|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently it was discovered by science that what we thought was the triceratops might actually never have existed. This issue has polarized the internet. So I'm wondering, whether Paizo is anti-Triceratops or Pro-Triceratops. I notice in your bestiary that you omitted to include a picture of a triceratops so I'm pretty sure which was Paizo swings on this issue, but I'd rather hear it from the Goblin's mouth instead of just assuming.
..isn't it enough that scientists took Pluto?
Torosaurus == Triceratops with the 'giant creature' template applied.
easy peasy
Toro? Why am I craving sushi now...
Recently it was discovered by science that what we thought was the triceratops might actually never have existed. This issue has polarized the internet. So I'm wondering, whether Paizo is anti-Triceratops or Pro-Triceratops. I notice in your bestiary that you omitted to include a picture of a triceratops so I'm pretty sure which was Paizo swings on this issue, but I'd rather hear it from the Goblin's mouth instead of just assuming.
Yes, due to the recent findings Paizo wisely went back in time and removed the planned image depicting a triceratops in the Bestiary last year. To keep compatibility they left the triceratops stats in the game, as they are important for the Troll raiders to have something to ride.
In truth, I know the Paizo staff tends to try and stick to real life sources when possible. Perhaps a full grown Torosaurus will make an appearance in Bestiary 3.
Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
I'm all for D&D keeping it however. There are tons of critters in the Bestiary that never actually existed.. Even if "the scientists" decide it never existed there's no reason it should be removed from fantasy..
-S
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've also seen recent evidence/theories that triceratops was a carnivore; that the shape of its jaw closely matches the way a buzzard's beak works, and that it was actually a carrion eater.
But in the case of a dinosaur like the triceratops, arguably one of THE most-well-known and well-loved dinosaurs, I'm currently in the "ride the latest internet storm out" mode. We've lost dinosaurs before in this way (such as the poor old brontosaurus), but for now, I'm not ready to give up the name "triceratops." It's just still FAR to ingrained in the public eye/popular culture to abandon.
Also, it's like the only dinosaur that our art director knows by name, since it has HER name inside the dinosaur's name (triSARAHtops). So I'm unwilling to risk her wrath by attempting to rename the dinosaur torosaurus.
As for not picturing it... when you have to choose between illustrating a triceratops and a tyrannosaurus... the tyrannosaurus wins Every Time. Being the Creative Director's favorite animal of all time gets you SOME perks!
I didn't mean to imply that they had time travelling powers, merely that they could see the future.
Quite true, divination is a much more established and defined school of magic.
We do have this fantastic image of a baby Torosaurus which you can insert into the Bestiary.
I'm all for D&D keeping it however. There are tons of critters in the Bestiary that never actually existed.. Even if "the scientists" decide it never existed there's no reason it should be removed from fantasy.
It's not that they never existed, it's that they gave the same dinosaur two names. The wikipedia article seems to imply that they'll keep the Triceratops name and ditch Torosaurus since Triceratops is the more well known name. So scientists are still deciding what to do with the new information. I think the media is making a bigger deal of it than needed. It's not like they decided that the Triceratops was a hoax or a mismatched fossil.
|
Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
Torosaurus Marsh, 1891, is Triceratops Marsh, 1889 .
In the paper's abstract (Jack Horner is a co-writer of the article, and he's at the top of the field (he was the go-to paleontologist for the _Jurassic Park_ films)) it's posited that "Triceratops and 'Torosaurus' actually represent growth stages of a single genus." So as far as the paper is concerned, this is a fact.
And actually, based on the wording in the abstract, the existence of the Torosaurus is being called into question, not Triceratops.
|
Recently it was discovered by science that what we thought was the triceratops might actually never have existed. This issue has polarized the internet. So I'm wondering, whether Paizo is anti-Triceratops or Pro-Triceratops. I notice in your bestiary that you omitted to include a picture of a triceratops so I'm pretty sure which was Paizo swings on this issue, but I'd rather hear it from the Goblin's mouth instead of just assuming...isn't it enough that scientists took Pluto?
There's just no way to define "planet" that keeps Pluto in but shuts out the other large Kyuper Belt objects like Orcus, Quaoar, and Eris, and several of the major asteroids like Ceres and Vesta.
And as far as I know, Triceratops was the first name to be published so it will be the one still used. Torosaurus is the one going away.
My paleontologist buddy explained to me that they are probably going to keep the term Triceratops — even though Torosaurus was named first — simply because it is more well known.
I don't see a huge controversy either way. It's par for the course in taxonomy.
|
|
Technically speaking, Triceratops existed as a recognized genus before the Torosaurus was even discovered. If this is the case, then Torosaurus should be made part of Triceratops and not vice versa. Triceratops was identified in 1889, while Torosaurus wasn't until 1891.
Edit: Ninja'd by IconoclasticScream.
I've also seen recent evidence/theories that triceratops was a carnivore; that the shape of its jaw closely matches the way a buzzard's beak works, and that it was actually a carrion eater.
