[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 
Marjanovic wrote:

> 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 
studies. :)

> 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?
~ Michael                                         
Windows 7: I wanted more reliable, now it's more reliable. Wow!