How tough was Triceratops really?

[brontosauruschuck]

I came across this video https://youtu.be/CGvE1M95rtw and normally I don't really go in for Discovery Channel/Animal Planet/Etc. because they try to hard to be sensationalist and, in my opinion, tend to favor entertainment over accuracy.

As I understood it, Triceratops was certainly a force to be reckoned with, but compared to, say, Ankylosauridae, a relatively safe bet for predators, as their defense was largely limited to the head, which could navigated around with a little stealth. This is where heard behavior works in Triceratops' favor, yes? I can't help but think of the classic Michael Berenstain books that depicted Triceratops forming a circle with their horns toward the outside while the young and elderly Triceratops stayed in the middle.

Also, I know it's been asked, if a Triceratops charges at a predator and stabs it fatally, with their relatively humble posture they would likely have a giant dinosaur body suddenly falling on top of them, which wouldn't be good.

At the same time, if Bob Bakker says Triceratops is the most tough, I believe him. When it comes to paleontology, I would follow that man through Hell.

[suspsy]

"Toughness" is a tacky term in that no matter how powerful or intimidating an organism may seem, it can still be taken down. Kind of like how Ronda Rousey and Mike Tyson both used to tout themselves as the baddest badasses walking the Earth, and for a time they lived up to their boasts, but Amanda Nunes and Evander Holyfield eventually shattered those illusions for good.

Or to use a more appropriate example, look at the African cape buffalo. It's regularly described as one of the most dangerous animals on the continent, and it definitely is a very strong, very tough, and very bad-tempered beastie. But that doesn't stop lions from regularly preying on it. Even full-grown bulls have been killed and eaten. A single Tyrannosaurus rex probably wouldn't have risked taking on a mature Triceratops like in that video, but two or more likely would have been able to do the job.

[Neosodon]

In the literal sense toughest should easily go to Ankylosaurus. You can't get much tougher than armored plating. But Bakker could mean tougher in personality and behavior. Like Triceratops was more tenacious. But I don't see how we could possibly know that. Or tough in an enviornmetal sense like Triceratops could handle harsher conditions and sparser food which is not clear either. Or he's just giving us his personel preferance.

[brontosauruschuck]

What do y'all think about the argument that Ceratopsian horns were generally impractical in use against predators? I can't remember who said it or where it was said, unfortunately.

[Neosodon]

What do y'all think about the argument that Ceratopsian horns were generally impractical in use against predators? I can't remember who said it or where it was said, unfortunately.

That was a Jack Horner thing. Essentially his case was since horns were for sexual display and they do not look like they are built for combat in most species of ceratopsian then they must not have been used as weapons. Although those facts are true I have to disagree with the conclusion. Horns and antlers evolved for sexual display on modern species. No one would look at the flimsy horns of an elk and say those are perfect weapons. Yet in the absence of an escape elk, deer, moose, bison, goats and all types of horned animals will resort to useing their horns as a last ditch resort. Triceratops which was probably slower than T.rex would most certainly have ended up useing it's horns as its only means of defense.

[suspsy]

There's no reason why Triceratops' horns could not have served dual functions of display and defense.

[suspsy]

Also, toughness doesn't equate to fearlessness. To use the same example as before, an African buffalo is perfectly capable of killing a lion, but that doesn't mean that it's not afraid of the lion regardless. Nor does it mean that the lion is afraid of the buffalo. Check out this amazing video featuring a single male lion. He is utterly outnumbered, yet he still succeeds in panicking the buffalo herd and taking down a subadult all by himself. It's not hard to envision an adult T. rex bursting out from cover and freaking the bejesus out of a Triceratops herd in the same manner. Retreat is the first instinct of any prey animal, even if it's not always the best action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-yhrTnblPE

[brontosauruschuck]

What do y'all think about the argument that Ceratopsian horns were generally impractical in use against predators? I can't remember who said it or where it was said, unfortunately.

