From what we have from their fossilized frills, the Pachyrhinosaurus, Sinoceratops, and Torosaurus all had holes in their frills. So I guess Triceratops, with much more evidence to realize, is not the same as the Torosaurus. Great and interesting video!
You're not familiar with ontogeny. All ceratopsians have a solid frill as juveniles and develop the holes later in life. Neoteny is the retaining of juvenile traits into adulthood like how axolotls have gills as adults but other salamanders lose them when they mature. The argument is that Torosaurus, who overlaps with the earlier Triceratops horridus, was the fully mature version. But Torosaurus disappears later in the Hell Creek, as we only find Triceratops prorsus. Jack Horner argued that Triceratops was in the process of undergoing a case of neoteny with the holes appearing in later and later stages of life, until we get to the end of the Hell Creek formation where the holes in the frill stop appearing entirely. This animal that then was originally described as a separate species was actually just a fully mature T. horridus. This would also mean that we have a case of anagenesis, where we can watch one clade evolve into another in recorded layers.
I find the whole debate very interesting and I actually learned a couple of new facts about both creatures. Both gentlemen presented excellent cases. I am, however, in the camp that both Triceratops and Torosaurus are two separate species. Longrich's evidence was more compelling in my opinion. Remember, there are two species of Torosaurus (one thing I found rather surprising that they don't mention in the debate...unless the second species is no longer valid); there's Torosaurus latus and Torosaurus utahensis. The one thing that bothers the crap out of me is the geographic range of both species. Torosaurus has also been found in the southwestern United States; why haven't we found a Triceratops skeleton, skull, or fossil fragments south of Colorado? I want to crack a joke about if Torosaurus is an aged Triceratops, it's like the elderly moving to Florida. Anyways... What I would propose is that there be a decade long project within the southwestern United States - Utah, New Mexico, and Texas, specifically in the North Horn, McRae, and Javelina Formation, to find Triceratop and Torosaurus fossils, with Jack Horner leading that expedition. We need to find more Triceratop fossils in that region and find more Torosaurus - both juvenile and adult. As JW Thomas pointed out, we would have found more Torosaurus than Triceratop fossils by now.
As much as another decade long project on this subject would be amazing and insanely beneficial for the community, I dont think Jack Horner should be leading it. The man is over 70 years old, and as much as it pains me to say this, its likely that he may not have another full decade left.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the Torosaurus being a triceratops, quite the opposite(I believe that these two are different species). I would like to ask a question that has been bugging me for years. What is going on with Triceratops frill. In some individuals the frill is round and broader, and in others more "square" or elongated, closer to the shape of a Torosaurus but shorter. Has this to do with the fact that these triceratops are different species (the elongated are T. Horridus and the other is T. Prorsus)? Frederic Lucas, an Assistant Curator at the United States National Museum, created a Triceratops in 1900 for the Smithsonian display at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York, which has rounder and broader frill than other Triceratops. On the other hand we have the triceratops AMNH 5116 specimen which clearly has a more "square" or elongated frill. The two types I mentioned earlier are two extreme examples. I also have seen frills that are something in between, meaning, round but less broader than Frederic Lucas model, long but not as AMNH 5116 specimen. So, what is going on? Which is the right frill or which type of frill belong to which species of Triceratops? Thank you in advance
Why did neither speaker consider that there may be sexual dimorphism of a single genus, ie that Triceratops and Torosaurus may simply be the male and female versions of just the one (or more) species. After all, both have fossils of young and old individuals of each kind, are mostly found in the same geographic localities and similar ages, and have distinct morphologies that are not too different to be beyond a single species of two sexes. Principle of parsimony. Really enjoyed the discussion
Stephen Anderson Because there's not enough evidence to support that hypothesis. Such dramatic sexually dimorphism isn't seen in other ceratopsians, let alone in a similar manner, and as such, can't support the theory of sexual dimorphism between Triceratops and Torosaurus
Yet another commenter who hasn't read longrich's paper. He *does* claim he can sex Triceratops - something nobody can do. Dinosaurs are generally not sexually dimorphic. MANY attempts have been made to sex Ceratopsids and all have failed.
if this was a court of law, I'd have to say that Jack Horner's theory, although provocative, has serious holes punched into it. In other words, there is still plenty of reasonable doubt. Further discoveries may change this, but for now, I'm sticking with the idea that these are two different species.