This blows my mind. Was Edgar Rice Burroughs prescient?
He wrote about the gryf in one of the Tarzan novels, which lived in the land of Pal-u-don. These were carnivorous triceratops. Cousins to the gyor of Pellucidar, which is the herbivore triceratops we're most familiar with.
And naturally, found in great numbers on the Isle of Dread, because a meat-eating triceratops is something no PC should die without facing. (After facing is a different story!)
|
|
Jack Horner is my enemy. He is in no way at the top of the field. He only gave advice on the worst Jurassic Park film - the one where the Spinosaurus kicked the crap out of the T-Rex. He is the master troll of the field and nobody really takes him seriously anymore.
So who would win in a fight, T-Rex or Spinosaurus? Not to risk Dr. Jacobs’ wrath (in the same way as the fat kid calling velociraptor an overgrown turkey in front of Dr. Grant), but I heard T-Rex was a carrion eater who had feathers ...
|
|
Jack Horner is my enemy. He is in no way at the top of the field. He only gave advice on the worst Jurassic Park film - the one where the Spinosaurus kicked the crap out of the T-Rex. He is the master troll of the field and nobody really takes him seriously anymore.
I'm sorry you've chosen Horner as your nemesis, but the fact remains he's a very well respected paleontologist. And as far as his credentials, you might want to check here.
|
Jack Horner is my enemy. He is in no way at the top of the field. He only gave advice on the worst Jurassic Park film - the one where the Spinosaurus kicked the crap out of the T-Rex. He is the master troll of the field and nobody really takes him seriously anymore.So who would win in a fight, T-Rex or Spinosaurus? Not to risk Dr. Jacobs’ wrath (in the same way as the fat kid calling velociraptor an overgrown turkey in front of Dr. Grant), but I heard T-Rex was a carrion eater who had feathers ...
To be fair, velociraptors weren't very big...
But I guess deinonychus wouldn't of had the same impact in Jurassic Park as velociraptor. Man, you know it's a good movie when even the dinosaurs are actors!
Wait, what happened to brontosaurus?Got retconned into Apatosaurus I believe.
The same thing that is about to happen to the Torosaurus it appears. A reasonably good article here.
Will we get Apatosaurus stats in Bestiary 2?
|
|
To be fair, velociraptors weren't very big...
But I guess deinonychus wouldn't of had the same impact in Jurassic Park as velociraptor. Man, you know it's a good movie when even the dinosaurs are actors!
Given the size of the beasties in Jurrasic Park, they were probably deinonychus, not velociraptor (who actually was about the size of a turkey ... and had feathers). Also, velociraptor has (I think) only been found in Asia, whereas deinonychus is from north America (which fits with the dig that Grant was involved in).
Jack Horner is my enemy. He is in no way at the top of the field. He only gave advice on the worst Jurassic Park film - the one where the Spinosaurus kicked the crap out of the T-Rex. He is the master troll of the field and nobody really takes him seriously anymore.I'm sorry you've chosen Horner as your nemesis, but the fact remains he's a very well respected paleontologist. And as far as his credentials, you might want to check here.
I would expect a list of scientific papers to be a better set of references. Besides, doesn't everyone know that directors never actually listen to the scientific advisory staff on movies? I don't know one way or another if his advice was any good, but I do know the movie industry isn't exactly set up to advance scientific awareness.
|
|
I would expect a list of scientific papers to be a better set of references.
I can't find his CV online, but his email is jhorner at montana dot edu. He's currently the Curator of Paleontology at The Museum of the Rockies. If you write to him, maybe he can hook you up. :)
|
|
Given the size of the beasties in Jurrasic Park, they were probably deinonychus, not velociraptor (who actually was about the size of a turkey ... and had feathers). Also, velociraptor has (I think) only been found in Asia, whereas deinonychus is from north America (which fits with the dig that Grant was involved in).To be fair, velociraptors weren't very big...
But I guess deinonychus wouldn't of had the same impact in Jurassic Park as velociraptor. Man, you know it's a good movie when even the dinosaurs are actors!
They actually seemed larger than that, almost somewhere between Utahraptor and Deinoychus. They also seemed to lack feathers. Lets just call them Velociraptor Crichtonus for yucks.
|
|
I would expect a list of scientific papers to be a better set of references.
I can't find his CV online, but his email is jhorner at montana dot edu. He's currently the Curator of Paleontology at The Museum of the Rockies. If you write to him, maybe he can hook you up. :)
|
Creative Director
|
Jack Horner is my enemy. He is in no way at the top of the field. He only gave advice on the worst Jurassic Park film - the one where the Spinosaurus kicked the crap out of the T-Rex. He is the master troll of the field and nobody really takes him seriously anymore.So who would win in a fight, T-Rex or Spinosaurus? Not to risk Dr. Jacobs’ wrath (in the same way as the fat kid calling velociraptor an overgrown turkey in front of Dr. Grant), but I heard T-Rex was a carrion eater who had feathers ...