That was a Jack Horner thing. Essentially his case was since horns were for sexual display and they do not look like they are built for combat in most species of ceratopsian then they must not have been used as weapons. Although those facts are true I have to disagree with the conclusion. Horns and antlers evolved for sexual display on modern species. No one would look at the flimsy horns of an elk and say those are perfect weapons. Yet in the absence of an escape elk, deer, moose, bison, goats and all types of horned animals will resort to useing their horns as a last ditch resort. Triceratops which was probably slower than T.rex would most certainly have ended up useing it's horns as its only means of defense.

Man, considering his ability to rise above obstacles and make really incredible contributions to paleontology, Jack Horner is a hero of mine, but I feel like about every third major claim he makes is not particularly likely. He was also the one who tried to say T. rex was a scavenger, if memory serves me correctly.

[stargatedalek]

People have been suggesting that Ceratopsian horns were not intended for defense for decades. Horner far from came up with the idea and it's even farther from being a bad one. Think of how many Ceratopsians are known, of them, only Triceratops has horns that are functional defensive armaments and not particularly practical ones at that.

Yes, deer will use their impractical antlers when trapped, but if trapped a salamander will try to kick its attacker and I doubt anyone will ever argue their soft squishy feet are weapons. Animals will use literally anything to defend themselves when they're panicked enough, doesn't make them weapons.

At best Triceratops horns happened to better resemble weapons coincidentally, at worst, well for all we know the Tyrannosaurus with Triceratops horn injuries got those while fighting over a carcass.

[HD-man]

This thread reminds me of this Norell quote (See The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour):

Regarding the horns, there are two theories – echoed in other chapters in this book – display or defence. In the current view, display wins. Even if a Tyrannosaurus rex was foolish enough to engage an adult Triceratops, the Triceratops would probably have lost. Its bones would have exploded, and the few specimens that we have of Triceratops with bite mark injuries that have healed, were lucky individuals indeed. The head and frill structures, like elaborate cranial ornaments in animals today, were much more likely to have been used for flash and interspecific combat than for fighting off predators.

[dyno77]

when it comes to dinosaurs the toughness has been measured by the injuries sustained to dinosaurs such as allosaurus and triceratops as well as many others, stating that they could take multiple beatings and still survive.
Some triceratops skulls show heavy damage and still they survived for years after,the same with big all which had multiple injuries and Sue the t rex had also multiple injuries including broken ribs that healed and damaged arm and even broken neck among others. so many dinosaurs survived with multiple injures that would end the lifes of most modern animals so its clear to see how tough they were.

[Newt]

Conversations of toughness always make me think of turtles. I've come across many turtles in the wild that have survived shockingly gruesome injuries - amputation of limbs, cracked or crushed shells, even in one case a jaw completely severed on one side. Those are some tough critters!


Anyhow, I think Bakker and Horner both enjoy throwing half-baked hypotheses out into the world, which they themselves may not even think are likely to be correct. They serve as gadflies, startling people out of complacency and forcing them to re-examine old assumptions. Or as cheap attention-grabbing tricks for the authors, if you're inclined to be cynical.


Everyone focuses on the horns of ceratopsians as their obvious defensive weapons, but have you looked at their beaks lately? I wouldn't want to be nipped by one. It would probably be difficult for a ceratopsian to orient its jaws well enough to get a good bite on a predator, but once it did, that predator would be in for a world of hurt. The ceratopsian head in general was several hundred pounds of bone with sharp bits pointing out in every direction, attached to a very powerful neck and forelimbs that could swing the apparatus around with great force. The whole animal was basically an animated mace.

[brontosauruschuck]

Anyhow, I think Bakker and Horner both enjoy throwing half-baked hypotheses out into the world, which they themselves may not even think are likely to be correct. They serve as gadflies, startling people out of complacency and forcing them to re-examine old assumptions. Or as cheap attention-grabbing tricks for the authors, if you're inclined to be cynical.

I think Bakker is less of a clickbait guy than Horner, but yeah, you're probably right.

[Halichoeres]

Who would win in a fight*: a Triceratops or a tardigrade?


*in space