[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Even more concerning the Triceratops/Torosaurus deal
All of the questions so far raised on these various listservs were addressed in
the two presentations that have been given this year on this subject, and will
be further elaborated upon in the upcoming follow-up publications. I am sorry
if many of you were not able to attend these meetings, but the abstracts are
available to be read online. This is the best we can do.
Some of the information / ideas posted here have been incorrect. At this time,
It is not my position to point out which: I am afraid you will have to wait for
the papers. We are very excited that you find this research interesting, but I
would ask that you are courteous by not overly discussing this here. In doing
so, you may jeopardise research being published in premier journals, and thus
discourage future "sneak-peek" talks at meetings.
Needless to say, I consider the various proposals of Scannella et al to be very
strong, and the best explanation yet for what we see in the fossil record.
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Erickson <email@example.com>
To: Dino List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, 29 October, 2009 12:03:15
Subject: 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:
> 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!