That's one of those fights that depends on who wins initiative first.
I still think a better question is: What dinosaurs can we expect to see in Bestiary 2?
I was under the impression that the current thought was to keep the name Triceretops and ditch Torosaurus, which seems the prudent way to move forward.
It looks like standard procedure is to use the name published first (which is how brontosaurus lost out) and so tricertops wins this round!
|
|
That's one of those fights that depends on who wins initiative first.Jack Horner is my enemy. He is in no way at the top of the field. He only gave advice on the worst Jurassic Park film - the one where the Spinosaurus kicked the crap out of the T-Rex. He is the master troll of the field and nobody really takes him seriously anymore.So who would win in a fight, T-Rex or Spinosaurus? Not to risk Dr. Jacobs’ wrath (in the same way as the fat kid calling velociraptor an overgrown turkey in front of Dr. Grant), but I heard T-Rex was a carrion eater who had feathers ...
In terms of Pathfinder, would you use the same stats for both?
|
Creative Director
|
In terms of Pathfinder, would you use the same stats for both?That's one of those fights that depends on who wins initiative first.Jack Horner is my enemy. He is in no way at the top of the field. He only gave advice on the worst Jurassic Park film - the one where the Spinosaurus kicked the crap out of the T-Rex. He is the master troll of the field and nobody really takes him seriously anymore.So who would win in a fight, T-Rex or Spinosaurus? Not to risk Dr. Jacobs’ wrath (in the same way as the fat kid calling velociraptor an overgrown turkey in front of Dr. Grant), but I heard T-Rex was a carrion eater who had feathers ...
Nope. Spinosaurus looks different enough that I could justify giving him different stats. I'm not a fan of the interpretation that the 3.0 MM2 version, though. But he'd probably end up a CR 9 monster anyway.
|
|
Given the size of the beasties in Jurrasic Park, they were probably deinonychus, not velociraptor (who actually was about the size of a turkey ... and had feathers). Also, velociraptor has (I think) only been found in Asia, whereas deinonychus is from north America (which fits with the dig that Grant was involved in).To be fair, velociraptors weren't very big...
But I guess deinonychus wouldn't of had the same impact in Jurassic Park as velociraptor. Man, you know it's a good movie when even the dinosaurs are actors!
That what I was saying! The word deinonychus may not have had the same appeal/dramatic effect as velocirator did.
Think about it...
"The raptors are coming!" vs "The deinonychus are coming!"
Which sounds better when screamed by someone on Isla Sorna?
|
|
Given the size of the beasties in Jurrasic Park, they were probably deinonychus, not velociraptor (who actually was about the size of a turkey ... and had feathers). Also, velociraptor has (I think) only been found in Asia, whereas deinonychus is from north America (which fits with the dig that Grant was involved in).To be fair, velociraptors weren't very big...
But I guess deinonychus wouldn't of had the same impact in Jurassic Park as velociraptor. Man, you know it's a good movie when even the dinosaurs are actors!
That what I was saying! The word deinonychus may not have had the same appeal/dramatic effect as velocirator did.
Think about it...
"The raptors are coming!" vs "The deinonychus are coming!"
Which sounds better when screamed by someone on Isla Sorna?
Sorry Dragonborn, I misunderstood what you were saying. I think we're on the same page.
|
As for not picturing it... when you have to choose between illustrating a triceratops and a tyrannosaurus... the tyrannosaurus wins Every Time. Being the Creative Director's favorite animal of all time gets you SOME perks!
Ah! So the carnosaur nepotism rampant in the industry finally stands exposed!
I've also seen recent evidence/theories that triceratops was a carnivore;
I'm quite interested in this. Do you remember the source?
I've also seen recent evidence/theories that triceratops was a carnivore;I'm quite interested in this. Do you remember the source?
Mark Witton has the dirt on the hypothetical omnivorous ceratopsians--think less vulture and more pig, in the sense that they'd eat just about anything. Also the source for the terrestrial stalking azdharchid pterosaurs that just cropped up in the Serpent Skull AP (don't worry--they're in the Bestiary only, not a spoiler).
I'm glad to see that reason (Triceratops was named before Torosaurus, so the principle of priority will win out for the trikes, assuming that Horner's paper is accepted by the paleontological community as a whole) has prevailed in this thread. Horner, though, I'm not fond of. He's definitely got agendas when it comes to his papers, specifically that dinosaurs were already dying out prior to the KT extinction event. So anything that reduces the number of genera in the Late Cretaceous is A-OK in his book. I suspect that this "dinos=losers" is why he's so very keen to push the "T. rex is a scavenger" meme, which is terrible science. All predators scavenge from time to time, and the only real obligate scavengers tend to be very highly specialized. Oh, and flying or swimming. It's hard to pinpoint enough carrion to make a living on foot--especially when you weigh several tons.