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

Re: Torosaurus NOT Triceratops--?

Interesting paper, but inconsistencies in the characters 
that supposedly indicate maturity are a problem (and 
not just for this paper). It seems to me that a young 
juvenile specimen will be needed if this issue is ever 
to be resolved. It's not enough to have big skulls that 
might have a few unfused sutures or some lingering 
striated texture. 

One thing i notice is:  the authors pretty much ignore 
AMNH 5116 which is a good candidate for an intermediate 
if ever there was one. 

--- On Wed, 2/29/12, Michael OSullivan <Michael.OSullivan@port.ac.uk> wrote:

> From: Michael OSullivan <Michael.OSullivan@port.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Torosaurus NOT Triceratops
> To: bcreisler@gmail.com, dinosaur@usc.edu
> Date: Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 6:45 PM
> Am I the only one who thinks that the dataset used for the determination
> of Torosaurus as a valid genus, or something synonymous with
> Triceratops, is capable of being used to support either view, depending
> on who's analysing the data. I think there's a real danger of
> subjectivity obscuring the reality. Whatever the hell that is...this
> rate, Torosaurus will be revealed to be a late living Stegosaur
> ---
> Michael O'Sullivan
> Palaeobiology Research Group
> Postgraduate Student
> School of Earth & Environmental Sciences
> Burnaby Building
> Burnaby Road
> Portsmouth
> PO1 3QL
> Email:michael.osullivan@port.ac.uk
> >>> Ben Creisler  01/03/12 12:10 AM
> >>>
> From: Ben Creisler
> bcreisler@gmail.com
> A new paper in PLoS ONE:
> Longrich,  N.R. & Field, D.J. (2012)
> Torosaurus Is Not Triceratops: Ontogeny in Chasmosaurine Ceratopsids
> as a Case Study in Dinosaur Taxonomy.
> PLoS ONE 7(2): e32623.
> doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032623
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032623