My suggestion for a theory to proof: What if torosaurus is an example of dimorphism? What if torosaurus is a dominant triceratops male? It's a pitty that in this lectures there is not mentioned many data about gender of the specimens and about the rest of their skeletons...
Yup, they arent really the same because Triceratops were much heavier than Torosaurus and Triceratops has small spikes on their frills edge while Torosaurus dont, and Torosaurus has a shorter horn on their nose
bad argument, and you dont understand ontogeny. in ceratopsians, the various horns shrink in size after the animal reaches maturity. ceratopsians also always have a solid frill as juveniles, but large holes appear as they mature...except for triceratops supposedly
I think that Torosaurus is different enough to be a different species, but it isn't different enough to be a separate genus. I think it should be renamed Triceratops latus.
Now I am not a Dino expert but Triceratops is widely known to be the biggest ceratopsian. That was always what I learned as a kid when I was into Dinosaurs. As far as I know Triceratops was 9m and Torosaurus 7 to 8m. So besides suddenly changing its skull (of which transition fossils should be found to prove it) it would also have to shrink. In order for Torosaurus to be adult Triceratops ALL Torosaurus fossils found should have been bigger then ALL Triceratops found.
@Tello 64 to add onto this the babies would also show evidence, even if minor, of this with male babies having holes in the frill as, as far as i know, frill holes don't appear in a species over time.
@Tell0 64 - Deactivated But is it possible that the males might have lived separately from the females? Like modern elephants do? I know archaeologists have found bone beds full of male mammoths, just to give an example.
In case anyone was wondering what the research since this debate has shown I'll tell you. Jack Horner was wrong. After publishing his paper he received a peer reviewed bitch slap. In November 2013 the paper, "Maiorino L, Farke AA, Kotsakis T, Piras P. Is torosaurus triceratops? Geometric morphometric evidence of late maastrichtian ceratopsid dinosaurs." flat out debunked any notion that torosaurus and triceratops are the same.
Have you actually read the longrich paper? You seem pretty certain a paper claiming one of the largest torosaurs ever found was a juvenile is "right". And I'll let you in on an extra little secret: I know with 100% certainty that Torosaurus latus is a synonym of Triceratops (though it applies to both species).
Having interviewed Horner, and his being a personal hero of mine in my youth, to see him so totally demolished on 4 or 5 fronts, and fall back onto a dogmatic stance, then claim to have proof but not show it, was very disappointing. Even a laymen can see that there are vast differences in the skulls- from the holes on diff bones, to the old Trikes and younger Toros to the longer snout bones, and on and on. This simply was a TKO for Longrich, and this comes from a long time Horner follower. That said, THIS is a true science debate, and not the kind of faux science debates that pollute RUclips wherein Creationist loons and Atheist shills like Sam Harris trot out their stupidity and disdain for all to see. Bravo to both men, and the scientific method. But, Longrich won in a rout!
I do not think this was a trouncing; it has the feel of being staged. The principle of a species at levels of develpoment (as opposed to being seperate species), including the t-rex used as an example of that principle, that principle is Jack's baby. This is only the one that did NOT pass the test. But that should not be considered the last word; There is still the argument to be made that Torosaurus is the male form of Triceratops. Note (@ 25:57 ff) that most fossils found of the two species occur in similar, though not identical locations; one would expect this in a population where the males and females herd seperately, like the African elephant.
differous01 Horner was pwned. Watch the interview w LOngrich below. Longrich explains, I believe, why they are not different sexes. Both sexes of both species have been found, I believe. Also, evidence of the changing horn structure has not been found and much more. It really was like watching Huxley destroy Wilberforce.
Cosmoetica "Watch the interview w LOngrich below." I'm not sure if it's the interview you meant but I found a vid with Nick Longrich, posted by yourself (thank you), but it does not make use of photo's or sources for comparison or rebuttal. He does say (18.35 in that vid) he has evidence for young Torosauruses, but doesn't elaborate. In this video, @ 1:01:10 ff, Nick states that only old Torosaur fossils have been cut; so even if he is correct his case is not yet complete. Also Nick says "we" a lot, which implies that he and Jack's teams are working on much the same evidence while arguing their cases. I'm not seeing, in either video, animosity like that between Huxley and Wilberforce. As you mention, both are working within the scientific method, Wilberforce was not.
Bennet Fender What juvenile rexes? according to Nanotyrannus proponents we don't have any. The differences they claim are compared to adult rexes and all of them are explained by ontogeny or distortion. Longrich is in the juvenile rex camp.
