Scientists: Triceratops May Not Have Existed

By: Charles Cooper
Topics: In The News ,; Tech Talk

The classic image of a Triceratops is on the left. On the right is the new face of Triceratops, previously called Torosaurus. (Artwork by Holly Woodward, MSU graduate student).

(Credit: Holly Woodward/Montana State University)

If we could go back and poll the generations of school children who have visited museums of natural history around the country, I'd wager that the Triceratops ranked among the most popular of all their dinosaur exhibits. But could it be that the Triceratops was not really the Triceratops after all?

I know - next they'll tell us there's no Santa Claus. But Paleontologists at the Montana State University argue that the Triceratops and his kissing cousin, the Torosaurus, were actually the same dinosaur at different stages of growth. Their findings, published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, say that this case of mistaken prehistoric identity is quite understandable, given that the skulls of young dinosaurs underwent extensive changes as the animals got older.

"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," John Scannella, one of the co-authors of the study told the Montana State University news service. "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."

He said that paleontologists were at a disadvantage because of the obvious of any living Triceratops to observe as it grows from a baby into an adult. "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," he said.

Scanella and co-author Jack Horner examined over 50 Triceratops specimens found in the continental United States and their findings upset more than a century of paleontological assumptions. New Scientist, which goes into this controversy in more depth, offers a good plausible explanation, noting that the Triceratops "had three facial horns and a short, thick neck-frill with a saw-toothed edge. Torosaurus also had three horns, though at different angles, and a much longer, thinner, smooth-edged frill with two large holes in it. So it's not surprising that Othniel Marsh, who discovered both in the late 1800s, considered them to be separate species."

This shape-shifting also has implications for the amount of bio-diversity found within the dinosaur populations near the end of the Cretaceous Period and Mesozoic Era, according to Scanella and Horner. "A major decline in diversity may have put the dinosaurs in a vulnerable state at the time when the large meteor struck the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period," Scannella said in his interview. "It may have been the combination of the two factors -- lower diversity and a major global catastrophe -- that resulted in the extinction of all the non-avian dinosaurs."

Charles Cooper is an executive editor at CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years, working at CBSNews.com, the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.

18 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 18 Comments


by Mike5545 December 7, 2010 6:55 PM EST: First of all TOROSAURUS would be booted out thats why we don't see Brontosaurus used anymore since Apatosaurus was named first even though i still wish it was Brontosaurus but anyway IF this is true expect WWD to have another inaccuracy.:p; Reply to this comment


by aperrita August 20, 2010 4:20 PM EDT: You are correct MattDuffy, it is poor journalism. I have kinda grown attached to the triceroatops. I will certinly look into the New Scientist article you mentioned.
One of the tenets of journalism is accuracy, accuracy and accuracy.
I don't know how I will brake it to my nephew who thinks tricera is one the coolest dinos. Hey, it was in Jurassic Park. That's the one that left one big pile...; Reply to this comment


by aperrita August 20, 2010 4:08 PM EDT: K folks, before we get all huffy about this; remember this all in theory.
Any new findings will help to prove or disprove the theory.
What, there is no Santa! OMG!
oh, Duh.
As for immabeee's comment: here we thought that troglodytes were extinct; you have proved us wrong. Let us not confuse magenisum with gymnasium; unless you are of the bubba persuation.; Reply to this comment


by tzoneman August 19, 2010 9:31 PM EDT: When I first heard about the idea that Triceratops never existed, I cringed. I mean, what else can they take away from us? All I know is if the scientist patrol of the near future comes pounding at my door, trying to take my Aurora Prehistoric Scenes Triceratops model, and classic dinosaur book, Life Before Man, I'm moving to Mars; breathable air or not.; Reply to this comment


by alys3 August 17, 2010 3:43 AM EDT: "paleontologists were at a disadvantage because of the OBVIOUS of any living Triceratops" - "obvious"? What the heck? Didn't even proof-read your own work? This is one of the worst "science" articles I've ever read.; Reply to this comment


by DiggumFrog August 13, 2010 3:28 PM EDT: Yeah...sorry but Horner's name attached to any research immediately throws the validity of it's claims into suspicion. This guy wills ay anything to get a paper published. I agree that science is at it's best when it overthrows our preconceived notions but not at the expense of, you know, sanity? Lets see some feedback from the rest of the paleontological community before we all go down the "t-rex is a scavenger" dead end again, hmm?; Reply to this comment


by Ferahgo42 August 8, 2010 12:06 AM EDT: Jesus, what a terrible article. Charles Cooper, you are an incompetent journalist.; Reply to this comment


by Noval53 August 5, 2010 12:11 PM EDT: It must exist. I have the plastic toy and it's in my Dino-Book.; Reply to this comment

by rf35 August 4, 2010 3:54 AM EDT

First Pluto is stripped of it's status as a planet and now poor Torosaurus may turn out to be nothing more than an older Triceratops.

This is science at its best...allowing theories to change as more facts come to light. We may never get the complete picture of life before man, but with each new discovery another piece of the puzzle is filled in.

I feel obligated to add to the rant about the article's title. Not to mention the problem with the third paragraph from the bottom which seems to have been partially overwritten by the previous paragraph. I see CBSNews.com still hasn't hired an editor. Or at least one who speaks English. See what happens when you hire illegal aliens?

Reply to this comment


by immabeee August 7, 2010 12:50 AM EDT: Because Charles Cooper is a very foreign sounding name...


by david_orr August 3, 2010 10:10 PM EDT: Yes, this story's headlind is very misleading. Even a cursory reading of the paper referenced would show that the name Triceratops is the VALID of the two... if one of these is to be stricken (and that's not a settled debate) it will be Torosaurus. This is a really emotional issue, and unfortunately despite the best efforts of responsible science journalists and bloggers, sites continue using the "Triceratops Never Existed" hook. Lazy at best, irresponsible at worst. Please revise this article to reflect the paper accurately, and more clearly state that Torosaurus is the name in peril. Only the image caption states that, and it should be part of the story itself.

I suggest reading these posts for some clarity on the matter:

Brian Switek's Dinosaur Tracking post: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/22/new-study-says-torosaurustriceratops/

And mine: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-triceratops-damsel-in-distress.html; Reply to this comment