Triceratops is not a Female/Juvenile Torosaurus

[amargasaurus cazaui]

By claiming Triceratops was the most advanced ceratopsian I am not offending people who like other ceratopsians more. I prefer other ceratopsians over Ticeratops too because I think so of them are just more exotic or interesting. By claiming Triceratops is more advanced simply means that Triceratops was better adapted to survival in its environment.  I said the late cretaceous conditions could have played a roll in Triceratops evolution. I never said that they were necessary. Even if you disregard all the events of the late cretaceous Triceratops may have still been the only solid frilled ceratopsian. Why? who knows. Like why was Shunosaurus the only sauropod with a tail club or why was Amargosaurus the only one with a sail. Why was Ouranosaurus the only ornithapod with a sail while Pachyrhinosaurus was the only ceratopsian with a knob instead of a horn. Or maybe Triceratops was just more aggressive than other ceratopsians so it was just the only one that needed the extra protection.

On the subject advanced spiecies what you said about species just being different and having traits that happen to match different environment is true to some extent. Megeladon was a very advanced shark. But the ice age lead to its demise. It had nothing to do with being less advanced than other species. To show you what I mean by advanced species we can take a look at the Triassic. The Permian extinction almost completely wiped out the synapsids. But it did not drive them to extinction. A few like Placerias managed to make it through. But there was no way they could compete with the new more advanced animals known as the dinosaurs. There was no way the heavy 4 legged Postosuchus was going to compete with faster and deadlier predators like Liliensternus. Chigutisauridae went extinct because they could not compete with alligators and crocodiles. Koolasuchus managed to hang on till the cretaceous in polar regions were they could avoid crocodiles and alligators but they were fighting a loosing battle against time. Once they were gone they were never coming back for one simple reason. They were not as advanced as other rival species. It had nothing to do with their traits not fitting their environment.

Postosuchus and Koolasuchus are both some of my favorite animals and it sounds nice to just say they were equal to all other spiecies. I would like to think that animals like that could re evolve and they just went extinct because an unfortunate change in the environment. But natural selection doesn't care what sounds good or what you want to believe. The natural world is a beautiful but cruel place were the weak die off and the strong survive. Nature might look like just a bunch of pretty plants and animals living together in harmony when they've actually been at war for thousands and millions of years in the battle for survival and dominance.

Just something I wanted to add in here....the part I highlighted is somewhat a fallacy...in that while they may/may not be the only ones of each group with the given traits, it also could well be the case other similar animals may have simply not been discovered and yet possibly existed.In fact it would be easily argued these dinosaurs did not spring full bloom into having these traits and it is likely there were intermediate evolutionary steps producing similar animals until arriving at the species you named...and possibly even then any of those animals you named may be the intermediary to yet a more highly derived form also as yet unknown. Many of the adaptations you have mentioned could easily be derived by environmental factors acting on a single species...and in fact, while we toss ideas advanced by Horner around, he did specifically suggest that many species of hadrosaur and ceratopsian were caused by rising and lowering of the inner sea level either creating new available habitat or crowding existing species into smaller areas. His analog was a "pulse" or rise and fall of the water levels .

[Simon]

Here's the gigantic as-yet-undescribed ceratopsian skull of what may be a new species, or a really, really bizarre variant of Triceratops, discovered by Neal Larson in South Dakota (P.S. I think we can all agree THAT is definitely NOT a "Torosaurus"! 



An article about the find: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/08/29/super-sized-ceratopsian-skull-might-be-new-species.html

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Here's the gigantic as-yet-undescribed ceratopsian skull of what may be a new species, or a really, really bizarre variant of Triceratops, discovered by Neal Larson in South Dakota (P.S. I think we can all agree THAT is definitely NOT a "Torosaurus"! 



An article about the find: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/08/29/super-sized-ceratopsian-skull-might-be-new-species.html

I've heard about this in Prehistoric Times. It was referred to as the "Maastrichtian ceratopsian". It has a skeletal drawing of the skull, and is next to the skull of some kind of ceratopsian called Tatankaceratops sacrisonnorum.

[Neosodon]

Thanks amargosaurus and Simon. If Triceratops was not the only solid frilled ceratopsian then there is no reason to speculate why it was the only one. And the skull in that picture is definitely not a juvenile.

[WarrenJB]

Triceratops is not the ceratopsian messiah

... it's a very naughty boy.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'll get me coat.