The reference materials I have used are actually located in the same blog, just at different messages (my first message was comment # 14; the references that I have used in comment # 14 are enumerated in comment # 18).
To be fair to Longrich, Horner did not answer the issue that bone tissue remodeling itself may not always be a good indicator of maturity because many different factors and/or processes significantly affect the tissue structure remodeling of different bones. My first message at the site Earthling Nature's blog post "Why I Don’t Trust Jack Horner 1: The Holes in the Old Triceratops Idea" and references therein discuss the variability of bone tissue structure remodeling.
Dear Hikaru Amano. I would like to ask a question that has been bugging me for years. What is going on with Triceratops frill. In some individuals the frill is round and broader, and in others more "square" or elongated, closer to the shape of a Torosaurus but shorter. Has this to do with the fact that these tricaratops are different species (the elongated are T. Horridus and the other is T. Prorsus)? Frederic Lucas, an Assistant Curator at the United States National Museum, created a Triceratops in 1900 for the Smithsonian display at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York, which has rounder and broader frill than other Triceratops. On the other hand we have the triceratops AMNH 5116 specimen which clearly has a more "square" or elongated frill. The two types I mentioned earlier are two extreme examples. I also have seen frills that are something in between, meaning, round but less broader than Frederic Lucas model, long but not as AMNH 5116 specimen. So, what is going on? Which is the right frill or which type of frill belong to which species of Triceratops? Thank you in advance
@@brawlholic9960 I know i'm a bit late, but It has something to do with species and age. Triceratops is a divergent chasmosaurine, it appears, so as it ages its frill becomes longer and more square (like other chasmosaurines) but because it (probably) doesn't develop fenestrae like chasmosaurus or torosaurus it just ends up being slightly square. Also, individual variation must be remembered: some have rounder frills than others and some have longer, straighter horns than others. AMNH 5116 may not be "triceratops"-it may be torosaurus instead. It was discovered without alot of its frill and the frill was reconstructed under the assumption it is Triceratops.
@@thenumbah1birdman Dear sir, Thank you for taking the time to answer me! It doesn't matter that my comment is old. In fact this makes your answer more valuable.
Horner came up with the theory of Toro being a fully grown trike huh? not suprised 1.trikes are bigger 2.a kid with absouloutly no knowledge about dinos came see the MASSIVE difrences in the skull
One of the greatest tragedies in pop paleontology is that everyone seems to think nick longrich "won" this debate, yet nobody has apparently read his paper he bases this on that claims an animal with a 9 foot long skull is a "juvenile" (literally one of the largest torosaurs ever found). Longrich's argumentation is based on very seriously flawed methodology, mostly revolving around just reclassifying trikes he doesn't like being torosaurs like Nedoceratops that just happens to have two squamosal fenestrae and a parietal fenestra (the second parietal region is missing).
torosaurus and triceratops diffrence: 1. Torosaurus have holes in their frills, while Triceratops have no holes at all 2. Triceratops lived 66 million years ago, while Torosaurus lived 70 million years ago. 3. Triceratops's frill are more curved than Torosaurus's frill.
Another difference: 1. Triceratops has small spikes around the edge of their frills, while Torosaurus don't have it 2. Triceratops were much heavier than Torosaurus despite having the same length 3. Torosaurus has shorter horn on their nose 4. Torosaurus were much rarer than Triceratops that's why there aren't any juvenile Torosaurus had been found
Horner is unfortunately now an old timer from the "Jurassic Park celebrity paleontologist era" who has some very set ideas about particular dinosaurs that he can't seem to shake no matter how much overwhelming evidence is presented by younger, more sophisticated, modern paleontologists using far more legitimate methods and analysis. He was also obsessed with proving that T-Rex was smaller, dumb, scavenging and slow rather than the even more massive than originally thought, intelligent, fast, athletic, hunter-opportunist scavenger (like all apex predators) that modern research is now showing it to be.
Internal histology is more modern and sophisticated than surface histology but it doesn't give the whole picure either and Horner does seem to ignore the other differences pointed out by Longrich.
