Pffft, next you'll tell me that Jazz was invented in Toronto. All this science is just out of control. Where's my moodring and magic eight ball, I'll get to the bottom of this the old fashioned way.
Ahh... I see. So could it be that the Utahraptor be an underaged T-Rex? because it wasn't that long ago that I read about the little raptors being mini T-Rex's. You're most likely correct about Brachiosaurus though. They all look like Brontosaurus to me :grin: On a side note, I wonder which type of carnivore raptors evolution-ed to losing all of its killer instinct and became soft... or known today as Chris Bosh.
I don't think of it as "Brontosaurus never existed". I just see Brontosaurus as another name for Apatosaurus. That's pretty much how I look at this as well.
They're not talking about evolution, they're talking about aging. Basically they're saying that the bones we've always called Triceratops are basically young Torosauruses. Evolution is different, suggesting that some of the decedents of Torosaurus became Triceratops, or vice versa.
Yeah that's actually a good point. I'm pretty sure they explicitly said "velocirators" in the movie. From wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_issues_in_Jurassic_Park "The raptors in the novel, following through to the film raptors, were larger than the species going by the name because during the writing of the novel, a previously discovered dinosaur named Deinonychus (closely related to Velociraptor, but larger) was interpreted as a Velociraptor species by some scientists, notably Gregory S. Paul.[1] In the novel, Deinonychus is mentioned, but the character Alan Grant then says that scientists have reclassified it as a species of Velociraptor. Crichton wrote his novel based on the idea of a human sized raptor, but after the publication, when the film was already in production, the idea of Deinonychus being a Velociraptor species was dropped by the scientific community. The film makers had the size of the film's Velociraptor increased for dramatic reasons, and changed the shape of the snout.[2] However, during filming, paleontologists came across a larger dromaeosaurid species named Utahraptor and the larger raptors remained, even though Utahraptor was substantially larger (21 feet long) than the film's raptors. At the start of the film, a Velociraptor skeleton is uncovered in Montana; no examples of the dinosaur have been uncovered in the United States (although both Deinonychus and Utahraptor are American dinosaurs). The fossil skeleton is similarly inaccurately large."
And because it makes it sound like the Triceratops was a pokemon character... Honest question though: if you say evolved, you're not necessarily talking evolution....are you? I think the first connotation is always evolution, which is what you described, but can't it also just be a gradual aging? I don't think the confusion is necessary and can easily be avoided, but it was just something I was curious about.
Yes, it still exists. I saw that thing walk past my tent late one night at Paleface Park, on Travis, when we had a tribal gathering there.
Dinosaurs are a hard thing for a kid to be in love with because this sort of thing is always changing and shattering your freaking universe. I had no idea that Brontosaurus is now defunct as a name and now I find out that Triceratops never existed either. My 3 year old son loves dinosaurs so we bought this 4 disc Discovery dinosaur special for him to watch. The first two hours of this thing are about this one paleontologist claiming that T-Rexes were never predators at all, but simply big, mean looking scavengers. This **** kills me. I can't accept a world in which the biggest, baddest predator my imagination ever had the pleasure of engaging is basically a big freaky vulture.
THIS IS MALARKEY!!! The triceratops was one of my favorite dinosaurs That means Slag shouldn't exist either and that is unacceptable.
Brontosaurus is fake, Pluto isn't a planet, Neil Patrick Harris is gay, now this? My world...its falling apart... <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cp0DmPIt1JE&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cp0DmPIt1JE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
And I don't want to talk to no scientist.. They be all lying and sh^t! <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_-agl0pOQfs&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_-agl0pOQfs&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I couldn't read the article...because I couldn't help but cracking up when I saw there was a scientist named Jack Horner.
One of the themes in JP was that the scientists didn't really know what they were getting into since there's only so much information you can get from skeletons (hence all the creative liberties taken with species; dilophosaurs spitting venom, T. rex vision, etc.).
It still surprises me that dinosaurs don't come up more often. It freaks me out that these giant flesh-eating monsters once existed on earth.
Those assholes claiming T-Rex was just a scavanger with stumpy arms was a gut punch, and I'm still pissed about the Brontosaurus thing, too. At least we know whose funding to cut! Thankfully, this will probably be kept out of Texas' textbooks, anyway. :grin:
