Triceratops is not a Female/Juvenile Torosaurus

[Styracoking2180]

Their is many evidence that shows that Triceratops and Torosaurus are not the same. One being that Torosaurus's frill is much larger than Triceratops'. And Torosaurus has holes in the frill of its horns If they were related they both most likely would have that. The main difference between male and female dinosaurs that paleontologist believe is their colors. Like for Dilophosaurus the crest on the male would be flashy to attract mates while the female has dull coloration's. So Triceratops is probable not a female Torosaurus because of that reason. Please list what you guys think below. and i´ve noticed that many Ceratopsians where the adult has holes in the head then the juvenile has holes too. like Centrosaurus the juveniles of that have holes in their heads same thing as Pachyrhinosaurus.

[stargatedalek]

While I concur it likely isn't the same animal, all of those reasons are absolutely inconsequential. Some of them are even evidence in favour of Torosaurus being being synonymous.

I don't think anyone ever suggested they were male and female specimens.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Lack of fusing in Triceratops' skull(please tell me if this is wrong) shows that Triceratops was a juvenile. Cassowaries are 80% fully grown before they get their crest. Triceratops may have grown a larger frill in that, I'm guessing year.

[Simon]

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.") 

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

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.") 

I agree, kind of.

[stargatedalek]

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.") 

I wouldn't go that far, especially not compared to other things Horner has done. Him making a big deal a few months back about how "omg ceratopsians may not have all used their horns to stab things :OOOOO" was him trolling for attention.

The idea of Torosaurus being an adult Triceratops has some ground to stand on, not enough, but there is some real basis to it. All ceratopsians except for Triceratops and Eotriceratops develop openings in their frills when they mature, they display traits only otherwise only seen in juvenile specimens. Torosaurus is very, very similar to Triceratops, to the point where it's more or less impossible to tell them apart without the skull being present. For example a lot of disarticulated remains assigned to "Triceratops" are probably Torosaurus. Taking only these factors into account it seems entirely plausible to say Torosaurus could be an adult form of Triceratops.

However, Torosaurus remains are not associated with every formation that Triceratops is, and more tellingly we don't see a Torosaurus species for each Triceratops species. I certainly wouldn't say that it's impossible for Torosaurus to represent an adult form of Triceratops, but it's very unlikely.

Also worth noting is many people feel these relatives are heavily oversplit, and that even if they aren't synonymous Torosaurus and Triceratops (let alone Eotriceratops [which is only placed in its own genus so discovery channel can wow people with "new giant version of Triceratops"]) should lie within a single genera. This opinion is often shot down with the usual "But no they aren't the same species" statement, so it's very important that people stop confusing the two.

[Simon]

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.") 

I wouldn't go that far, especially not compared to other things Horner has done. Him making a big deal a few months back about how "omg ceratopsians may not have all used their horns to stab things :OOOOO" was him trolling for attention.

The idea of Torosaurus being an adult Triceratops has some ground to stand on, not enough, but there is some real basis to it. All ceratopsians except for Triceratops and Eotriceratops develop openings in their frills when they mature, they display traits only otherwise only seen in juvenile specimens. Torosaurus is very, very similar to Triceratops, to the point where it's more or less impossible to tell them apart without the skull being present. For example a lot of disarticulated remains assigned to "Triceratops" are probably Torosaurus. Taking only these factors into account it seems entirely plausible to say Torosaurus could be an adult form of Triceratops.

However, Torosaurus remains are not associated with every formation that Triceratops is, and more tellingly we don't see a Torosaurus species for each Triceratops species. I certainly wouldn't say that it's impossible for Torosaurus to represent an adult form of Triceratops, but it's very unlikely.

Also worth noting is many people feel these relatives are heavily oversplit, and that even if they aren't synonymous Torosaurus and Triceratops (let alone Eotriceratops [which is only placed in its own genus so discovery channel can wow people with "new giant version of Triceratops"]) should lie within a single genera. This opinion is often shot down with the usual "But no they aren't the same species" statement, so it's very important that people stop confusing the two.