Guys. I would like to ask a question that has been bugging me for years. What is going on with Triceratops frill. In some individuals the frill is round and broader, and in others more "square" or elongated, closer to the shape of a Torosaurus but shorter. Has this to do with the fact that these triceratops are different species (the elongated are T. Horridus and the other is T. Prorsus)? Frederic Lucas, an Assistant Curator at the United States National Museum, created a Triceratops in 1900 for the Smithsonian display at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York, which has rounder and broader frill than other Triceratops. On the other hand we have the triceratops AMNH 5116 specimen which clearly has a more "square" or elongated frill. The two types I mentioned earlier are two extreme examples. I also have seen frills that are something in between, meaning, round but less broader than Frederic Lucas model, long but not as AMNH 5116 specimen. So, what is going on? Which is the right frill or which type of frill belong to which species of Triceratops? Thank you in advance
its not a juvenile torosaurus is a male triceratops and the one with the shorter frill is a female cuz males need their frill to be bigger to have colors on them to attract the smaller frilled females
I was thinking the same, and that would explain why there are more Triceratops/females than Torosaurus/males. BUT both dinosaurs reached the same lenght so, isn't that contradictory with the single species claim? If Toro represents the mature or male form of Trike shouldn't it be an overall larger animal and not just a bigger headed one? Is there an example of other animal that changes the shape of it's skull for display in such a extreme way to end up the same size as the females and immatures?
It really seems like Jack Horner just likes to come up with controversial opinions just for the notoriety of disagreeing with EVERY other paleontologist and constantly trying to come with alternative facts to fit his lame arguments.....
This is precisely the contrast Michael Crichton wished to draw between the hands-on character of Alan Grant in 'Jurassic Park' and the "Teacup Dinosaur Hunters," later exemplified by the academic Richard Levine in Crichton's sequel, 'The Lost World.' There's the hands-on, nose-to-the-dirt, actually-doing-stuff Jack Horner and the theoretician academic Nicholas Longrich. Pay careful attention to one thing that underscores all of this: Longrich is working from museum findings dating to more than a century ago with little to no data regarding the find. Horner has basically only worked his entire career with finds brought directly out of the field. This is important because the contrast can also be seen in the theoretically-bound works of, e.g., historians of Classical Greece and Rome (Syme, Gruen, Eckstein) versus the work of archaeologists/art historians of Classical Greece and Rome (Boardman, Dobbins, Mattusch). One has a clear understanding of the subject-matter through hands on work, while the other reads and theorizes about what other people once wrote. Which do you suppose has the truth closer at hand?
This is a fallacy. Just because Horner found more fossils directly and has more fresh data doesn't mean he drew the correct conclusions from the data, although he is at an advantage. It's been 7 years since this debate and it seems the evidence he found wasn't strong enough to convince a lot of paleontologists that his theory is correct.
You're right. I'm 100% against Torosaurus and Triceratops being the same dino.
Agreed
It's way more extreme compared to dracorex one
From what we have from their fossilized frills, the Pachyrhinosaurus, Sinoceratops, and Torosaurus all had holes in their frills. So I guess Triceratops, with much more evidence to realize, is not the same as the Torosaurus. Great and interesting video!
Plus, Triceratops, Pachyrhinosaurus, and Sinoceratops have spikes on their frills edge, Torosaurus don't have it
You're not familiar with ontogeny. All ceratopsians have a solid frill as juveniles and develop the holes later in life. Neoteny is the retaining of juvenile traits into adulthood like how axolotls have gills as adults but other salamanders lose them when they mature. The argument is that Torosaurus, who overlaps with the earlier Triceratops horridus, was the fully mature version. But Torosaurus disappears later in the Hell Creek, as we only find Triceratops prorsus. Jack Horner argued that Triceratops was in the process of undergoing a case of neoteny with the holes appearing in later and later stages of life, until we get to the end of the Hell Creek formation where the holes in the frill stop appearing entirely. This animal that then was originally described as a separate species was actually just a fully mature T. horridus. This would also mean that we have a case of anagenesis, where we can watch one clade evolve into another in recorded layers.
I find the whole debate very interesting and I actually learned a couple of new facts about both creatures. Both gentlemen presented excellent cases. I am, however, in the camp that both Triceratops and Torosaurus are two separate species. Longrich's evidence was more compelling in my opinion. Remember, there are two species of Torosaurus (one thing I found rather surprising that they don't mention in the debate...unless the second species is no longer valid); there's Torosaurus latus and Torosaurus utahensis.
The one thing that bothers the crap out of me is the geographic range of both species. Torosaurus has also been found in the southwestern United States; why haven't we found a Triceratops skeleton, skull, or fossil fragments south of Colorado? I want to crack a joke about if Torosaurus is an aged Triceratops, it's like the elderly moving to Florida. Anyways...