Here's the gigantic as-yet-undescribed ceratopsian skull

Wibble.

Look at the size of that naris. You could crawl through it...

[Simon]

That has got to be the most massive Ceratopsid skull ever found.  Larson says its 8 feet long (and that's with the top of the frill missing.)  That's comparable to the longest Triceratops/Eotriceratops and Torosaur skulls, but none of them have a front half that is anywhere near that massive.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, after all nose horns went through all manner of shapes and sizes in other species, but in Triceratops-related species they were much more muted - this is almost grotesquely, absurdly large - cartoonishly large even. 

I hope that some of the toy makers are paying attention ...

[modelnut]

In the latest Prehistoric Times, this one is referred to as Duranteceratops. No official word or publication online that I can find.

Keith Strasser has created a life-sized statue of the beast. Hopefully some more images and information will turn up.



- Leelan

[suspsy]

Duranteceratops. I like it. This specimen is still in private hands, is it not? Sure hope it gets formally studied soon.

[Neosodon]

Has the frill of a Triceratops but not the horns. If more solid frilled ceratopsians show up I see the possibility of another new class.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Has the frill of a Triceratops but not the horns. If more solid frilled ceratopsians show up I see the possibility of another new class.

It's frill has fenestrae in it, and Triceratops does not. It does have similar horns, except that the nasal horn is massive.

[stargatedalek]

It might be the angle of the photo or distortion of the fossil but the frill also appears to be flattened vertically, almost like a fish.

[Neosodon]

Has the frill of a Triceratops but not the horns. If more solid frilled ceratopsians show up I see the possibility of another new class.

It's frill has fenestrae in it, and Triceratops does not. It does have similar horns, except that the nasal horn is massive.

The top two horns are also bent downward more than Triceratops's.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Has the frill of a Triceratops but not the horns. If more solid frilled ceratopsians show up I see the possibility of another new class.

It's frill has fenestrae in it, and Triceratops does not. It does have similar horns, except that the nasal horn is massive.

The top two horns are also bent downward more than Triceratops's.

You have to remember Triceratops prorsus.

[Neosodon]

I new there were different geneses if Triceratops but I would not have assumed that to be one at first glance.

[Simon]

Has the frill of a Triceratops but not the horns. If more solid frilled ceratopsians show up I see the possibility of another new class.

It's frill has fenestrae in it, and Triceratops does not. It does have similar horns, except that the nasal horn is massive.

How can you tell? Most of the frill is missing.  Kind of tantalizing because it could "go either way" based on what I can see.  Once its described, of course we may know for sure ...

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Has the frill of a Triceratops but not the horns. If more solid frilled ceratopsians show up I see the possibility of another new class.

It's frill has fenestrae in it, and Triceratops does not. It does have similar horns, except that the nasal horn is massive.

How can you tell? Most of the frill is missing.  Kind of tantalizing because it could "go either way" based on what I can see.  Once its described, of course we may know for sure ...

There is part of the fenestra visible on the skull.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Just noticing that the lower areas of the nasal opening appear heavily restored...if that nasal horn has also been restored as heavily as it appears.....distortion might have pushed the base of the horn upward, creating a larger than realistic nasal opening, to which the bones have been fitted around......I wonder if once lowered the nose horn would have been nearly as large, which has been suggested by other paleos who have looked at it as well.

[Halichoeres]

Just noticing that the lower areas of the nasal opening appear heavily restored...if that nasal horn has also been restored as heavily as it appears.....distortion might have pushed the base of the horn upward, creating a larger than realistic nasal opening, to which the bones have been fitted around......I wonder if once lowered the nose horn would have been nearly as large, which has been suggested by other paleos who have looked at it as well.

The narial region looks distorted to me, too, although very large notwithstanding. That's consistent with stargatedalek's observation that the frill looks a bit flattened.

[Dinoguy2]

This attention seeking "theory" has pretty much been debunked.  Its right out of the "TRex was ONLY a scavenger" category.  Silly. (As in "not supported by evidence", or as in "bored paleontologists who do not have enough to do go trolling for grant funds.") 

That's a really hostile attitude to take towards the researchers involved, first of all. And it has not been "debunked" - quite the opposite, as it is still an active area of research on both sides. Thinking it is debunked falls into the logical trap of "latest paper is the only true one". The current answer is that this is an active area of research on both sides and both sides are still in the process of gathering and publishing their evidence. Y'know, the way science is supposed to work.