I agree about the (unintentional) "oversplitting" of ceratopsia ... they were very much like the big cats are in more recent geological times ... so similar in terms of their skeletons that they are hard to tell apart (most recent example - extinct "American lion" is now believed to have actually been a super-sized Jaguar relative).

The thing that distinguishes the ceratopsids one from another are the weird horn/head/frill displays, so that variation has been immediately been attributed to speciation, when in fact it just as plausibly, in many cases, could be due to gender differences, regional variation, etc.

Having said that, the Triceratops/Torosaurus connection is extremely tenuous for all the reasons that you listed above, plus a few more I can think of just offhand ... (No Torosaurus skull ever found is nearly as massive - I did not say long, but massive - as the Eotriceratops and the "Triceratops Maximus" skulls - which is pretty good indicator that those two oversized specimens were in fact fully grown adults, maybe even "Trophy Bulls" ....)

[ZoPteryx]

As has already been mentioned, the main problem is there's a backlog of understudied headless specimens that have long been referred to Triceratops, but may or may not belong there.  What we need is a dedicated specimen-to-specimen based analysis on this complex, similar to the one that ultimately revived Brontosaurus.  ...or a very complete indisputable specimen of a young Torosaurus*, that would work too.

*To be clear, this all about Torosaurus latus.  Torosaurus utahensis is whole other can of worms! 

[Neosodon]

While I concur it likely isn't the same animal, all of those reasons are absolutely inconsequential. Some of them are even evidence in favour of Torosaurus being being synonymous.

I don't think anyone ever suggested they were male and female specimens.

Have no idea were you got the idea that a difference in frill would mean that they are the same species. It would make no sense for the frill to shrink as it grew older. The frill difference is the most obvious difference between the 2 species.

[stargatedalek]

While I concur it likely isn't the same animal, all of those reasons are absolutely inconsequential. Some of them are even evidence in favour of Torosaurus being being synonymous.

I don't think anyone ever suggested they were male and female specimens.

Have no idea were you got the idea that a difference in frill would mean that they are the same species. It would make no sense for the frill to shrink as it grew older. The frill difference is the most obvious difference between the 2 species.

Ceratopsian frills are normally only solid in young specimens, and they always change as the animal ages. So Triceratops having a solid frill is abnormal, Torosaurus is what we would expect a ceratopsian frill to look like based on every other reference.

[Neosodon]

While I concur it likely isn't the same animal, all of those reasons are absolutely inconsequential. Some of them are even evidence in favour of Torosaurus being being synonymous.

I don't think anyone ever suggested they were male and female specimens.

Have no idea were you got the idea that a difference in frill would mean that they are the same species. It would make no sense for the frill to shrink as it grew older. The frill difference is the most obvious difference between the 2 species.

Ceratopsian frills are normally only solid in young specimens, and they always change as the animal ages. So Triceratops having a solid frill is abnormal, Torosaurus is what we would expect a ceratopsian frill to look like based on every other reference.

But that is not the case since we have adult Triceratops skulls that are solid frilled. So we already know that a solid frill was not something Triceratops grew out of. Even if the adult Triceratops skeletons were actually just middle aged Torosaurus's that still would not make sense because Torosaurus is smaller than Triceratops. Unless you believe dinosaurs shrunk as they aged I don't see how what you suggested could be the case.

Triceratops was the most advanced of the ceratopsians so you could say it developed the solid frill to avoid being punctured full of holes by other ceratopsians in fights.

[stargatedalek]

But that is not the case since we have adult Triceratops skulls that are solid frilled. So we already know that a solid frill was not something Triceratops grew out of. Even if the adult Triceratops skeletons were actually just middle aged Torosaurus's that still would not make sense because Torosaurus is smaller than Triceratops. Unless you believe dinosaurs shrunk as they aged I don't see how what you suggested could be the case.

Triceratops was the most advanced of the ceratopsians so you could say it developed the solid frill to avoid being punctured full of holes by other ceratopsians in fights.

No offense but all of that is silly and is completely ignoring decades of research by actual paleontologists not to mention just outright insulting actual animals claiming Triceratops is more advanced.