What I would propose is that there be a decade long project within the southwestern United States - Utah, New Mexico, and Texas, specifically in the North Horn, McRae, and Javelina Formation, to find Triceratop and Torosaurus fossils, with Jack Horner leading that expedition. We need to find more Triceratop fossils in that region and find more Torosaurus - both juvenile and adult.
As JW Thomas pointed out, we would have found more Torosaurus than Triceratop fossils by now.
As much as another decade long project on this subject would be amazing and insanely beneficial for the community, I dont think Jack Horner should be leading it. The man is over 70 years old, and as much as it pains me to say this, its likely that he may not have another full decade left.
Triceratops were much more common so thats why there arent any juvenile Torosaurus skeleton had been found
I'm not going to get into a debate about the Torosaurus being a triceratops, quite the opposite(I believe that these two are different species). I would like to ask a question that has been bugging me for years. What is going on with Triceratops frill. In some individuals the frill is round and broader, and in others more "square" or elongated, closer to the shape of a Torosaurus but shorter. Has this to do with the fact that these triceratops are different species (the elongated are T. Horridus and the other is T. Prorsus)? Frederic Lucas, an Assistant Curator at the United States National Museum, created a Triceratops in 1900 for the Smithsonian display at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York, which has rounder and broader frill than other Triceratops. On the other hand we have the triceratops AMNH 5116 specimen which clearly has a more "square" or elongated frill. The two types I mentioned earlier are two extreme examples. I also have seen frills that are something in between, meaning, round but less broader than Frederic Lucas model, long but not as AMNH 5116 specimen. So, what is going on? Which is the right frill or which type of frill belong to which species of Triceratops? Thank you in advance
Also, Triceratops has small spikes around their frills edge and they have longer horn on their nose and they were much heavier than Torosaurus
Clearly their trainers just chose different evolutionary stones when evolving them.
Why did neither speaker consider that there may be sexual dimorphism of a single genus, ie that Triceratops and Torosaurus may simply be the male and female versions of just the one (or more) species. After all, both have fossils of young and old individuals of each kind, are mostly found in the same geographic localities and similar ages, and have distinct morphologies that are not too different to be beyond a single species of two sexes. Principle of parsimony. Really enjoyed the discussion
Stephen Anderson Because there's not enough evidence to support that hypothesis. Such dramatic sexually dimorphism isn't seen in other ceratopsians, let alone in a similar manner, and as such, can't support the theory of sexual dimorphism between Triceratops and Torosaurus
Yet another commenter who hasn't read longrich's paper. He *does* claim he can sex Triceratops - something nobody can do. Dinosaurs are generally not sexually dimorphic. MANY attempts have been made to sex Ceratopsids and all have failed.
if this was a court of law, I'd have to say that Jack Horner's theory, although provocative, has serious holes punched into it. In other words, there is still plenty of reasonable doubt. Further discoveries may change this, but for now, I'm sticking with the idea that these are two different species.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit wrong jackass
@@debbiejudd6447 are you okay?
My suggestion for a theory to proof: What if torosaurus is an example of dimorphism? What if torosaurus is a dominant triceratops male?
It's a pitty that in this lectures there is not mentioned many data about gender of the specimens and about the rest of their skeletons...
Yup, they arent really the same because Triceratops were much heavier than Torosaurus and Triceratops has small spikes on their frills edge while Torosaurus dont, and Torosaurus has a shorter horn on their nose
bad argument, and you dont understand ontogeny. in ceratopsians, the various horns shrink in size after the animal reaches maturity. ceratopsians also always have a solid frill as juveniles, but large holes appear as they mature...except for triceratops supposedly
I think that Torosaurus is different enough to be a different species, but it isn't different enough to be a separate genus. I think it should be renamed Triceratops latus.
This is a great video. I love the debate. Both did very well.
Now I am not a Dino expert but Triceratops is widely known to be the biggest ceratopsian. That was always what I learned as a kid when I was into Dinosaurs.
As far as I know Triceratops was 9m and Torosaurus 7 to 8m. So besides suddenly changing its skull (of which transition fossils should be found to prove it) it would also have to shrink.
In order for Torosaurus to be adult Triceratops ALL Torosaurus fossils found should have been bigger then ALL Triceratops found.
Actually the biggest ceratopsian was the Eotriceratops
@@amn2760 Eotriceratops' skull was misscaled, it was a 7 meter animal at best
What if Torosaurus were adult male Triceratops and classic Triceratops the females?
@Tello 64 Frats!
@Tello 64 to add onto this the babies would also show evidence, even if minor, of this with male babies having holes in the frill as, as far as i know, frill holes don't appear in a species over time.
