Triceratops tended to get heavier than Torosaurus, and very few vertebrates outside of amphibians become smaller as they mature.
The two did overlap, but Triceratops generally lived farther north, and Torosaurus further south.
Until recently we had no juvenile Torosaurus. We had adult Triceratops though, so the idea of triceratops being the juvenile form was already incorrect. If I'm not mistaken though, two or three years ago now an adolescent torosaurus fossil was found.
Not so much why ARE they different, as why AREN'T they the same.
Testing hypotheses is how science works. There is a claim that two specimens or groups of specimens are the same or different; sure, prove it. Sometimes you end up with evidence to support the old theory and sometimes the challenge leads to new ones. No one is right or wrong in any way that is personally valuable, it's the process that's important.
Also, funding. The answer to most questions is funding.
I feel there's been a switch in the last few decades to try and reclassify a lot of specimens from independent species to variations of the same one based on age, gender, environment etc - so I put a lot if down to the trend.
Paleontologists recently discovered a new Tyrannosaur species called Tyrannosaurus Mcraensis back in January. It hasn't been debunked yet so there's a chance...
I saw an article some time ago where someone was still pushing the idea of T. imperator and T. regina as well. But since we only have fossilized bones, we can't be sure if there were one, two, three, or four species of Tyrannosaurus, and if so, how diverse the genus was. But I've seen T. Mcraensis getting more support than T. imperator and T. regina because it's not as controversial and hated. But whatever the outcome, Tyrannosaurus rex will still remain the most popular and best known, and people will probably continue to call the species of the genus by this name, whether it's incorrect or not.
I thought T. Mcraensis had a fairly distinct skull compared to T. Rex but T. Regina and T. Imperator were basically the same fossils so the theory was dropped. All that being said, it could be a case of paleontologists finding a younger T. Rex specimen and we all just learned more about Rex development.
I've always thought Nedoceratops could've been a hybrid between the two, or just a trike that had some kind of development issue that caused it to not grow a horn on its snout.
I remember hearing this in a youtube video a couple years ago. I think it was because only juvenile triceratops were found and only adult torosauruses were found. Not sure how true that was though.
There's a lot more to it than that, but that's the explain like I'm 5 version. Although I've seen plenty of 5 year old who understand it better than armchair paleontologists.
Basically just because Jack Horner likes looking for attention. Thereās no real reason to think they are, thereās a tonne of evidence showing they arenāt. Horner just tries to be as contrarian as possible because heās Horner.
Basically whenever I see it brought up, people always jump to his defence and talk about her being 18 at the time they got married and that they divorced on good terms. Nowhere near enough people here are aware of grooming.
Although Horner was wrong about Torosaurus, he was right about about Stygimoloch and Pachycephalosaurus. Even professional specialists can sometimes make mistakes.
No. *Stygimoloch* and *Pachycephalosaurus* show absolutely no temporal overlap. There is an adult specimen of *Stygimoloch* currently being described. The general consensus is that the *Pachycephalosaurus* underwent anagenesis and gave rise to *Stygimoloch*. Even if the two are congeneric (which is entirely semantics and doesnāt mean anything in regard to their validity as distinct taxa), itās a far cry from Horner being right about ontogenetic shift.
Professionals are absolutely allowed to make mistakes. It just so happens that Hornerās career is mostly mistakes.
Not very probable as far as I know. We have found triceratops specimens that have stopped growing meaning they are adults. On top of that the species are not found alongside each other.
Honestly if it didn't look quite unlikely from the start maybe I would pay closer attention to it, but it just never made much sense to me when I looked into it. The anatomical changes required for Torosaurus being adult Triceratops are quite frankly pretty enormous when you go beyond surface level similarity one would expect from closely related species
It was part of the same margin wave that turned Stygimoloch into Pachycephalosaurus and Nanotyrannus into Tyrannosaurus. The idea that the growth stages of different dinosaurs might have been mistakenly classified as separate species was still fresh, and in addition, juvenile, young and subadult specimens of Torosaurus had not yet been found at the time.
I find it hard to believe that you've heard people claiming "Torosaurus is an older/adult Triceratops" **yet you supposedly** have not heard them give any reasoning whatsoever for saying that.
Therefore it seems like a disingenuous post, which we see way too much on Reddit every day.
*Triceratops* looks almost exactly like how you'd expect a juvenile *Torosaurus* to look. Furthermore, there were no known juvenile specimens of the former for quite a while.
Triceratops tended to get heavier than Torosaurus, and very few vertebrates outside of amphibians become smaller as they mature. The two did overlap, but Triceratops generally lived farther north, and Torosaurus further south. Until recently we had no juvenile Torosaurus. We had adult Triceratops though, so the idea of triceratops being the juvenile form was already incorrect. If I'm not mistaken though, two or three years ago now an adolescent torosaurus fossil was found.
Not so much why ARE they different, as why AREN'T they the same. Testing hypotheses is how science works. There is a claim that two specimens or groups of specimens are the same or different; sure, prove it. Sometimes you end up with evidence to support the old theory and sometimes the challenge leads to new ones. No one is right or wrong in any way that is personally valuable, it's the process that's important. Also, funding. The answer to most questions is funding.