But that is not the case since we have adult Triceratops skulls that are solid frilled.

Except that we might not. That's the whole point, we can't be 100% sure if these remains are adults, or that they represent adults within both species of Triceratops. Unless someone finds one with eggs preserved inside we won't know for certain, ever.

So we already know that a solid frill was not something Triceratops grew out of.

How do you know that? ALL other ceratopsians went through this change so why are you so certain that Triceratops didn't? Just actually think about that for minute.

Even if the adult Triceratops skeletons were actually just middle aged Torosaurus's that still would not make sense because Torosaurus is smaller than Triceratops. Unless you believe dinosaurs shrunk as they aged I don't see how what you suggested could be the case.

Except that that's wrong, Torosaurus is larger. I'm not including any estimates based on disarticulated remains because as was already said those could be a number of different animals but are applied to Triceratops because it sells better. Of the specimens we actually know what they looked like, all of the Torosaurus are larger than the Triceratops.

Triceratops was the most advanced of the ceratopsians so you could say it developed the solid frill to avoid being punctured full of holes by other ceratopsians in fights.

We have absolutely no evidence for inter-specific conflict between ceratopsians, so in no way is Triceratops at any sort of competitive advantage by having a solid frill. And if it offered any defensive ability against predators we would see it in other members, so that wasn't likely to be related at all either. Perhaps they no longer needed species identifying factors with competition of other species dwindling and so the frill became smaller and more compact to conserve energy in growth, but that is in no way more advanced or even giving Triceratops any competitive advantage.

[Neosodon]

But that is not the case since we have adult Triceratops skulls that are solid frilled. So we already know that a solid frill was not something Triceratops grew out of. Even if the adult Triceratops skeletons were actually just middle aged Torosaurus's that still would not make sense because Torosaurus is smaller than Triceratops. Unless you believe dinosaurs shrunk as they aged I don't see how what you suggested could be the case.

Triceratops was the most advanced of the ceratopsians so you could say it developed the solid frill to avoid being punctured full of holes by other ceratopsians in fights.

No offense but all of that is silly and is completely ignoring decades of research by actual paleontologists not to mention just outright insulting actual animals claiming Triceratops is more advanced.

But that is not the case since we have adult Triceratops skulls that are solid frilled.

Except that we might not. That's the whole point, we can't be 100% sure if these remains are adults, or that they represent adults within both species of Triceratops. Unless someone finds one with eggs preserved inside we won't know for certain, ever.

So we already know that a solid frill was not something Triceratops grew out of.

How do you know that? ALL other ceratopsians went through this change so why are you so certain that Triceratops didn't? Just actually think about that for minute.

Even if the adult Triceratops skeletons were actually just middle aged Torosaurus's that still would not make sense because Torosaurus is smaller than Triceratops. Unless you believe dinosaurs shrunk as they aged I don't see how what you suggested could be the case.

Except that that's wrong, Torosaurus is larger. I'm not including any estimates based on disarticulated remains because as was already said those could be a number of different animals but are applied to Triceratops because it sells better. Of the specimens we actually know what they looked like, all of the Torosaurus are larger than the Triceratops.

Triceratops was the most advanced of the ceratopsians so you could say it developed the solid frill to avoid being punctured full of holes by other ceratopsians in fights.

We have absolutely no evidence for inter-specific conflict between ceratopsians, so in no way is Triceratops at any sort of competitive advantage by having a solid frill. And if it offered any defensive ability against predators we would see it in other members, so that wasn't likely to be related at all either. Perhaps they no longer needed species identifying factors with competition of other species dwindling and so the frill became smaller and more compact to conserve energy in growth, but that is in no way more advanced or even giving Triceratops any competitive advantage.

I find it rather interesting that you claim I'm offending species that died out millions of years ago by claiming that one is more advanced than others. That is how evolution works. Smaller, weaker and less intelligent animals evolve into bigger, stronger and smarter animals. Tyrannosaurus is more advanced than Lythronax. Sauropods are more advanced than pro sauropods and so on. From a religious point of view you could say that all animals are equal because that is just how God made them. But from a strictly scientific point of view, no not all life forms are equally advanced. And there is a countless number of extinct species left behind in the fossil record to prove it (not counting victims of major extinction events) because they were not advanced enough to compete with the other animals in their environment.