@Tell0 64 - Deactivated But is it possible that the males might have lived separately from the females? Like modern elephants do? I know archaeologists have found bone beds full of male mammoths, just to give an example.
@@vjbele triceratops are a lot less smart then elephants, at most they lived with 2 other triceratops for protection
@@rutiacotheyuty3045you can't make assumptions on the intelligence of an animal you've never had the opportunity to observe in real time.
In case anyone was wondering what the research since this debate has shown I'll tell you. Jack Horner was wrong. After publishing his paper he received a peer reviewed bitch slap. In November 2013 the paper, "Maiorino L, Farke AA, Kotsakis T, Piras P. Is torosaurus triceratops? Geometric morphometric evidence of late maastrichtian ceratopsid dinosaurs." flat out debunked any notion that torosaurus and triceratops are the same.
Have you actually read the longrich paper? You seem pretty certain a paper claiming one of the largest torosaurs ever found was a juvenile is "right". And I'll let you in on an extra little secret: I know with 100% certainty that Torosaurus latus is a synonym of Triceratops (though it applies to both species).
Having interviewed Horner, and his being a personal hero of mine in my youth, to see him so totally demolished on 4 or 5 fronts, and fall back onto a dogmatic stance, then claim to have proof but not show it, was very disappointing.
Even a laymen can see that there are vast differences in the skulls- from the holes on diff bones, to the old Trikes and younger Toros to the longer snout bones, and on and on.
This simply was a TKO for Longrich, and this comes from a long time Horner follower.
That said, THIS is a true science debate, and not the kind of faux science debates that pollute RUclips wherein Creationist loons and Atheist shills like Sam Harris trot out their stupidity and disdain for all to see.
Bravo to both men, and the scientific method.
But, Longrich won in a rout!
I do not think this was a trouncing; it has the feel of being staged.
The principle of a species at levels of develpoment (as opposed to being seperate species), including the t-rex used as an example of that principle, that principle is Jack's baby.
This is only the one that did NOT pass the test.
But that should not be considered the last word;
There is still the argument to be made that Torosaurus is the male form of Triceratops.
Note (@ 25:57 ff) that most fossils found of the two species occur in similar, though not identical locations; one would expect this in a population where the males and females herd seperately, like the African elephant.
differous01 Horner was pwned. Watch the interview w LOngrich below. Longrich explains, I believe, why they are not different sexes. Both sexes of both species have been found, I believe. Also, evidence of the changing horn structure has not been found and much more.
It really was like watching Huxley destroy Wilberforce.
Cosmoetica "Watch the interview w LOngrich below."
I'm not sure if it's the interview you meant but I found a vid with Nick Longrich, posted by yourself (thank you), but it does not make use of photo's or sources for comparison or rebuttal.
He does say (18.35 in that vid) he has evidence for young Torosauruses, but doesn't elaborate.
In this video, @ 1:01:10 ff, Nick states that only old Torosaur fossils have been cut; so even if he is correct his case is not yet complete.
Also Nick says "we" a lot, which implies that he and Jack's teams are working on much the same evidence while arguing their cases.
I'm not seeing, in either video, animosity like that between Huxley and Wilberforce. As you mention, both are working within the scientific method, Wilberforce was not.
Nick Longrich is my hero. I knew there was more evidence to support Triceratops and Torosaurus are there own species.
David Patrick Kelly same thing with nanotyrannus it has distinct differences from juvenile rexes yet know one talks about them.
Bennet Fender
What juvenile rexes? according to Nanotyrannus proponents we don't have any. The differences they claim are compared to adult rexes and all of them are explained by ontogeny or distortion. Longrich is in the juvenile rex camp.
David Patrick Kelly They are species but genera, there are two species of Triceratops.
Have you actually read the paper? If not I would suggest doing so.
Even if they become classified as one species, wouldn't the name Triceratops take priority? just wondering..
Most likely, yes. Triceratops was discovered first and has the name recognition. Horner refers to the single species as Triceratops in his TEDx talk.
Yeah. at the Museum of the Rockies (Which uses Horner's theory) Toro skulls are labelled Triceratops.
I think its safe to say that Yale University won this debate.
The reference materials I have used are actually located in the same blog, just at different messages (my first message was comment # 14; the references that I have used in comment # 14 are enumerated in comment # 18).
