« Fantastic | Main | Cologne capers »
August 23, 2010
Say it ain't so
triceratops, originally uploaded by stapaf.
Curse you, Internet, and your misleading headlines. I'm talking, of course, about the fools who are posting story after story entitled "triceratops never existed." My five year old self, who was obsessed with dinosaurs and therefore accrued an encyclopedic knowledge of them, would have been distraught. My thirty year old self, however, decided to click on the link and investigate how a species whose fossilized skeletons exist in museums can not actually exist. Oh:
Known for its three horns and the bony, frilled ridge around its head, the triceratops was most likely just a younger version of the rarer torosaurus, say researchers John Scannella and Jack Horner at the Museum of the Rockies in Montana.
The species were very similar. Both had three horns and each had the distinctive head frill that makes the triceratops famous. But in the torosaurus the horns and ridge were shaped differently, with the ridge appearing smoother and thinner. It also had two holes.
After studying 29 triceratops skulls, the scientists discovered the bone was thinning in the same area where the torosaurus’s holes were. Evidence began mounting as they counted the growth rings in the bones and discovered all the triceratops skulls were from young dinosaurs. What’s more, juvenile specimens of the torosaurus have never been found. They concluded the dinosaurs were actually the same, with the horns and ridge changing shape as the lizard matured.
This is a much more plausible, and interesting explanation. To appease little boys everywhere, the dinosaur will continue to be known as triceratops, rather than the absurd-sounding "torosaurus." I mean, what the heck is that, anyway?
Apparently this is the same thing that happened with the brontosaurus and apatosaurus. Growing up, I learned the name of that particular dinosaur as brontosaurus, and although its "official" name is apatosaurus, I refuse to abide by that name. Brontosaurus just seems right to me. Also, as if to endorse the righteousness of my cause, the spell check on my browser here puts a red line under apatosaurus, but not brontosaurus. So, somebody at Google feels the same way as I do.
I'm also annoyed at the headline writers, who, again, in order to generate pageviews create misleading headlines. I am sure I have whined about this before. My favorite is the "man arrested for x" variety of headlines, where, for example, the headline is "Man arrested for ordering cup of coffee," but it turns out he was pointing a Glock at the counterperson when ordering the coffee. So, I would suppose that the headline is technically true, but it misses the point entirely.
entry no. 1503
Posted at August 23, 2010 05:29 PM