Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:39:37 AM
713408 Posts in 53060 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Weird News Stories  |  First Brontosaurus, Now Triceratops?!? « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: First Brontosaurus, Now Triceratops?!?  (Read 6407 times)
Raffine
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 812
Posts: 4466



« on: August 02, 2010, 07:01:51 PM »

Smarty-pants scientist are now saying the beloved Triceratops never existed - they were just teen-age Torosaurus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/triceratops-was-juvenile_n_667475.html

But there is hope: According to New Scientist, "torosaurus will now be abolished as a species and specimens reassigned to triceratops."

Whew!

But a blow for fans of the Torosaurus, no doubt. But the classic image of good ol' Triceratop has gone the way of the er.. dinosaurs.



« Last Edit: August 02, 2010, 07:09:53 PM by Raffine » Logged

If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.
Joe the Destroyer
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2010, 02:42:19 AM »

Whew... I still say Brontosaurus.  Screw that Apatosaurus nonsense.   TongueOut 

No way in hell are you going to get me to start saying Torosaurus instead of Triceratops. 
Logged
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1402
Posts: 11156



« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2010, 06:17:53 AM »

Brontosaurus does sound cooler, but I did teach my daughter it was an apatosaurus. At least that was actually changed a long time ago, and just took a few decades to reach the public.

As for Triceratops, they made the right decision in realizing that the name was practically a brand. Would have been foolish to change it to the more obscure dinosaur.

It is so weird how much paleontology has changed since I was a kid. I grew up with dinosaurs as big, grey, scaly reptiles that lumbered around dragging their tails on the ground. And you only ever saw maybe a dozen varieties at most in a kid's book. My daughter's dinosaur books have a huge diversity of species, with some of them depicted with bright colours and feathers. And Ro knows them as prehistoric relatives of birds, which has gotten her into at least one argument with an older kid who didn't know as much.

I just can't get over the difference between what we thought a velociraptor looked like less than 20 years ago and the way it's drawn today.


The field is growing by leaps and bounds. So I can understand that similar dinosaurs might eventually turn out to be the same species. I'm just glad they opted to keep the more famous name of Triceratops.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Doggett
Bustin' makes me feel good !
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 979
Posts: 8413


I've seen things you people couldn't imagine...


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2010, 06:26:40 AM »

I think Velociraptor has been known to be different from the Jurassic Park movie for quiet a while, it's just that film series is so popular people have trouble adjusting.

I think people get it confused with Deinonychus.
Here's a Deinonychus skeleton as you can see it looks quite similar to raptors in JP.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 06:28:59 AM by Doggett » Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1402
Posts: 11156



« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2010, 06:37:25 AM »

The two are very closely related. But I think the confusion in Jurassic Park had more to do with size, since those raptors were much bigger than they should have been. They were the size of Deinonychus (I'm guessing the little guy in your picture might be Velociraptor). But depictions of Deinonychus have changed along with Velociraptor.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 06:39:27 AM by AndyC » Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Newt
Mostly Harmless. Mostly.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 856
Posts: 3715


I want to be Ripley when I grow up.


« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2010, 08:25:42 AM »

About renaming Torosaurus Triceratops: they followed the established protocol.  According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the Principle of Priority states that the first published name takes precedence.  If the first fossils of this type named were identified as Triceratops, then the second name applied to the same fossils (once it is discovered/decided they are one-and-the-same) gets dropped.  Since triceratops was found and identified a few years before the Torosaurus finds were made, Triceratops takes priority as the name.  The same applied to re-naming Brontosaurus Apatasaurus: Apatasaurus was the name *first* applied to the fossils of that type.  Additional fossils were thought at the time to be a 'different' type and subsequently were named Brontosaurus. When the error was realized, the name first given took priority. So there was no choice involved: it was purely the prescribed procedure. Lucky for us the *first* name turned out to be Triceratops!
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 08:45:10 AM by Newt » Logged

"May I offer you a Peek Frean?" - Walter Bishop
"Thank you for appreciating my descent into deviant behavior, Mr. Reese." - Harold Finch
Andrew
Administrator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 8457


I know where my towel is.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2010, 08:50:05 AM »

I have "Dinosaurs:  The Encyclopedia" by Donald F. Glut, which is a great reference.  Because the theories are changing due to new discoveries, they put out supplements that update the core book every so often.  I think that they are up to #4 or #5.

Funny thing, check out the editor of that tome and the writer/director of "Dinosaur Valley Girls."
Logged

Andrew Borntreger
Badmovies.org
Raffine
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 812
Posts: 4466



« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2010, 09:54:02 AM »

Don Glut has had a pretty amazing career.

When just a kid he was published in Famous Monsters of Filmland, and latter wrote episodes for the original Land of the Lost, Transformers, Ducktales, and many, many other classic animated series.

