Saturday, August 21, 2010

Toroceratops Part 2 Teaser


I'll be revisiting the Toroceratops theory again soon, because I'm a glutton for punishment. I believe I've found a good way to distinguish Triceratops from Torosaurus without relying on parietal fenestrae, although frill morphology does come into play. I'm just making the text sound good, and make sure my argument is sound before I post the whole thing (it's a whopper). Anyway, here's an illustration of AMNH 1201, simplified from Hatcher (1903). It displays a unique combination of juvenile and adult traits, as do many specimens of Triceratops.

Stay tuned...

6 comments:

Christopher said...

Thats actually USNM 1201. USNM is the Smithsonian.

Sarda Sahney said...

Been away from the blogshpere a while, but will definitely drop by more often.I am reading through the archived palaeo posts now!

Brian Switek said...

Will you be touching on the histology issue, as well? I thought that was one of the most interesting and compelling parts of the argument put forth by Scanella and Horner, though it's obviously difficult to undertake the same kind of investigation outside of a museum!

TriPARROTops said...

While we're on the subject of horned dinos, someone tell me why so many depictions of Triceratops in popular culture give it such a small face and huge frill/brow horns? This must be a hard dinosaur for most people to draw, because they cannot seem to get the head proportions correct. The Jurassic Park movies, the Dino Crisis videogames, and even google image results repeat this mistake over and over. Examples:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/printable/triceratops-horridus.html
http://www.fossilsasart.com/desc_image/triceratops.jpg

Christopher said...

Well that second example is just shitty period. But I assure you that there are plenty of skulls that have the proportions of the NatGeo example. Triceratops is quite a polymorphic genus.

TriPARROTops said...

I dunno, the NatGeo one's facial area seems a tad too petite IMO, as if it were made for some shitty TV special about dinos that lacks scientific basis. A better example, I believe, would be this beautiful reconstruction by Michael Trcic:
http://www.bhigr.com/store/product.php?productid=360

Regarding the Smithsonian skull, I've heard they recently had to recast a bigger one that was more in proportion to the rest of the fossil. Link below:
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/businesscareers/1674.html