[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Even more concerning the Triceratops/Torosaurus deal
In response to my post about the gargantuan BYU *Triceratops* skull, David
> Are you sure it shows no sign of fenestrae opening up? Such as
> suspiciously thin areas in the frill...?
I was referring to external signs of opening fenestrae. That there are internal
signs is certainly possible. But finding out would require folk to forget about
*T. rex* for just a second and allow ceratopsians to enter their thoughts and
> Besides, how complete is the frill? How much of it is plaster?
According to everything I've dug up on this specimen so far (Get it? Dug up? Oh
man, I got to stop making these bad jokes) the frill is 100% real and complete,
with no plaster at all.
Rick Box wrote:
> Couldn't an *occasional* behemoth skull of the smaller/non-fenestrated
> sex still show up without killing the theory dead? Secondary sexual
> characteristics sometimes show up in the 'other' sex in other species...
This is the first I've heard of *Torosaurus* being the adult stage of only one
sex of *Triceratops*...
But what are the "two sexes", exactly? If it is referring to *T. horridus* and
*T. porosus*, I currently regard them as distinct species, not sexes.
Especially if *T. porosus* really is the only *Triceratops* in Canada...
Another question: Assuming for a second that *Torosaurus* really is the adult
stage of *Triceratops*, and assuming for a second that *T. horridus* and *T.
porosus* are distinct species, would this mean that BOTH Trike species each had
a Toro adult stage?
Windows 7: I wanted more reliable, now it's more reliable. Wow!