He's still a regular poster at the Classic Horror Film Board. He's a really nice fellow and around that board he's just 'one of the guys'.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0323304/
Logged

If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1402
Posts: 11156



« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2010, 10:36:20 AM »

About renaming Torosaurus Triceratops: they followed the established protocol.  According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the Principle of Priority states that the first published name takes precedence.  If the first fossils of this type named were identified as Triceratops, then the second name applied to the same fossils (once it is discovered/decided they are one-and-the-same) gets dropped.  Since triceratops was found and identified a few years before the Torosaurus finds were made, Triceratops takes priority as the name.  The same applied to re-naming Brontosaurus Apatasaurus: Apatasaurus was the name *first* applied to the fossils of that type.  Additional fossils were thought at the time to be a 'different' type and subsequently were named Brontosaurus. When the error was realized, the name first given took priority. So there was no choice involved: it was purely the prescribed procedure. Lucky for us the *first* name turned out to be Triceratops!

I wonder what would have happened if that hadn't been the case. Would there have been a push to make an exception or change the protocol? Brontosaurus was eliminated over a century ago, when science was the only concern. Even so, the name stuck in popular culture until about the 90s. Dinosaurs are big business today. They bring people into museums, sell merchandise and can be credited with getting a lot of kids interested in science. Triceratops is an easily recognizable dinosaur and a favourite of kids. There would be purists who would argue that it shouldn't matter, but I'm not so sure Triceratops would have given up its name if it hadn't been named first.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Newt
Mostly Harmless. Mostly.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 856
Posts: 3715


I want to be Ripley when I grow up.


« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2010, 11:15:33 AM »

About renaming Torosaurus Triceratops: they followed the established protocol.  According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the Principle of Priority states that the first published name takes precedence.  If the first fossils of this type named were identified as Triceratops, then the second name applied to the same fossils (once it is discovered/decided they are one-and-the-same) gets dropped.  Since triceratops was found and identified a few years before the Torosaurus finds were made, Triceratops takes priority as the name.  The same applied to re-naming Brontosaurus Apatasaurus: Apatasaurus was the name *first* applied to the fossils of that type.  Additional fossils were thought at the time to be a 'different' type and subsequently were named Brontosaurus. When the error was realized, the name first given took priority. So there was no choice involved: it was purely the prescribed procedure. Lucky for us the *first* name turned out to be Triceratops!

I wonder what would have happened if that hadn't been the case. Would there have been a push to make an exception or change the protocol? Brontosaurus was eliminated over a century ago, when science was the only concern. Even so, the name stuck in popular culture until about the 90s. Dinosaurs are big business today. They bring people into museums, sell merchandise and can be credited with getting a lot of kids interested in science. Triceratops is an easily recognizable dinosaur and a favourite of kids. There would be purists who would argue that it shouldn't matter, but I'm not so sure Triceratops would have given up its name if it hadn't been named first.

More than likely the 'official' name still would have been changed and the name commonly in use would have been Triceratops.  Look at Apatasaurus: how often do you still hear 'Brontosaurus'?  Thanks to its familiarity (wide-spread due to popular culture sources such as The Flintstones) Brontosaurus is still used quite often indeed - in non-scientific speech.  It would end up being just one more opportunity for kids to know more about the subject than their elders do - and to correct them with a mini-lecture.
Logged

"May I offer you a Peek Frean?" - Walter Bishop
"Thank you for appreciating my descent into deviant behavior, Mr. Reese." - Harold Finch
Mr. DS
Master Of Cinematic Bowel Movements
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1869
Posts: 15511


Get this thread cleaned up or YOU'RE FIRED!!!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2010, 11:21:48 AM »

Logged

DarkSider's Realm
http://darksidersrealm.blogspot.com/

"You think the honey badger cares?  It doesn't give a sh*t."  Randall
WingedSerpent
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 290
Posts: 2531


I AM THE BAD PHOTOSHOP EFFECT!


« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2010, 08:28:50 PM »

There were two names for a particular duck-billed dinosaur.  Anatosaurus and Trachodon.  Anatosaurus is the proper naemed but I still use Tracodon.  Because it sounds cooler. 

Triceratops is one of my favorite dinosurs, so I'm glad it's name is the one sticking around.
Logged

At least, that's what Gary Busey told me...
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 314
Posts: 3669



« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2010, 09:53:47 PM »

Quote
They were the size of Deinonychus (I'm guessing the little guy in your picture might be Velociraptor).

Well, they're somewhere inbetween the Deiny (160 pounds) and the utahraptor (1100 pounds).  Either way, current train of thought is the entire family had feathers.  They look silly to me with feathers, I have to admit.
Logged
The Gravekeeper
addicted to the macabre
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 85
Posts: 759



« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2010, 12:54:27 AM »

There are quite a few dinosaur species that they're starting to suspect are just juvenile forms of other dinosaurs. It makes sense since all we have to go off of are bones and a rare few other fossilized tissues (anyone else think it's really cool that they actually found a mummified dinosaur?). Think about it: if someone a million years ago found the fossils of tadpoles and frogs they'd probably assume that they were two completely different species.
Logged
Ed, Ego and Superego
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 300
Posts: 3016



« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2010, 07:03:27 PM »

I remember reading they made the raptors in Jurassic Park big in the name of artistic liscence.  Then after they had made the film a  larger raptor was found in China.  But I can't recall the citation, sorry!
-Ed
Logged

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Weird News Stories  |  First Brontosaurus, Now Triceratops?!? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.