To be fair to Longrich, Horner did not answer the issue that bone tissue remodeling itself may not always be a good indicator of maturity because many different factors and/or processes significantly affect the tissue structure remodeling of different bones. My first message at the site Earthling Nature's blog post "Why I Don’t Trust Jack Horner 1: The Holes in the Old Triceratops Idea" and references therein discuss the variability of bone tissue structure remodeling.
Dear Hikaru Amano. I would like to ask a question that has been bugging me for years. What is going on with Triceratops frill. In some individuals the frill is round and broader, and in others more "square" or elongated, closer to the shape of a Torosaurus but shorter. Has this to do with the fact that these tricaratops are different species (the elongated are T. Horridus and the other is T. Prorsus)? Frederic Lucas, an Assistant Curator at the United States National Museum, created a Triceratops in 1900 for the Smithsonian display at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York, which has rounder and broader frill than other Triceratops. On the other hand we have the triceratops AMNH 5116 specimen which clearly has a more "square" or elongated frill. The two types I mentioned earlier are two extreme examples. I also have seen frills that are something in between, meaning, round but less broader than Frederic Lucas model, long but not as AMNH 5116 specimen. So, what is going on? Which is the right frill or which type of frill belong to which species of Triceratops? Thank you in advance
@@brawlholic9960 I know i'm a bit late, but It has something to do with species and age. Triceratops is a divergent chasmosaurine, it appears, so as it ages its frill becomes longer and more square (like other chasmosaurines) but because it (probably) doesn't develop fenestrae like chasmosaurus or torosaurus it just ends up being slightly square. Also, individual variation must be remembered: some have rounder frills than others and some have longer, straighter horns than others.
AMNH 5116 may not be "triceratops"-it may be torosaurus instead. It was discovered without alot of its frill and the frill was reconstructed under the assumption it is Triceratops.
@@thenumbah1birdman Dear sir, Thank you for taking the time to answer me! It doesn't matter that my comment is old. In fact this makes your answer more valuable.
@@brawlholic9960 NW man
So many things wrong with Horner's theory. One thing: look up comparison in size Toro vs Tric.
babies are so different from humans. One thing: look up comparison in size baby vs human. QUES WHAT GROWING AINT NEW NEWS DUMBFUCK.
But the argument was that Torosaurus is a full grown Triceratops, except that Triceratops is actually bigger.
Isaac Zelinski actually Torosaurus is generally said to be bigger. However, nobody is really sure and it’s still being debated which is bigger
Triceratops is much heavier than Torosaurus despite having the same length
Horner came up with the theory of Toro being a fully grown trike huh? not suprised
1.trikes are bigger
2.a kid with absouloutly no knowledge about dinos came see the MASSIVE difrences in the skull
And you didn't watch the video
One of the greatest tragedies in pop paleontology is that everyone seems to think nick longrich "won" this debate, yet nobody has apparently read his paper he bases this on that claims an animal with a 9 foot long skull is a "juvenile" (literally one of the largest torosaurs ever found). Longrich's argumentation is based on very seriously flawed methodology, mostly revolving around just reclassifying trikes he doesn't like being torosaurs like Nedoceratops that just happens to have two squamosal fenestrae and a parietal fenestra (the second parietal region is missing).
Jack Horner is hilarious, although I think torosaurus is separate, Jack owned Longrich a few times.
torosaurus and triceratops diffrence:
1. Torosaurus have holes in their frills, while Triceratops have no holes at all
2. Triceratops lived 66 million years ago, while Torosaurus lived 70 million years ago.
3. Triceratops's frill are more curved than Torosaurus's frill.
So you didn't watch the video
They talked about most of that in the video
Another difference:
1. Triceratops has small spikes around the edge of their frills, while Torosaurus don't have it
2. Triceratops were much heavier than Torosaurus despite having the same length
3. Torosaurus has shorter horn on their nose
4. Torosaurus were much rarer than Triceratops that's why there aren't any juvenile Torosaurus had been found
The introduction was fucking hilarious. I have to say I like Jack's view better.
Thanks for the upload.
I think you should call turok for this debate because he knows what kind of dinos are. They
triceratops skulls can be 2.4 meters +
I wish i would've known about this
OMG dinosaurs are so complicated I have no idea what to think
I feel like if they were the same dinosaur then Torosaurus should be the fake one since Triceratops was discovered before Torosaurus
Horner is unfortunately now an old timer from the "Jurassic Park celebrity paleontologist era" who has some very set ideas about particular dinosaurs that he can't seem to shake no matter how much overwhelming evidence is presented by younger, more sophisticated, modern paleontologists using far more legitimate methods and analysis. He was also obsessed with proving that T-Rex was smaller, dumb, scavenging and slow rather than the even more massive than originally thought, intelligent, fast, athletic, hunter-opportunist scavenger (like all apex predators) that modern research is now showing it to be.
