Triceratops/Torosaurus - While a recent study suggests that these two dinosaurs are the same animal, these articles cannot be merged until a clear consensus exists in the scientific community. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The centralized discussion for this topic is at Talk:Triceratops, please direct any comments there. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey all dino lovers who know greek/latin, any votes on which root Marsh meant 'Toro-' from? I looked up the perforation bit in my Greek Lexicon and it ain't that convincing. The verb gives rise to a noun 'tormos' for hole/socket, not 'toros'... Cas Liber 10:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Toro" means "bull", so "Torosaurus" means "bull reptile"
Cas Liber 10:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't this intended meaning be in the description? John.Conway 10:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The name refers to the fenestrae in the frill - so, the correct etymology is 'pierced lizard.' O.C. Marsh named it thus to contrast with Triceratops (the only other ceratopsian known from complete skulls at the time), which had a solid (unpierced) frill. I will change the text to reflect this.-- Diceratops 14:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Add Torosaurus utahensis (Gilmore, 1946) to the species list under Torosaurus, because it is older than Torosaurus latus in having a shorter frill and was discovered in the more southern localities of the US.
There is evidence that Torosaurus is not a species, but only represents the most mature form of Triceratops. Should the page be updated to reflect this? http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-torosaurus-and-triceratops-one-2009-09-28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.164.119 ( talk) 19:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, find this theory unlikely. For example, how do they explain the fact that "juvenile" Triceratops skeletons are larger than Torosaurus fossils —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.142.158 ( talk) 00:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
But perhaps Torosaurus is not a mature Triceratops at all. Maybe we are dealing with two new species of Triceratops, Triceratops latus and Triceratops utahensis. These two new species grew long frills with perforating windows, unlike T.horridus and T.prorsus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.159.44 ( talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion should be carried out at Talk:Triceratops for the sake of centralized discussion. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"A characteristic of metaplastic bone is that it lengthens and shortens over time, extending and resorbing to form new shapes" Metaplastic bone can alter shape, but can it BOTH lengthen AND shorten over time? This sentence is slightly confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.41.147 ( talk) 06:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This point may sound rather petty, but the article does not even mention that this species is extinct. A child who does not know better may think that he/she can see one of these creatures alive in a zoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.125.111 ( talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be removed now? Or it could be combined with Triceratops' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.105.72 ( talk) 06:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd better keep these articles separate, at least until we get some stronger evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.163 ( talk) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat skeptical about this discovery for two reasons, one, why is Torosaurus smaller than Triceratops, and two, why are its fossils so much rarer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 ( talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Now it's May 2011. Alot more people are exepting that these 2 dinosaurs are the same. I think it's time to merge them. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.42 ( talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Personally I think the're different species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.42 ( talk) 21:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a section titled Classification and debate, that contains no debate. I agree that it is too soon to combine the two articles, but could someone please explain why in the article? We have a "debate" section with no mention of debate. Some people thought they were the same, a study decided that they were... Where's the debate? If literally no established journals care to refute the findings, then we should combine the articles, but that seems unlikely. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty cool dinosaur.I liked it when i watched Walking with Dinosaurs episode 6.It was awesome!!!I hope they can find more Torosaurus fossils . Dino-Mario ( talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I like it too. It's my second favourite ceratopsian after Triceratops and I hope they find evidence that it is a separate genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 ( talk) 06:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) It's a very good paper, too, in my opinion; but I'm an enthusiast, not a professional.
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the article, there's a skull of a subadult Torosaurus with perforations in it. If there's a subadult, shouldn't that simply be the end of the Toro-Triceratops controversy? Can't we now conclude that they're two distinct genera? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 ( talk) 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
So the section on the Toroceratops debate is currently titled "Debate about a possible identity with Triceratops" which is obviously quite clunky. I don't disagree on it having a top level section, but I'm wondering if the name could be condensed. Firstly, I feel "synonymy" would be more clear than "identity" here; I can't say I'm familiar with "a possible identity" as a term, and if I didn't know the context from prior knowledge I'd find the section title rather confusing. Synonymy might be a slight oversimplication, I suppose, but it is by all means entirely accurate as a descriptor. Additionally, I'm curious if it's explicitly necessary to call it a "debate" - it's obviously a useful word here, but could we just say "Possible synonymy with Triceratops" and use the word "debate" in the first sentence? That'd make it far less clunky. Oh, and does the lack of a palaeoecology section proclude it from being B class, or am I clear to promote it? Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 01:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Given that the vast majority of the words in th8s article are dedicated to the Triceratops/Toroceratops debate, would it make sense to move the debate portion to it's own article? The debate send notable in its own right, and the subject is not just relevant to this particular subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgovern ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article cites several sources that disprove Horner's Toro-ceratops theory with pretty strong points. So it is pointless to claim in the article's introduction that the debate is "ongoing" and needs more material to be settled. 79.167.33.6 ( talk) 21:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Triceratops/Torosaurus - While a recent study suggests that these two dinosaurs are the same animal, these articles cannot be merged until a clear consensus exists in the scientific community. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The centralized discussion for this topic is at Talk:Triceratops, please direct any comments there. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey all dino lovers who know greek/latin, any votes on which root Marsh meant 'Toro-' from? I looked up the perforation bit in my Greek Lexicon and it ain't that convincing. The verb gives rise to a noun 'tormos' for hole/socket, not 'toros'... Cas Liber 10:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Toro" means "bull", so "Torosaurus" means "bull reptile"
Cas Liber 10:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't this intended meaning be in the description? John.Conway 10:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The name refers to the fenestrae in the frill - so, the correct etymology is 'pierced lizard.' O.C. Marsh named it thus to contrast with Triceratops (the only other ceratopsian known from complete skulls at the time), which had a solid (unpierced) frill. I will change the text to reflect this.-- Diceratops 14:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Add Torosaurus utahensis (Gilmore, 1946) to the species list under Torosaurus, because it is older than Torosaurus latus in having a shorter frill and was discovered in the more southern localities of the US.
