[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Even more concerning the Triceratops/Torosaurus deal
> At least one Torosaurus frill is known from Canada. So it is not possible
> for just T. prorsus to be north of the border while T. horridus was only in
> the U. S. growing up to be Torosaurus.
Are you talking about the 'Torosaurus' frill (EM P16.1)
described by Tokaryk (1986)? Because that specimen is no longer referred to
Torosaurus (see Sullivan et al. 2005).
The large and rostrocaudally elongated parietal fenestrae, plus the (probably)
very thin median parietal bar, are reminiscent of basal taxa, like Chasmosaurus
and Pentaceratops, and very unlike the condition of Torosaurus s.s.
> I have to wrap up the Princeton U Press dinofield guide right now, so must
> try to figure out how to go on this without misleading the readers late next
> year when the book comes out.
> In a message dated 10/29/09 2:03:39 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << 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? >>