Internal histology is more modern and sophisticated than surface histology but it doesn't give the whole picure either and Horner does seem to ignore the other differences pointed out by Longrich.
Guys. I would like to ask a question that has been bugging me for years. What is going on with Triceratops frill. In some individuals the frill is round and broader, and in others more "square" or elongated, closer to the shape of a Torosaurus but shorter. Has this to do with the fact that these triceratops are different species (the elongated are T. Horridus and the other is T. Prorsus)? Frederic Lucas, an Assistant Curator at the United States National Museum, created a Triceratops in 1900 for the Smithsonian display at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York, which has rounder and broader frill than other Triceratops. On the other hand we have the triceratops AMNH 5116 specimen which clearly has a more "square" or elongated frill. The two types I mentioned earlier are two extreme examples. I also have seen frills that are something in between, meaning, round but less broader than Frederic Lucas model, long but not as AMNH 5116 specimen. So, what is going on? Which is the right frill or which type of frill belong to which species of Triceratops? Thank you in advance
No they are not the same dinosaur there horns are different curb shapes
As well as their frills
its not a juvenile torosaurus is a male triceratops and the one with the shorter frill is a female cuz males need their frill to be bigger to have colors on them to attract the smaller frilled females
I was thinking the same, and that would explain why there are more Triceratops/females than Torosaurus/males. BUT both dinosaurs reached the same lenght so, isn't that contradictory with the single species claim? If Toro represents the mature or male form of Trike shouldn't it be an overall larger animal and not just a bigger headed one? Is there an example of other animal that changes the shape of it's skull for display in such a extreme way to end up the same size as the females and immatures?
S T R A T I G R A P H Y!
Cheers!
They are just different races, like dogs. It's like finding the fossil of a Pitbull and a Collie after many years.
It really seems like Jack Horner just likes to come up with controversial opinions just for the notoriety of disagreeing with EVERY other paleontologist and constantly trying to come with alternative facts to fit his lame arguments.....
This is precisely the contrast Michael Crichton wished to draw between the hands-on character of Alan Grant in 'Jurassic Park' and the "Teacup Dinosaur Hunters," later exemplified by the academic Richard Levine in Crichton's sequel, 'The Lost World.' There's the hands-on, nose-to-the-dirt, actually-doing-stuff Jack Horner and the theoretician academic Nicholas Longrich.
Pay careful attention to one thing that underscores all of this: Longrich is working from museum findings dating to more than a century ago with little to no data regarding the find. Horner has basically only worked his entire career with finds brought directly out of the field. This is important because the contrast can also be seen in the theoretically-bound works of, e.g., historians of Classical Greece and Rome (Syme, Gruen, Eckstein) versus the work of archaeologists/art historians of Classical Greece and Rome (Boardman, Dobbins, Mattusch). One has a clear understanding of the subject-matter through hands on work, while the other reads and theorizes about what other people once wrote. Which do you suppose has the truth closer at hand?
This is a fallacy. Just because Horner found more fossils directly and has more fresh data doesn't mean he drew the correct conclusions from the data, although he is at an advantage. It's been 7 years since this debate and it seems the evidence he found wasn't strong enough to convince a lot of paleontologists that his theory is correct.
If Torosaurus was a grown up Triceratops then we would've found more Torosaurus than Triceratops
Lol, don't they realize Torosaurus have holes in their frill?
Watch the fucking video
Holy shit every one says that but they clearly didn't watch the video where they had that exact fucking debate
Jack's view just has way more evidence. You can't ignore stratigraphy. Of course, all this could change with new discoveries.
yup this is old news, new news is toro is a old tri
You couldnt know
So Jack sounds more convincing.
Torosaurus and triceratops are different but triceratops and torosaurus are the same family like t rex and giganotasaurus in one family tyranosaur
Mark, yer dumb.
f*ck
no, t-rex have it's own family, called tyrannosaurs. giganotosaurus isn't related to t-rex because it have 3 fingers instead of 2
@@emanueltheodorus1056 And Giganotosaurus belong to Carcharadontosauridae family
torosaurus is a just older or will say a full grown triceratops
torosaurus is triceratops people!!!!
It isn't