There is evidence that Torosaurus is not a species, but only represents the most mature form of Triceratops. Should the page be updated to reflect this? http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-torosaurus-and-triceratops-one-2009-09-28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.164.119 ( talk) 19:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, find this theory unlikely. For example, how do they explain the fact that "juvenile" Triceratops skeletons are larger than Torosaurus fossils —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.142.158 ( talk) 00:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
But perhaps Torosaurus is not a mature Triceratops at all. Maybe we are dealing with two new species of Triceratops, Triceratops latus and Triceratops utahensis. These two new species grew long frills with perforating windows, unlike T.horridus and T.prorsus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.159.44 ( talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion should be carried out at Talk:Triceratops for the sake of centralized discussion. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"A characteristic of metaplastic bone is that it lengthens and shortens over time, extending and resorbing to form new shapes" Metaplastic bone can alter shape, but can it BOTH lengthen AND shorten over time? This sentence is slightly confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.41.147 ( talk) 06:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This point may sound rather petty, but the article does not even mention that this species is extinct. A child who does not know better may think that he/she can see one of these creatures alive in a zoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.125.111 ( talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be removed now? Or it could be combined with Triceratops' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.105.72 ( talk) 06:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd better keep these articles separate, at least until we get some stronger evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.163 ( talk) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat skeptical about this discovery for two reasons, one, why is Torosaurus smaller than Triceratops, and two, why are its fossils so much rarer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 ( talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Now it's May 2011. Alot more people are exepting that these 2 dinosaurs are the same. I think it's time to merge them. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.42 ( talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Personally I think the're different species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.42 ( talk) 21:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a section titled Classification and debate, that contains no debate. I agree that it is too soon to combine the two articles, but could someone please explain why in the article? We have a "debate" section with no mention of debate. Some people thought they were the same, a study decided that they were... Where's the debate? If literally no established journals care to refute the findings, then we should combine the articles, but that seems unlikely. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty cool dinosaur.I liked it when i watched Walking with Dinosaurs episode 6.It was awesome!!!I hope they can find more Torosaurus fossils . Dino-Mario ( talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I like it too. It's my second favourite ceratopsian after Triceratops and I hope they find evidence that it is a separate genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 ( talk) 06:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) It's a very good paper, too, in my opinion; but I'm an enthusiast, not a professional.
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs)
03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the article, there's a skull of a subadult Torosaurus with perforations in it. If there's a subadult, shouldn't that simply be the end of the Toro-Triceratops controversy? Can't we now conclude that they're two distinct genera? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 ( talk) 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
So the section on the Toroceratops debate is currently titled "Debate about a possible identity with Triceratops" which is obviously quite clunky. I don't disagree on it having a top level section, but I'm wondering if the name could be condensed. Firstly, I feel "synonymy" would be more clear than "identity" here; I can't say I'm familiar with "a possible identity" as a term, and if I didn't know the context from prior knowledge I'd find the section title rather confusing. Synonymy might be a slight oversimplication, I suppose, but it is by all means entirely accurate as a descriptor. Additionally, I'm curious if it's explicitly necessary to call it a "debate" - it's obviously a useful word here, but could we just say "Possible synonymy with Triceratops" and use the word "debate" in the first sentence? That'd make it far less clunky. Oh, and does the lack of a palaeoecology section proclude it from being B class, or am I clear to promote it? Lusotitan ( Talk | Contributions) 01:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Given that the vast majority of the words in th8s article are dedicated to the Triceratops/Toroceratops debate, would it make sense to move the debate portion to it's own article? The debate send notable in its own right, and the subject is not just relevant to this particular subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgovern ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article cites several sources that disprove Horner's Toro-ceratops theory with pretty strong points. So it is pointless to claim in the article's introduction that the debate is "ongoing" and needs more material to be settled. 79.167.33.6 ( talk) 21:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)