The Dinosaurs You Love Are Fake

A huge triceratops skeleton was found in Wyoming! But now researchers are saying it's not a triceratops--that dinosaur never existed. And this isn't the first time for this to happen! Trace has all the details on the fates of our beloved dinosaurs in the crazy world of paleontology.

Read More:
Rare, nearly complete triceratops skeleton unearthed in Wyoming
"Underneath the sagebrush and droves of cattle near Newcastle, Wyo., paleontologists have potentially unearthed one of the most complete skeletons of a triceratops ever found."

Morphosaurs: How shape-shifting dinosaurs deceived us
"DINOSAURS were shape-shifters."

Badass Triceratops Cousin Sported Hoodie
"The earliest known cousin of Triceratops was Judiceratops, a newly identified dinosaur that sported a hoodie-like growth on the back of its head."

Brontosaurus Not Real? Dino Is Actually Apatosaurus & Other Misconceptions Continue
"What happened to the Brontosaurus? The beloved dinosaur has been a part of numerous museum exhibits and a big part of pop culture."
How T. Rex Ate Triceratops in 4 Easy Steps
"This is how researchers say a Tyrannosaurus may have feasted on a Triceratops during the age of the dinosaurs."

Whatever Happened to the Brontosaurus?
"There was a time when the dinosaur named Brontosaurus evoked images of a monstrous beast with four legs, a long, graceful neck dragging an even longer tail through primeval swamps."

Watch More:

____________________

DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily.

[masterofgaburincho]

"The Dinosaurs You Love are Fake".

Just like my friends.

[one-clawedtheropod]

1. Triceratops and Torosaurus are different genusses
2. Brontosaurus is a seperate genus
3. JP had a Brachiosaurus

[jurassicparkfan]

Umm... the “Brontosaurus” in Jurassic Park, is actually a Brachiosaurus 🦕

[davidsirmons]

"...remember Brontosaurus?..."
(shows Brachiosaurus)

[przemysawbaniewicz]

He says: ... Do you remember the Brontosaurus? ...
Shows: Jurassic Park Brachiosaurus

*TRIGGERED*

[dinodude]

Anyone else facepalm when he thought that the brachiosaurs in jp were brontosaurs?

[nicg]

Dude, as long as the stegosaurus existed, I don't give a shit about the others. Steggies 4 lyfe. Or something. IDK. It's 3am.

[dabboi]

Recent study in 2016 had made enough distinct features to make brontosaurus its own species. So brontosaurus is a thing now, and the sauropod you had shown from Jurassic Park was a brachiosaurus. Completely different species from the brontosaurus. The torosaurus triceratops mix up was accepted as well because the torosaurus was actually smaller than the triceratops. So, if anything, the torosaurus was a younger triceratops.

[cadence]

Jurassic Park featured the Brachiosaurus, not the brontosaurus.

[TheZealo]

Huh, Jurassic Park didn't feature a Brontosaurus, it featured a Brachiosaurus. Dr. Grant even says its name to one of the kids who makes the same mistake as you just did, calling it Brontosaurus. >_>

[Marchawc]

This video is poorly researched and amateurishly presented. Sorry.

[baffld]

When he said torosaurus was the same as triceratops, and he called a brachiosaurus a brontosaurus, I did a very big face palm

[justincredible]

That's not a Brontosaurus in Jurassic Park btw; it's a Brachiosaurus :)

[jeffreyvaughn]

Poorly titled video. To declare something fake indicates something was intentionally misrepresented or didn't exist at all. It is the adaptive nature of paleontology that is constantly reevaluating conclusions based on new discoveries. Also the most recent conclusion based on a comprehensive comparison of the fossils is that triceratops and torosaurus are two distinct and separate species.

[peetjordaan]

it was a brachiosaurus in jurassic park not a brontosaurus but they had a triceratops

[teop]

Clickbait title.
New research contradicts video.
Save your 3 minutes for something else.

[hi_centipedes]

a minute guys. You mean to tell me the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were just CGI?

[LuigiG]

I'm sorry, DNews. But an osteohistological analysis conducts by Longrich and Field (2012) found that _Torosaurus latus_ and _Triceratops horridus_ are two distinct species.
Number one, Horner and Scanella only used a small sample of specimens, and it just so happened that one of the _Triceratops_ specimens they used was a subadult. The problem is, there are already fully adult _Triceratops_ specimens described, with fully ossified craniofacial sutures that suggest that these _Triceratops_ were even of older ontogenetic (growth) stages than the _Torosaurus_ specimens in Horner and Scanella's analysis.
Furthermore, _Triceratops_ and _Torosaurus_ have a completely different number of episquamosals (those little bony projections that make the frill look like a flower). Episquamosals cannot decrease or increase in number as they are completely ossified to the base of the parietosquamosal frill of ceratopsid dinosaurs. Given that all specimens of _Triceratops_ have a different episquamosal count than specimens of _Torosaurus_, this already calls into question the hypothesis that the _Triceratops_ is a subadult _Torosaurus_.
Finally, there is a huge variation in size between _Triceratops_ individuals that are even the same age, as some can be similar in size to others despite being younger or older. Longrich and Field (2012) even found adult _Triceratops_ specimens older than the described specimens of _Torosaurus_, and one _Torosaurus_ skull involved in the study had visibly un-ossified craniofacial sutures, which suggests that this _Torosaurus_ was a subadult.

And a phylogenetic analysis of diplodocid sauropods conducted by Tschopp et al. (2015) found that _Brontosaurus_ is indeed a distinct genus from _Apatosaurus_, and valid species of _Brontosaurus_ include _Brontosaurus excelsus_, _Brontosaurus yahnahpin_, and _Brontosaurus parvus_.

So no, _Torosaurus_ and _Tricertops_ are two distinct animals. And _Brontosaurus_ is real as of 2015, though I'm gonna let the _Brontosaurus_ thing slide since this video was made before the results on _Brontosaurus_ were published. 

[LittleIslander]

_Brontosaurus_ was actually brought back to a distinct genus last year. Furthermore, it was NEVER a juvenile of a different species; it's always been it's own species within _Apatosaurus_, just not it's own genus.

[AngelEarth]

The creatures that have arguably gone through the biggest transformation are the pterosaurs. They aren't dinosaurs but they're very closely related, and just as many dinosaurs went from being depicted as cold blooded slow moving scaly reptiles to warm blooded fast moving feathered archosaurs, pterosaurs also went from being depicted as winged cold blooded scaly reptiles, to winged warm blooded reptiles with fuzzy pycnofibers, to winged warm blooded archosaurs that had feathers and pycnofibers (which can only mean that feathers evolved millions of years earlier in the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs).