While we can learn a lot from fossils, there is still
much we cannot determine just by examining petrified bones, feathers, and other
structures. For one, it is difficult to determine whether or not a specimen represents
an already-known species or is an entirely new one. This phenomenon occurs more
often than one would think, and many extinct genera have a score of junior
synonyms which were once considered to be different species. These often turn
out just to be juveniles of already-known species, or display some pathology
which had rendered them to appear different from the rest of their kind.
Of course, all adult animals known from fossils had to
start somewhere – obviously, we have fossils of various dinosaurs ranging in
age from embryonic to adult-most forms. Our knowledge of the ontogeny of
dinosaurs ranges from species to species – in the case of some, such as Allosaurus and Maiasaura, we have records of complete life histories. In other
species, juveniles can often be reassigned as other species or genera simply
due to a lack of information on the species as a whole.
|
The two three-horned titans in question: Triceratops (left) and Torosaurus (right). Illustration by Nicholas Longrich. |
One such ontogenetic debate originated last year
concerning one of America’s fossilized sweethearts – none other than the
three-horned darling that is
Triceratops.
Fossilized remains of
Triceratops are
abundant in the American west and are known from young individuals to adults.
However,
Triceratops wasn’t the only
three-horned beast roaming North America at the end of the Cretaceous.
Torosaurus, a closely-related chasmosaurine, has been
found alongside
Triceratops from Colorado
to Montana. However, unlike the remarkably complete life history we have of
Triceratops,
Torosaurusfossils are largely adult specimens.
|
Triceratops growth series by Gregory S. Paul. The bottom-most skull, and those
at right, represent Torosaurus. This series represents the logic of Horner et. al (2010). |
The absence of young
Torosaurus
in the fossil record led Jack Horner
et.
al (2010) to believe that
Torosaurus is
not its own species, rather it represents the most mature specimens of
Triceratops. It makes sense at first: we
know animals get larger and, in some cases, more impressive as they age, and
Torosaurus’ massive head and elongated
frill are much more spectacular than the shorter, square frill of
Triceratops. However, size and
exaggeration of features do not necessarily contribute to the maturity of any
given specimen, and this determination is even harder to make when all we have
to work with are fossils.
When news broke that the world may lose Triceratops to cladistic lumping, a
panic spread: what would we do without everyone’s favorite three-horn? How
would museums cope with the innumerable info-graphics which would need to be
reprinted? And the children… How would our children grow up in a world in which
Triceratops was no longer a valid
genus?
Thankfully, there is no need to worry. First of all, Triceratops was named in 1889, whereas Torosaurus was named in 1891, giving our
herbivorous hero precedent over the long-frilled foe. Second of all, a paper
has finally been published which puts
this whole debate to rest. Well-known specimens of both genera were compared
and analyzed, put through a gauntlet of 24 visibly-testable features which
diagnose the chasmosaurines as juveniles or more mature specimens.
Testing such features as the curvature of the postorbital
horns, the degree of scalloping of the parietals (bumps around the edge of the
frill) and squamosals (pointed cheek bones), and the fusion of major bones of
the skull allowed Nicholas Longrich and Daniel Field (2013) to put an end to
this long-winded argument. A total of 36
specimens from both genera were analyzed for the test.
|
Comparative ages and diagnostic features of the ontogenetic stages of Triceratops and Torosaurus. From
Longrich & Field, 2013. |
When Horner cited Torosaurus
as being just a mature Triceratops,
he cited the fact that no juvenile specimens of the former have been
discovered, whereas many young Triceratops
have been discovered. Longrich and Field discovered that, while the
overwhelming majority of Torosaurus
specimens are, in fact, adults, at least one specimen represents a slightly
younger animal, which instantly puts a hole in Horner’s logic. If young Torosaurus did exist, displaying
ontogenetic characteristics diagnostic of a young animal far different from
adult Triceratops, then it is
impossible for the latter to be a “stepping stone” to the former. So, in your
FACE, Horner! Torosaurus juveniles DO
exist! Which means…
|
"And you read this in my voice!" |
But, in all seriousness, both genera are valid. While
they are both extremely similar in body-shape and lifestyle, they represent two
different animals. And I’m sure Tyrannosaurus
thought they tasted the same anyway.
|
A similar story of mistaken identity occurred between these three sympatric pachycephalosaurs. From left
to right, the specimens range from young to old. |
Horner has proposed this lumping before with other
species; coincidentally (or not), they all hail from about the same time and
place. Besides
Triceratops/
Torosaurus, he is a strong proponent of
Nanotyrannus representing a juvenile
Tyrannosaurus, which has also recently been
tested and supported. More closely related to the horned creatures in question,
he has also suggested that the pachycephalosaurids
Dracorex,
Stygimoloch,
and
Pachycephalosaurus also represent
three ontogenetic stages in the life of the lattermost species. I’m a bit
hesitant to accept that
Stygimoloch
represents an intermediate between the other two, partially because I grew up
with ol’ Styg as one of my favorite dinosaurs. Plus, the name is just awesome:
Stygimoloch translates to “devil of the
River Styx.”
I think we can all rest a bit easier tonight knowing that
Longrich and Field have put an end to the attempted assassination of Triceratops as a genus. I know I can,
anyway.