Talk:Torosaurus

bull versus perforation

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"

Toro means bull in Spanish. Bull in Latin is taurus, which became Spanish toro. Toreo in Greek means something perforated or with holes, in reference to the frill. So, if it meant "bull lizard" it would be "Taurosaurus" not "Torosaurus". MMartyniuk (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: Is this page still a stub?

Cas Liber 10:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess more could be added about its relationships to other ceratopsians, the discovery, etc... In short, I think so. --Firsfron 16:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Enigma of the name'

Wouldn't this intended meaning be in the description? John.Conway 10:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Should indeed be - however, I have no reference to it and therefore added this conjecture, pending confirmation of the correct derivation. - Ballista 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a little problematic to describe this as an enigma when it is simply that we (meaning wikipedia editors) don't know. An enigma to us, maybe, and enigma to mankind, hardly. John.Conway 19:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have a point, couldn't agree more - not my phraseology, tho'. - Ballista 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is still disagreement about the name in more detailed text. The generall feeling is that it is 'perforated lizard' but that doesn't strictly work either. Cas Liber 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

John, if you want to put it under the meaning, go ahead. I originally put it in as I was goingthrough meanings and greek/latin bits and noted the issue. Feel free to have a play with it (i.e. remove heading and place under meaning in first few sentences) Cas Liber 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perforating lizard would seem to make the most sense. Ouch. —vivacissamamente 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This was roughly my rationale, in proposing Greek word for 'piercer' in the text. However, it seems to me that the original paper is the way to go, to resolve this. - Ballista 04:48, 21 September 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)

Torosaurus utahensis

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.

Torosaurus is a mature Triceratops?

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)

Not yet, the paper hasn't been published, and even when it is, it isn't sure that all will agree with it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 26 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)

Needed Edit

"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)

It grows and then it shrinks. The sentence sounds like it makes sense to me. Abyssal (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be changed to "... it lengthens and then shortens over time, ...". It confused me too. --72.148.44.17 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Extinction?

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)

The timespan in the infobox should make this clear, but i'll add it to the text as well. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

not a dinosaur anymore

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)

Only one paper on this idea has been published, not nearly a solid enough consensus exists in published science right now. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:05, 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)

The rarity of Torosaurus is actually in favor of the identification of Torosaurus with older Triceratops. Not all Triceratops would have lived long enough to reach the Torosaurus morphology (just like not all people live to be centenarians). The size thing is more puzzling, but if the very largest body fossils were found without heads they would probably be assigned to Triceratops as the distinctive features of Torosaurus are on the head. --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also no reason to assume all individuals reach the same maximum size. This isn't even true of mammals, let alone reptiles. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:39, 23 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)

Who are "a lot more people"? Certainly not paleontologists... Don't expect consensus on this idea either way for years. Heck most of Scanella, Horner and Fowler's evidence hasn't even been published yet. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There's still controversy surrounding it. There's not strong enough evidence yet in either direction. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 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)

Section - Classification and debate

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)

Actually, the recent publication on Nedoceratops disagrees with Scannella and Horner. Unless one wants to go the route of "the most recent study must be correct", it's not worth it to get too charged up for a merger this early in the game. The "Toroceratops" paper is barely 6 months old and the lead time of scientific publications precludes much in the way of back-and-forth at such short notice, unless you either can incorporate something into a work that's already in progress, or you own your own journal. J. Spencer (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that the article is presented that way. By not mentioning any opposition, there is undue weight placed on the findings. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Torosaurus is not a mature Triceratops

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)

Please publish a paper in a journal explaining your rationale for the classification as Torosaurus, and then get back with us on that. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, our unsigned IP took my advice! Longrich NR, Field DJ (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.{{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)

Interesting, though not a great paper as it employs several circular assumptions about ontogeny to support its ontogeny hypothesis and completely ignores stratigraphic issues. As Tom Holtz and others pointed out on the DML it also conspicuously ignores some key specimens used in Horner's argument like the AMNH skull. Unfortunately much of the relevant data is still waiting to be published so this paper is jumping the gun. Not the authors faults, but not exactly a stake to the heart of Toroceratops. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I found it interesting myself that they never once mentioned the ceratopsian was likely migratory, which would easily account for the mostly overlapping longitudinal ranges of each genus. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the southern members of the genus are universally recognized as a different species. Talking about the range of Torosaurus and Triceratops is meaningless. We need to know the ranges of T. prorsus, T. latus, T. horridus, and T. utahensis (the later is widely regarded as a distinct genus anyway). MMartyniuk (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it still going on?

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)

The short answer is because one snippy paper doesn't on its own establish anything. This lecture shows Horner & al.'s methodology, which on the face of it is much more thorough than the external "characters" [sic] Longrich & al. examined (the "subadult" was established as such on the basis of external features not the bone cross-sections used by Horner; further, Longrich's "subadults" are admitted by him to be generally identical to other adults in size &c.). Against that, Longrich asserts (but we have no neutral parties to confirm) that Horner & al.'s studies involved only a single triceratops skull and triceratops's immaturity remains unestablished. (Given Horner's assertions in the lecture and prejudice against other's unsupported pronouncements, that seems dubious, but it's possible he's incredibly sloppy and prone to overstatement himself.)

In wiki terms, you're looking at two primary sources that disagree with each other and we're currently lacking secondary sources that thoroughly evaluate the two sides' relative merits.

If anything, the question isn't "why is this still going on?" but "given that this isn't authoritatively established as a separate genus at the moment, why is this page currently worded in a non-neutral manner favoring a particular POV?" — LlywelynII 12:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there are other problems with Longrich's paper as well. See above. — LlywelynII 12:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read through Horner's work but, if the article is right that he examined 30+ samples, Longrich's intellectual dishonesty in claiming Horner's work derived from a single specimen won't serve him well, either. — LlywelynII 13:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear that this is based on a misunderstanding. Scanella & Horner (2010) was not mainly an "internal" histological study. They largely published the results of external investigation of the bone structure. Many key specimens are not available for sawing :o). By the way, "character" is a fully acceptable synonym of "trait", the publications are secondary sources and Jack is deeply prone to overstatement ;o).--MWAK (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A new paper with pretty strong support for Torosaurus:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Section Title

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)

I think "Possible synonymy with Triceratops" is a better section. Honestly class rankings don't matter for me so go ahead and change it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Triceratops/Toroceratops debate, move to a new article?

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)

I'd advise against it. The remainder of the article would make little sense without the debate, so we would be forced to give a lengthy summary, which would still be inadequate, leading to incessant attempts to improve and expand it, leading to a lot of instability and redundancy.--MWAK (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it would be a bad idea; these days, the only things ever published about Torosaurus relate to this debate. And another point, the article is not particularly long, so there is no practical reason for splitting. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Insisting on the Toro-ceratops debate's validity at this point is kind of ridiculous

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)

Ongoing means that there are still two disagreeing sides publishing on the issue. As long as this is ongoing, well, then it's ongoing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

How much is it really published on these days? I do think it's worth asking ourselves if covering every single argument made by every paper in this increasingly irrelevant debate is overstepping on due weight. Some summary style trimming down of the gargantuan section might be worthwhile. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't have to be this long, but we can't decide which side "wins" as long as it isn't resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the idea that birds are not dinosaurs still not resolved because Alan Feduccia refuses to accept so? Arguably no. If there is broad rejection of the claims then that should be included in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

But is there broad rejection, or just a handful of researchers disagreeing with each other as usual with these things? Really not comparable. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)