Breaking News: There's No Such Thing As A Triceratops
|
Breaking News: There's No Such Thing As A Triceratops
|
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ed-us.html]It's just an immature torosaurus.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak. 
From the article, it looks like they've actually done away with torosaurus as a species, and merged them into the Triceratops classification.
I must have skipped over that. I'd better reread it.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak. 
I remember reading that the same thing had been done with T-rex and a related carnivore. I can't seem to find what it's name was though.
-Terry ----- "so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today" TF2: Spy
I remember this being floated as a theory a while back... I guess it's picking up steam now.
Read the comments on the second page and saw this one... (shakes head) "Ask any gameboy owning kid and they could have explained this - once the juvenile dinosaur reaches a certain experience level, it simply evolves into a new species eg charmander->charmelion>charizard." _____ DEATH is Certain. The hour, Uncertain... 
Gee, makes me wonder if the Japanese game designers were onto something...
Didn't something similar happen with Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus. Originally they were thought to be two different species, but later found to be the same. So, scientists discarded the later name, and go with the original name.
________________________________ --m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig? 
That was placing the wrong skull with the wrong neck, iirc
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.'' -- James Nicoll Dartz Wrote:Didn't something similar happen with Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus. Originally they were thought to be two different species, but later found to be the same. So, scientists discarded the later name, and go with the original name. Well the whole thing of species is complex, I was working with a biochemist on classification rules for it and it is fiendishly complex. even when we exclude the real fun stuff with viruses, we still have sillyness like ring species (eg A and B can breed so they are one species, B and C can breed so they are the same species, bu A and C can't breed so does B belong to Species A or C? or neither? The problem is our way of distinguishing between species relies on them being able to interbreed, or rather being unable to interbreed. but that is not a transitive property, and when we get to single celled organisms that really breaks down. For example a virus is only considered a species in combination with the host species, so the same virus in a horse and a donkey would be a different species of virus, even if they are genetically identical. E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell." |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
