Paleontologists Join Conspiracy to Destroy My Childhood

Comments

1
Now what will my GI Joes ride on?
2
We need more dinosaur movies! Fercrisakes, what good is CGI when you aren't making dinosaur movies?!?
3
@2 I am so with you. I am not ashamed to say I saw Jurassic Park eleven times in the theater because, well, CGI DINOSAURS!
4
Thankfully, the torosaurus species is actually going to be absorbed into triceratops; complete childhood ruin avoided.
5
Triceratops is only my favorite dinosaur. Also, didn't the Cretaceous period last for, uh, 80 million years? With such a long time-frame for ever-evolving species to be unearthed from, seems like there's still a good chance that my childhood knowledge will prevail!
6
Your childhood was all about dogmatic views of an inflexible history that was not subject to change via new discoveries or information?

That's sad really.
7
I remember a similar case. Paleontologists had only found the crania of one genus of homonid, and only the mandible of another...and then someone thought to see if they matched.

@4: Yes, because Triceratops as a described genus predates Torosaurus.
8
@2,3, I have a sinking feeling that a CGI dinosaur movie made today would look 10x shittier than the original JP. I don't know why, but CGI-laden projects just seem to look cheesier and cheesier even as the technology advances. Haven't seen Avatar, so maybe that was an exception (It ought to have been based on its cost).
9
On the bright side, since triceratops was named before torosaurus, the name Triceratops stays and now encompasses both!

So there's something to be said for etymological seniority, I guess.

10
I see this has been covered.

So, eat it, torosaurus!
11
@9 we need a jello wrestling match.
12
Well, think of it this way - triceratops are badass teenagers.
13
@11 O.K.! You and Fnarf! Naked!!
14
Say what you want about triceratops- or not triceratops, but don't you Fu@k with my Barney!
http://lanuitblanche.files.wordpress.com…
15
If this were true, then wouldn't there have been torosaurs found alongside triceratops? I scanned the article, but if it mentioned that, then I missed it. Perhaps Torosaurs were just a very rare species?
16
So... when do the fundies trot this out as clear and irrefutable example of why their fairy-tales are %100 true?
17
@13 no, Triceratops versus Torosaurus.
18
pretty sure i'm still in the official Jurassic Park fan club (unless it dissolved in the past 2 years) ....still have the ID card in my wallet
19
Does this mean that someday they'll find a matured version of Loveschild?

20
This is part of a theory that many of the Cretaceous dinosaur fossils attributed to different species may just have been different stages in life of the same species...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20…

on a semirelated note, Michael Crichton's "Lost World" was the worst "book" I've ever read

21
I don't know about "The Worst," Pete, but it was pretty fucking odious. It's obvious that he just cranked it out for the paycheck.
23
It's just lies. Lalalalalala. Laaaaaaa... I CAN'T HEAR you!
24
Fenestrated? I say defenestrate him!
25
It's wrong what they did to Brontosaurus. Wrong!
26
Nooo!!!

My childhood was filled with seeing the original Jurassic Park about 8-10 times in the theater.

I like that in the first JP movie the designers had to create CGI dinosaurs within real nature. Unlike most of todays computer movies that are all green screen.
27
@19: WIN.
@24: Unfunny.
@25: Apatosaurus ("deceitful lizard") fits much better; it fooled paleontologists into thinking that it and Brontosaurus were two different genera for quite some time.
28
It's science. It changes.

Deal.
29
So there were no Triceratops on Noah's ark? Only Torosaurs?
30
Posting another article about how it's really the torosaurus that "doesn't exist." http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur…