backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by Bateluer.. on Aug 17 at 6:55 AM


  (Source: montana.edu)

  (Source: montana.edu)
The three-horned dinosaur may have been just a different stage of the Torosaurus.

Some paleontologists are rewriting the history of the dinosaur. Experts have concluded that the Triceratops may have never existed, according to the Montana State University News Service and the Chicago Tribune. 

Since the 1800's, scientists have believed that the Triceratops and the Torosaurus were two separate dinosaurs, but now two researchers at Montana State University have concluded that the Triceratops and the Torosaurus were actually one in the same -- at different stages of growth.   

Both dinosaurs had a three-horned skull but while the Triceratops had a smaller frill, the Torosaurus had a larger frill with two large holes in it. 

MSU paleontologists John Scannella and Jack Horner noticed while considering more than 100 years of dinosaur research, that the remains of a young Torosaurus had never been found.

After participating in a 10-year study led by Horner, researchers concluded that the Triceratops hadn't lived long enough to fully develop the frill that would identify them as a Torosaurus.  Horner and Scannella published their findings in the July edition of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

According to Scannella, the confusion over Triceratops and Torosaurus was easy to understand, because juvenile dinosaurs looked very different, and their skulls changed radically as they matured.

"Paleontologists are at a disadvantage because we can't go out into the field and observe a living Triceratops grow up from a baby to an adult," Scannella said. "We have to put together the story based on fossils. In order to get the complete story, you need to have a large sample of fossils from many individuals representing different growth stages."

Recent studies by scientists have revealed extreme changes in the skulls of pachycephalosaurs, tyrannosaurs and other dinosaurs that died out about 65 million years ago in North America.

Scannella and Horner examined more than 50 Triceratops specimens for their study.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: lakfd
By tmouse on 8/11/2010 7:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
While you MAY be able to get some DNA from bones you cannot get it from fossils. Jurassic Park is just a piece of fiction that jumbled some jargon to produce an entertaining story. To clone anything you need an intact undamaged nucleus with its intrinsic proteins and nucleic acids structurally intact, depending on the species even this can be a long shot and in the case of mammals the resulting animal has varying amounts of deformities (most often organomegaly). You cannot just put naked DNA into another egg and produce an animal form the DNA donors species.


RE: lakfd
By Bateluer on 8/17/2010 6:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
They didn't get the dino DNA from fossils in Jurassic Park either, they extracted it from the blood inside mosquitoes trapped in amber. But even that DNA wasn't complete, they used the DNA of other reptiles/amphibians to fill in the holes.

The book was still a work of fiction, but it does raise interesting possibilities. Not every extinct creature is fossilized, consider some of the mammoth species or the giant flightless birds. Viable DNA may be still be had from the frozen corpses or from pelts or actual bones.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki