Talk:Triceratops/Archive 2

Toroceratops/Nedoceratops debate moved to ontogeny section?

I'm currently working on the Stegoceras article, which has a similar issue with various morphs that have been proposed to be part of a single growth series. Now looking at this article, it seems the Toroceratops debate and its associates would make more sense in the growth and ontogeny subsection than where it is now under classification? The argument for synonymy is basically just growth related. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, sounds reasonable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I just rejigged the text (according to newer FAs), it seems all that Torosaurus info was added long after the article was promoted to FA anyhow, so a bit tacked on. I also added the tiny bit about the difference between the two Triceratops species, as discussed with MWAK above long ago... FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

ball socket needs mentioning

the cranial-base ball socket needs mentioning and details about how it coexists with the "holes" for nerves, bone marrow, etc would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:578F:8000:0:0:41C (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Horns

Wouldn't the protrusions described as horns technically be antlers because they're obviously bone? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)