[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Huge Triceratops found in Alberta



Explicit differentiation and stratigraphic separation of the species in 
question remains unpublished. The data cannot be checked. While I would say 
that such an assignment seems fair, it is preliminary, and certainly not based 
on explicit characteristics of a skull that hasn't been prepared.

It should also be noted that Scannella/Horner et al. are practically on record 
as arguing that *horridus* = *prorsus*, effectively delineated solely as change 
through time. The higher resolution will lead us into the very problem that 
*Homo erectus* is currently "suffering" from: morphological change over time 
conflicting with need for explicit taxonomic terminology versus various 
motivations in retaining/changing taxonomy (by which I mean nothing personal).

Cheers,

  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)
  http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)


----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:14:19 -0400
> From: GSP1954@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Huge Triceratops found in Alberta
>
> It is improbable that any Canadian Triceratops will be pertinent to the
> growth of Triceratops into Torosaurus. That's because so far all 10 Canadian
> Triceratops skulls are T. prorsus, and although we can't tell do the lack of
> images of the new skull, the latter is probably that species. That's because
> all the Canadian sediments are from pretty high up in the Maastrichtian,
> equivalent to the upper Hell Creek and Lance where T. prorsus also hails from.
> As I reminded folks at www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=283
> tricera, no one says. T. prosus grew up to be T. latus. It is T. horridus
> from low in the Hell Creek and Lance that is proposed to have grown up to be
> Torosaurus latus, which is known only from low down in them there
> formations.
>
> If the 600 mm for the height of the new specimen's vertebrae is right that
> is big. A posterior dorsal of the mounted USNM 4842 is 540 mm, and that is a
> big honkin specimen with a 1150 mm femur (it does not look as big as it
> should because the added skull is much too small, something that needs to be
> corrected when the dinohall is redone), even the Milwaukee mount is a tad
> shorter femur and dorsal wise.
>
> GSPaul </HTML>