existing Triceratops species, which were named a few years earlier than Torosaurus and would therefore have priority over "latus"?  It reminds me of when in that Saurian post explaining why they chose the name "Anatosaurus", they said it was for the same reason they wouldn't be calling Acheroraptor Velociraptor.  As far as I know, no palaeontologist has considered Acheroraptor temertyorum to be Velociraptor, so I don't quite understand Saurian's reasoning there?  It seems pointless to invent or suggest new genus+species combinations that aren't real scientific names.

[Dinoguy2]

Ok I relly want to make a Torosaurus. But IT will be called a Triceratops(Torosaurus) and a species epitatate. now which species should it be?  Triceratops(Torosaurus) latus or Triceratops(Torosaurus) horridus.

Does any palaeontologist actually consider "Triceratops latus" a valid name?  I thought those arguing that Torosaurus is Triceratops think the Torosaurus specimens belong to an existing Triceratops species, which were named a few years earlier than Torosaurus and would therefore have priority over "latus"?  It reminds me of when in that Saurian post explaining why they chose the name "Anatosaurus", they said it was for the same reason they wouldn't be calling Acheroraptor Velociraptor.  As far as I know, no palaeontologist has considered Acheroraptor temertyorum to be Velociraptor, so I don't quite understand Saurian's reasoning there?  It seems pointless to invent or suggest new genus+species combinations that aren't real scientific names.

No, I think Triceratops latus is just a Saurian thing, devised using their personal definition of genus. I think the type specimen of Toro is T. horridus if it's indeed a synonym, based on the nose horn shape.

[stargatedalek]

The thing is that regardless of if their synonyms or not Triceratops is still unique among ceratopsians for its solid frill (typically only found in juveniles), so Triceratops used to have a frill a lot like that of Torosaurus at some point in it's history. The question is whether that "history" was still ongoing with Triceratops horridus leading into Triceratops prorsus retaining its solid frill into adulthood, or if Triceratops horridus had also already developed that solid frill in adulthood.

Ok I relly want to make a Torosaurus. But IT will be called a Triceratops(Torosaurus) and a species epitatate. now which species should it be?  Triceratops(Torosaurus) latus or Triceratops(Torosaurus) horridus.

Does any palaeontologist actually consider "Triceratops latus" a valid name?  I thought those arguing that Torosaurus is Triceratops think the Torosaurus specimens belong to an existing Triceratops species, which were named a few years earlier than Torosaurus and would therefore have priority over "latus"?  It reminds me of when in that Saurian post explaining why they chose the name "Anatosaurus", they said it was for the same reason they wouldn't be calling Acheroraptor Velociraptor.  As far as I know, no palaeontologist has considered Acheroraptor temertyorum to be Velociraptor, so I don't quite understand Saurian's reasoning there?  It seems pointless to invent or suggest new genus+species combinations that aren't real scientific names.

I disagree with you on the last part, there are times where binomial classifications can actually fall under opinion. For example I absolutely refuse to use Saurophaganax over A. maximus, but that's just my opinion on how that genera should have been handled. Some people just feel the opposite way about Edmontosaurus and Anatosaurus. And let's not forget Varanus komodoensis priscus, or Varanus priscus, or Megalania prisca (but of course Varanus itself is already bordering on a wastebasket taxon so perhaps a bad example to my following point).

I for one think there are too many genera out there to the point where a lot of people use dinosaurs genera as common names and don't know there are different species. Not saying I expect everyone to know the different species of dinosaurs, I just feel like the general attitude even among many experts in this field has become something alone the lines of "Oh this dinosaur is cooler than the other Allosaurus lets give it it's own genus so the ten year old's watching documentaries can tell it's not the same thing!".

[Sim]

On the subject of whether Torosaurus is the fully grown form in an existing Triceratops species, I keep wondering if the Dueling Dinosaurs ceratopsian is a juvenile Torosaurus?

Does any palaeontologist actually consider "Triceratops latus" a valid name?  I thought those arguing that Torosaurus is Triceratops think the Torosaurus specimens belong to an existing Triceratops species, which were named a few years earlier than Torosaurus and would therefore have priority over "latus"?  It reminds me of when in that Saurian post explaining why they chose the name "Anatosaurus", they said it was for the same reason they wouldn't be calling Acheroraptor Velociraptor.  As far as I know, no palaeontologist has considered Acheroraptor temertyorum to be Velociraptor, so I don't quite understand Saurian's reasoning there?  It seems pointless to invent or suggest new genus+species combinations that aren't real scientific names.

I disagree with you on the last part, there are times where binomial classifications can actually fall under opinion. For example I absolutely refuse to use Saurophaganax over A. maximus, but that's just my opinion on how that genera should have been handled. Some people just feel the opposite way about Edmontosaurus and Anatosaurus. And let's not forget Varanus komodoensis priscus, or Varanus priscus, or Megalania prisca (but of course Varanus itself is already bordering on a wastebasket taxon so perhaps a bad example to my following point).

I agree that there are times the binomial classification used can differ depending on opinion, and that isn't what I was referring to.  When I said, "It seems pointless to invent or suggest new genus+species combinations that aren't real scientific names.", I was referring to when this is done in a way that creates a new combination that isn't a real scientific name.  This is different to a new combination being published in the correct way in a paper which can allow it to become a scientific name that is real and can be used.

