Jack Horner makes dinosaur species "extinct"

[suspsy]

Horner has pretty much shut up about his obligate scavenger hypothesis now, but there was a time when I found him quite insufferable. Especially whenever he made his laughably silly claim that predators need grasping arms to catch their prey. Apparently canids, hyenas, squamates, and crocodilians didn't exist in his eyes. Or were all scavengers.

[Gwangi]

Horner has pretty much shut up about his obligate scavenger hypothesis now, but there was a time when I found him quite insufferable. Especially whenever he made his laughably silly claim that predators need grasping arms to catch their prey. Apparently canids, hyenas, squamates, and crocodilians didn't exist in his eyes. Or were all scavengers.

I don't think he really ever took it that seriously himself. More like he was just trolling for press. I read his 1993 book "The Complete T. rex"  and in it he states...

"I'm not convinced T. rex was only a scavenger. Though I will say so sometimes just to be contrary and get my colleagues arguing."

and...

"In the end, to me, this whole predator-versus-scavenger debate is a red herring. Most carnivores aren't fussy like us about where they get their meat, whether from dead animals or live ones. Hyenas are scavengers but they don't think twice about killing for lunch, even their own family members. They are opportunists. Among backboned animals, only air-borne carrion-searchers like vultures and condors are pure scavengers. The rest take whatever east pickings they can find, dead or alive. To my mind, T. rex was simply the greatest opportunist of them all."

[stargatedalek]

Oddly enough his error is in better favour of his point, vultures are by no means solely scavengers either. New world vultures at least, are no more scavengers than bald eagles or herring gulls are (although all of them vary by population in regards to diet).

I get why it annoys people, but I completely understand why he would be so adamant about supporting the claim that Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger. Up until him the media hadn't been willing to waver even slightly on the idea of Tyrannosaurus being the real life counterpart to Godzilla, even if he was exaggerating in order to make it news worthy, he got his point across.

[suspsy]

Horner has pretty much shut up about his obligate scavenger hypothesis now, but there was a time when I found him quite insufferable. Especially whenever he made his laughably silly claim that predators need grasping arms to catch their prey. Apparently canids, hyenas, squamates, and crocodilians didn't exist in his eyes. Or were all scavengers.

I don't think he really ever took it that seriously himself. More like he was just trolling for press. I read his 1993 book "The Complete T. rex"  and in it he states...

"I'm not convinced T. rex was only a scavenger. Though I will say so sometimes just to be contrary and get my colleagues arguing."

and...

"In the end, to me, this whole predator-versus-scavenger debate is a red herring. Most carnivores aren't fussy like us about where they get their meat, whether from dead animals or live ones. Hyenas are scavengers but they don't think twice about killing for lunch, even their own family members. They are opportunists. Among backboned animals, only air-borne carrion-searchers like vultures and condors are pure scavengers. The rest take whatever east pickings they can find, dead or alive. To my mind, T. rex was simply the greatest opportunist of them all."

See, that's the other thing. I don't like trolls, time wasters, or publicity hounds. I realize not everyone shares the same burning passion for dinosaurs that we do, but it strikes me as wrong to stir up false controversies just to get attention from the media. Not to mention misleading a good many impressionable children.

[Reptilia]

I was curious about what is actually known of Saurophaganax, and it seems its known remains are basically this?: http://lxblack.deviantart.com/art/Saurophaganax-2002-339842267

If so, that combined with how it coexisted with Allosaurus and how it apparently makes up one percent or less of the Morrison theropod fauna makes me wonder if Saurophaganax are actually individuals of Allosaurus that are rare due to being of great age.

Didn't know much of Saurophaganax other than its name, but if those you linked are the only known remains I wonder how can they restore a skeletal like this without a huge amount of speculation:



This is basically an Allosaurus, and I assume that those few remains were matching parts of Allosaurus to make paleontologists restore this one like an oversized Allosaurus, so why on Earth set up a new species instead of simply go the easiest route and classify it as a fully grown or aged Allosaurus?

[stargatedalek]

I was curious about what is actually known of Saurophaganax, and it seems its known remains are basically this?: http://lxblack.deviantart.com/art/Saurophaganax-2002-339842267

If so, that combined with how it coexisted with Allosaurus and how it apparently makes up one percent or less of the Morrison theropod fauna makes me wonder if Saurophaganax are actually individuals of Allosaurus that are rare due to being of great age.

Didn't know much of Saurophaganax other than its name, but if those you linked are the only known remains I wonder how can they restore a skeletal like this without a huge amount of speculation:

This is basically an Allosaurus, and I assume that those few remains were matching parts of Allosaurus to make paleontologists restore this one like an oversized Allosaurus, so why on Earth set up a new species instead of simply go the easiest route and classify it as a fully grown or aged Allosaurus?

You got the just of it, but Allosaurus isn't a species, it's a genus. Allosaurus does not represent a "single functional form of animal", but rather several closely related forms. It's not unreasonable to say "Saurophaganax" is a different animal from A. fragilis, in fact it's probable, but it is definitely not different enough to warrant a separate genus purely to clarify that point.

And thank you for the perfect example of how over-splitting devalues species level identification.