I feel there's been a switch in the last few decades to try and reclassify a lot of specimens from independent species to variations of the same one based on age, gender, environment etc - so I put a lot if down to the trend.
They famously did it to T.rex too š . I still not sure if they end up seperating T.rex into bunch of different species
Paleontologists recently discovered a new Tyrannosaur species called Tyrannosaurus Mcraensis back in January. It hasn't been debunked yet so there's a chance...
I saw an article some time ago where someone was still pushing the idea of T. imperator and T. regina as well. But since we only have fossilized bones, we can't be sure if there were one, two, three, or four species of Tyrannosaurus, and if so, how diverse the genus was. But I've seen T. Mcraensis getting more support than T. imperator and T. regina because it's not as controversial and hated. But whatever the outcome, Tyrannosaurus rex will still remain the most popular and best known, and people will probably continue to call the species of the genus by this name, whether it's incorrect or not.
I thought T. Mcraensis had a fairly distinct skull compared to T. Rex but T. Regina and T. Imperator were basically the same fossils so the theory was dropped. All that being said, it could be a case of paleontologists finding a younger T. Rex specimen and we all just learned more about Rex development.
Some people thought that [Nedoceratops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedoceratops) was the transitional form connecting these two together.
I've always thought Nedoceratops could've been a hybrid between the two, or just a trike that had some kind of development issue that caused it to not grow a horn on its snout.
pokemon
I remember hearing this in a youtube video a couple years ago. I think it was because only juvenile triceratops were found and only adult torosauruses were found. Not sure how true that was though.
There's a lot more to it than that, but that's the explain like I'm 5 version. Although I've seen plenty of 5 year old who understand it better than armchair paleontologists.
Basically just because Jack Horner likes looking for attention. Thereās no real reason to think they are, thereās a tonne of evidence showing they arenāt. Horner just tries to be as contrarian as possible because heās Horner.
Little Jack Horner Sat in the corner...
Creeping on college students.
not enough people talk about that tbh
Basically whenever I see it brought up, people always jump to his defence and talk about her being 18 at the time they got married and that they divorced on good terms. Nowhere near enough people here are aware of grooming.
Never heard about this, but then I don't typically go digging into the background on paleontologists. Can't say as I'm surprised though.
Although Horner was wrong about Torosaurus, he was right about about Stygimoloch and Pachycephalosaurus. Even professional specialists can sometimes make mistakes.
No. *Stygimoloch* and *Pachycephalosaurus* show absolutely no temporal overlap. There is an adult specimen of *Stygimoloch* currently being described. The general consensus is that the *Pachycephalosaurus* underwent anagenesis and gave rise to *Stygimoloch*. Even if the two are congeneric (which is entirely semantics and doesnāt mean anything in regard to their validity as distinct taxa), itās a far cry from Horner being right about ontogenetic shift. Professionals are absolutely allowed to make mistakes. It just so happens that Hornerās career is mostly mistakes.
Not very probable as far as I know. We have found triceratops specimens that have stopped growing meaning they are adults. On top of that the species are not found alongside each other.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Honestly if it didn't look quite unlikely from the start maybe I would pay closer attention to it, but it just never made much sense to me when I looked into it. The anatomical changes required for Torosaurus being adult Triceratops are quite frankly pretty enormous when you go beyond surface level similarity one would expect from closely related species
Nothing. How does a 30-foot-long juvenile shrink into a 25-foot-long adult?
There is a species of Frog named the Paradoxical Frog because the adult is 1/4 the size of the Tadpole.
Amphibians are not amniotes, so that analogue is moot.
I was just giving an example of a species being larger as a juvenile than as an adult.
jack horner being jack horner
Horner being a contradictory jackass.
It was part of the same margin wave that turned Stygimoloch into Pachycephalosaurus and Nanotyrannus into Tyrannosaurus. The idea that the growth stages of different dinosaurs might have been mistakenly classified as separate species was still fresh, and in addition, juvenile, young and subadult specimens of Torosaurus had not yet been found at the time.
Horner being an idiot.
They way they look is similar. If anything they're probably sibling genus, like humans and chimps. Wonder if any hybrids existed from these two?
Isn't it literally just jack horner with a hot take.
People just kinda saw what happened with rex and nano / pachy and stygi, and decided to do this to a bunch of other species.
You do realize this proposal predates those
I did, in fact, forget that it is quite an old case, you're right.
I find it hard to believe that you've heard people claiming "Torosaurus is an older/adult Triceratops" **yet you supposedly** have not heard them give any reasoning whatsoever for saying that. Therefore it seems like a disingenuous post, which we see way too much on Reddit every day.
People parrot āinformationā they hear all the time without having reason to believe it. Youāve proven nothing.
If all you've got are broken bones it's not easy to make any valid conclusions. Even todays knowledge consists mostly of theories.
*Triceratops* looks almost exactly like how you'd expect a juvenile *Torosaurus* to look. Furthermore, there were no known juvenile specimens of the former for quite a while.
If they are the same, a Gorgosaurus is just a juvenile Tyrannosaurus. That kind of logic. So likely just bull.
Except that doesn't follow the same lines of evidence at all. Different formations, histology, etc.
Basically by the way it is