Saurophaganax and Allosaurus maximus are both real scientific names.  Same with Anatosaurus and Edmontosaurus annectens.  Therefore, choosing to use one or the other isn't inventing a new scientific name that isn't real.  "Triceratops latus" isn't a real scientific name if it's never met the requirements to be one.  The scientific classification that has been validly proposed for Torosaurus being Triceratops is that the Torosaurus specimens belong to an existing Triceratops species.  It also seems weird for Saurian to mention they could have called Acheroraptor Velociraptor if the two had lived closer in time to each other since again this isn't a real scientific classification that's been made, and Acheroraptor is only known from fragments of its jaws, so it's not possible to have a good idea of how similar it was to Velociraptor.

Genera should make things easier to understand.  Creating a new genus+species combination without then going through the process to make it a real scientific name results in a name that isn't a real scientific name which can be confusing and misleading.  When Saurian mentioned they wouldn't be calling Acheroraptor Velociraptor I thought, "What?  It's actually been suggested that Acheroraptor is Velociraptor?"  I then searched online and no, it hadn't been, except for in that Saurian post which doesn't make it an actual scientific classification.  What's the point of using "Triceratops latus" if it's not a real or accepted scientific classification?  It's weird and confusing to have people talking about "Triceratops latus" as if it was real when this classification actually doesn't exist in science and palaeontologists don't use it.

I for one think there are too many genera out there to the point where a lot of people use dinosaurs genera as common names and don't know there are different species. Not saying I expect everyone to know the different species of dinosaurs, I just feel like the general attitude even among many experts in this field has become something alone the lines of "Oh this dinosaur is cooler than the other Allosaurus lets give it it's own genus so the ten year old's watching documentaries can tell it's not the same thing!".

It's interesting that you say that, as I've seen Scott Hartman say he would rather see more species given their own genus due to some palaentologists not including more than one species of a genus in their analyses just because they are classified in the same genus.  I was shocked when I read this as excluding species like that goes against the whole point of a phylogenetic analysis.  Anyway, there are many different opinions on how genera and species should be classified...

[Takama]

After all is said and done. im going with Triceratops.    And to make it unique, im baseing it on the Yoshi specimen. (now which species is that one?)

[Derek.McManus]

  lol wise choice!

[stargatedalek]

I agree that there are times the binomial classification used can differ depending on opinion, and that isn't what I was referring to.  When I said, "It seems pointless to invent or suggest new genus+species combinations that aren't real scientific names.", I was referring to when this is done in a way that creates a new combination that isn't a real scientific name.  This is different to a new combination being published in the correct way in a paper which can allow it to become a scientific name that is real and can be used.

Saurophaganax and Allosaurus maximus are both real scientific names.  Same with Anatosaurus and Edmontosaurus annectens.  Therefore, choosing to use one or the other isn't inventing a new scientific name that isn't real.  "Triceratops latus" isn't a real scientific name if it's never met the requirements to be one.  The scientific classification that has been validly proposed for Torosaurus being Triceratops is that the Torosaurus specimens belong to an existing Triceratops species.  It also seems weird for Saurian to mention they could have called Acheroraptor Velociraptor if the two had lived closer in time to each other since again this isn't a real scientific classification that's been made, and Acheroraptor is only known from fragments of its jaws, so it's not possible to have a good idea of how similar it was to Velociraptor.

Genera should make things easier to understand.  Creating a new genus+species combination without then going through the process to make it a real scientific name results in a name that isn't a real scientific name which can be confusing and misleading.  When Saurian mentioned they wouldn't be calling Acheroraptor Velociraptor I thought, "What?  It's actually been suggested that Acheroraptor is Velociraptor?"  I then searched online and no, it hadn't been, except for in that Saurian post which doesn't make it an actual scientific classification.  What's the point of using "Triceratops latus" if it's not a real or accepted scientific classification?  It's weird and confusing to have people talking about "Triceratops latus" as if it was real when this classification actually doesn't exist in science and palaeontologists don't use it.

Aah, I understand what you meant now. And for the record I was equally confused by that Saurian post. I definitely agree, there's a big difference between choosing to use an alternate binomial because you prefer its classification and making one up on the spot.

It's interesting that you say that, as I've seen Scott Hartman say he would rather see more species given their own genus due to some palaentologists not including more than one species of a genus in their analyses just because they are classified in the same genus.  I was shocked when I read this as excluding species like that goes against the whole point of a phylogenetic analysis.  Anyway, there are many different opinions on how genera and species should be classified...

That is genuinely somewhat horrifying to hear. To think actual experts in the field would do that and not just the poor excuses for documentaries that get churned out these days.

After all is said and done. im going with Triceratops.    And to make it unique, im baseing it on the Yoshi specimen. (now which species is that one?)

That awkward moment you can't tell if something is a pop-culture reference or MOR 3064. This is the only identification I found on it. https://books.google.ca/books?id=chKDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=Yoshi+specimen&source=bl&ots=Kii-HUMDpe&sig=Htx-R7KjW86y3oB5ko6VOk1vhz8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9oaaHquTOAhWF6x4KHWHqAksQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Yoshi%20specimen&f=false

[Dinoguy2]

After all is said and done. im going with Triceratops.    And to make it unique, im baseing it on the Yoshi specimen. (now which species is that one?)

Yoshi's Trike is intermediate between T. horridus and T. prorsus. Both in terms of time (middle Hell Creek Formation) and skull features (it has some features from both species). See the images here: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/278242897_fig3_Fig-4-Potential-patterns-of-HCF-Triceratops-evolution-A-Anagenesis-or

(Yoshi is MOR 3027).

But, since the most "visible" distinguishing feature is probably the nose horn, and it seems to have a T. prorsus style horn (long, forward-pointed with curved tip, rather than short and upward pointed like T. horridus), you could probably just label it prorsus.

[stargatedalek]

Oh whoops, I read the wrong number. My bad.