[Reptilia]

Sorry, I made confusion between genus and species. Then they probably should have callad it A. maximus, a species of the genus Allosaurus. Maybe Horner went a little too far by saying that 1/3 of the species of dinosaurs (or maybe he meant genera) didn't exist, but I believe he's right to a certain extent.

[Gwangi]

Horner has pretty much shut up about his obligate scavenger hypothesis now, but there was a time when I found him quite insufferable. Especially whenever he made his laughably silly claim that predators need grasping arms to catch their prey. Apparently canids, hyenas, squamates, and crocodilians didn't exist in his eyes. Or were all scavengers.

I don't think he really ever took it that seriously himself. More like he was just trolling for press. I read his 1993 book "The Complete T. rex"  and in it he states...

"I'm not convinced T. rex was only a scavenger. Though I will say so sometimes just to be contrary and get my colleagues arguing."

and...

"In the end, to me, this whole predator-versus-scavenger debate is a red herring. Most carnivores aren't fussy like us about where they get their meat, whether from dead animals or live ones. Hyenas are scavengers but they don't think twice about killing for lunch, even their own family members. They are opportunists. Among backboned animals, only air-borne carrion-searchers like vultures and condors are pure scavengers. The rest take whatever east pickings they can find, dead or alive. To my mind, T. rex was simply the greatest opportunist of them all."

See, that's the other thing. I don't like trolls, time wasters, or publicity hounds. I realize not everyone shares the same burning passion for dinosaurs that we do, but it strikes me as wrong to stir up false controversies just to get attention from the media. Not to mention misleading a good many impressionable children.

Yup, I understand what you're saying. He claims he only pressed the issue in order to make people think critically but there is no doubt about it that he likes being in the public eye. I admired him a lot growing up, with his discoveries on egg mountain. Nowadays not so much.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I get what people are saying here regarding Horner and trolling the science for attention and publicity, but it also requires some context and backstory to see what drives him. He was never a graduate of any college and went out trying to learn and make discoveries...and then against all odds it somehow happened at egg mountain.That was likely to take his ego up a notch or so...going from a weekend "warrior"so to speak, to being at the forefront of paleontology. Then being asked to consult for a blockbuster movie like Jurassic park, etc. Another thing that somewhat places him in perspective is remember he and Bakker have often been cast as opposite sides of the debate, no matter what it is. Bakker got a massive amount of recognition with his book and ideas about dinosaurs and Horner likely despite the seeming contention between the two felt it might be a great idea to emulate Bakker in tossing out ideas that often do not fit correctly but get the entire community worked up and arguing. I see Horner as a natural response to Bakker....the two remind me in some ways of Marsh and Cope with a few of the stories we have about them.

[Neosodon]

I get what people are saying here regarding Horner and trolling the science for attention and publicity, but it also requires some context and backstory to see what drives him. He was never a graduate of any college and went out trying to learn and make discoveries...and then against all odds it somehow happened at egg mountain.That was likely to take his ego up a notch or so...going from a weekend "warrior"so to speak, to being at the forefront of paleontology. Then being asked to consult for a blockbuster movie like Jurassic park, etc. Another thing that somewhat places him in perspective is remember he and Bakker have often been cast as opposite sides of the debate, no matter what it is. Bakker got a massive amount of recognition with his book and ideas about dinosaurs and Horner likely despite the seeming contention between the two felt it might be a great idea to emulate Bakker in tossing out ideas that often do not fit correctly but get the entire community worked up and arguing. I see Horner as a natural response to Bakker....the two remind me in some ways of Marsh and Cope with a few of the stories we have about them.

That's a pretty cool story. I've always had the assumption that all professional paleontologists were wealthy people with fancy degrees and lots of connections to be able to get such a rare and competitive job. Now it feels like I even have a chance of becoming one.

I get coming up with radical theories to stir up debate and make people think. But releasing that info to the public as facts when it's clearly not very accurate is just wrong. Many kids probably had their visions of dinosaurs destroyed after watching Valley of the T Rex.

[GasmaskMax]

There are triceratops specimens that are larger than any known torosaurus, thats what killed the theory for me. It shows a tremendous lack of research in their anatomies and makes almost all of their work discreditable. The scavenging tyrannosaurus didn't help either.

[Neosodon]

There are triceratops specimens that are larger than any known torosaurus, thats what killed the theory for me. It shows a tremendous lack of research in their anatomies and makes almost all of their work discreditable.

Yeah, that combined with the differences in frills make them clearly different speicies. Triceratops had a more compact solid bone frill while Torosaurus had quite the opposite.

[GasmaskMax]

There are triceratops specimens that are larger than any known torosaurus, thats what killed the theory for me. It shows a tremendous lack of research in their anatomies and makes almost all of their work discreditable.

Yeah, that combined with the differences in frills make them clearly different speicies. Triceratops had a more compact solid bone frill while Torosaurus had quite the opposite.

Yeah, the holes in torosaurus frills are also very solid evidence against them being one in the same.

[stargatedalek]

I don't think they're the same animal either but really did either of you actually read anything related to this subject? The holes are actually the most compelling evidence in favour of this concept, and there are not specimens of Triceratops larger than specimens of Torosaurus, it only seems like that because all indeterminate hell creek ceratopsians are assigned to Triceratops.