The size of the fossils makes it clear that they were fairly mature individuals.

According to Prehistoric Wildlife, Triceratops is bigger than Torosaurus. For some reason you claim that my information is silly and ignores decades and paleontology. Most of the dinosaur documentaries, books and and websites I've looked at say otherwise.

Even without specific fossil evidence it is most probable ceratopsians fought each other over mates and things because that is what all horned animals do. Deer, Goats and Bulls and every horned animal I know of uses it's horns in that manner. Early ceratopsians had the holes to conserve weight but as time went on a species of ceratopsian maybe a genus of Torosaur became more and more aggressive from competition partially due to the worsening conditions of the late cretaceous which drove these animals to develop a solid frill through their entire lives. But with the unfortunate mass extinction there was simply no time for other ceratopsians to develop this feature - leaving Triceratops maybe the last ceratopsian to evolve as the climax of the ceratopsian family tree.

[stargatedalek]

It's very difficult to offend an animal, and obviously impossible to offend anything that's dead. I meant that you claiming Triceratops was better could bother people who like other ceratopsians. It's not a very polite statement and it's one that's factually flawed to boot. You can write off animals as "less advanced" all you want, but how many times have creatures evolved to return to their roots so to speak? Lost traits reappear when the environment dictates just as new traits appear. A creature is never "more advanced", simply different. Triceratops is among the youngest ceratopsians, not the most advanced.

If a solid frill was offering Triceratops an advantage in combat than we would have seen in it in the almost 100 million years the group was around. 100 million years inevitably included hundreds of thousands of species in dozens of families, to claim that among all of them a single three species (counting Eotriceratops) somehow achieved a state of "advancement" none of the others achieved is silly, that's the nicest word I can use. Since you seem to be big on poorly used religious metaphors; Triceratops is not the ceratopsian messiah, it was just another animal like any other.

Newborn blue whales are 25 feet long. If we had never found another specimen of a blue whale would we not assume that was an adult? Size doesn't mean anything in regards to age. We don't even know how rapidly dinosaurs would have grown, we can tell if they grow more slowly later in life, but that's it.

Prehistoric Wildlife is notoriously untrustworthy, it is absolutely not valid source material. Neither are documentaries, documentaries are designed to make money, not to educate. On the off chance you actually read it this time, the reason why so many sources say Triceratops is so large is that all fragmentary ceratopsian remains from late Cretaceous North America are assigned to Triceratops arbitrarily. The largest specimens that contain skulls are all smaller than Torosaurus.

That is ridiculous. Triceratops (as a genus) existed for tens of millions of years, it was absolutely not some sort of adaptation to deal with the Cretaceous mass extinction. The entire late Cretaceous wasn't some giant volcanic ash filed landscape. Triceratops and Torosaurus lived in a lush coastal forest.

[Neosodon]

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.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

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.

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.

I agree that other ceratopsians were more exotic, I mean look at some of their heads!

[Neosodon]

I once tried to pick my favorite ceratopsian.....

I agree that other ceratopsians were more exotic, I mean look at some of their heads!

But with all that to choose from I gave up.

[Simon]

I once tried to pick my favorite ceratopsian.....

I agree that other ceratopsians were more exotic, I mean look at some of their heads!

But with all that to choose from I gave up.

I know what you mean - with me I am easily swayed based on the viewing angle of the ornamentation.  So I have to put feelings aside and go with Triceratops Prorsus.  The biggest, baddest looking.    Not the pretiest for sure, though.    Til the next discovery ...

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

I once tried to pick my favorite ceratopsian.....

I agree that other ceratopsians were more exotic, I mean look at some of their heads!

But with all that to choose from I gave up.

I thought it was Diabloceratops, but, I give up as well.

[Simon]

FYI: Here is a peer reviewed scholarly article discussing the differences and concluding that Torosaurus is NOT Triceratops:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032623