So say the scientists!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/the-triceratops-never-existed/

Personally i think it's a little bullshitty for scientists to suddenly say that dinosaurs skulls morphed while aging, but hey, who am i to argue with the speculation of a bunch of crockity old wankers?

wow no!!! john mccain is a triceratops

dinosaur scientists probably know more about dinosaurs than you do, robclock.

fucckkkkkk, triceratops was one of my favorites

If I understand correctly... they said the opposite... that Torosaurus didn't exist and was just an aged Triceratops...

Maybe I heard wrong though...

Quote from: has a bad username;1774423fucckkkkkk, triceratops was one of my favorites

Same here.  Also brontosaurus never existed either so I hope that wasn't another one of your favorites like it was for me.

Quote from: topcatyo;1774428Same here.  Also brontosaurus never existed either so I hope that wasn't another one of your favorites like it was for me.

Brontosaurus existed, it was just renamed apatosaurus.

Clam's right. It's the equivalent of saying historians have concluded that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene... Just because a couple of researchers propose a theory... doesn't mean the books are being rewritten.

Not that anyone gives a fuck. Pluto is still a planet to me and Triceratops will always be a zord that Billy drives.

Quote from: topcatyo;1774428Same here.  Also brontosaurus never existed either so I hope that wasn't another one of your favorites like it was for me.

IT WAS, FUCK

Guys, both triceratops and torosaurs existed, they were just the same thing. Brontosaurs, on the other hand, are a misplaced head.

Scientists, why do you have to ruin The Land before Time?

Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed.

It probably means that in the past there was some kind of dinosaur that had horns like that. I mean they don't just grow horns then loose them for no reason. Most likely just left over genetic code.

I hate it when the media distorts a scientific theory to word it in the most shocking way possible.

Some scientists someplace have a theory that one animal has been misidentified as two different animals with different names. One of those names is likely to be abandoned if it is true.

That's not really that interesting.

Quote from: Bulba;1774470It probably means that in the past there was some kind of dinosaur that had horns like that. I mean they don't just grow horns then loose them for no reason. Most likely just left over genetic code.

Many modern day animals shed horns, such as deer. It's not so strange.

Quote from: clammo;1774431edit: i googled one of their names, and apparently he is a doctoral student doing his PhD in triceratops, so i guess he is a little more credible than a goofball scientist. still this is two researchers conclusions and yet to be accept as definitive fact.

Wouldn't a doctoral student be less credible than an actual scientist with a PhD and experience?

Quote from: Bulba;1774470It probably means that in the past there was some kind of dinosaur that had horns like that. I mean they don't just grow horns then loose them for no reason. Most likely just left over genetic code.

Wtf? Did you even bother to look up Torosaurus? It still has the horns.

Torosaurus was discovered two years after the Triceratops, so if any name is going to be dropped it's more likely that Torosaurus will.

Next thing you know they will tell us we've been at war with Eastasia all along.

I like how the headline does not reflect the article. This is a sign of great journalism.

Everytime I hear or read about brontosaurus, I imagine Fred Flinstone ordering one of those over sized rib platters.