Controversial Triceratops Quill/Feather Theory EXPLAINED (and more)

[@houstonmuseum]

What do you think? Have any questions about Triceratops or anything else in paleontology? Let us know in the comments! We'd love to feature future videos based on your questions! :)

[@FossilFinder12]

Could you make a video about the stegosaurus and allosaurus and how there’s stegosaurus thagamizer impressions in the allosaurus’s pubic bone? And talk about how the stegosaurus aimed said thagamizer?

[@houstonmuseum]

@@FossilFinder12 Pow! kzbin.info2HMg1DKh9Xc?feature=share

[@FossilFinder12]

@@houstonmuseum thanks!

[@houstonmuseum]

@@FossilFinder12 I do want to make a specific short about the origin of "thagomizer."

[@FossilFinder12]

@@houstonmuseum id totally watch that

[@FredtheDinosaurman]

I like this explanation and communication a lot more than the last few videos on the same subject. This person communicated the science clearly. He established and defined the theory/hypothesis and clarified its level of possibility, rather than talking in absolutes. "Triceratops *may* have had quills" is a lot more honest and better than "Triceratops *did* have quills". A big and important difference, especially in Science communication. Nice video.

[@TheMightyN]

What's amazing is how dumb most Paleontologists get to finding the obvious answers.

[@RealBelisariusCawl]

I found out about this specimen through a YTShort claiming definite proof, thought “that’s an awfully determinate statement to make” and spent a while trying to find someone presenting the SCIENCE.

[@houstonmuseum]

@@RealBelisariusCawl That was us. I thought it deserved a more reasonable, thoughtful explanation. -Johnny, YT Manager

[@ShunkUp]

The base of the clade has clear quills on several psittacosaurus specimens (not just one). These pits are an excellent match for scaled up quill attachment. The feature is most likely to almost certainly a quill and IMHO we should include them on the reconstructions. There is always uncertainty.

[@jrbaxterstockman548]

I wouldn't be surprised if infant / juvenile triceratops had more prevalent quills. They wouldn't really have much in the way of horns. And I think their frills wouldn't be hard yet if hornlets have reabsorped into the bone. Just an extension of the theory

[@Bagelgeuse]

0:14 That's actually John Conway's Triceratops from All Yesterdays. I would not be surprised if Triceratops and other ceratopsids had a sparse covering of filaments left over from their ancestors that didn't serve a mechanical function. Kinda like elephant hair.

[@houstonmuseum]

Your elephant hair analogy is precisely my personal theory. I don't think it's far fetched at all. Many large modern animals have very thick hair follicles. - Johnny

[@brianhammer5107]

I would be very surprised. These animals came from a very different line than coleurosaurs.

[@brianhammer5107]

@@houstonmuseum but Johnny ..... these animals are not mammals ... and if you look at the rest of the fossil record of non-avian, non-Coelurosaur dinos ....

[@Bagelgeuse]

@@brianhammer5107 Kulindadromeus, Tianyulong, and Psittacosaurus are also not coelurosaues, but they've been found with preserved filaments.

[@brianhammer5107]

@@Bagelgeuse filaments are not feathers - and Psittacosaurus is very contested - may be a chimera

[@andrewshear2927]

Wow that is very interesting. I don't know but the evidence seems to lean in that direction.

[@houstonmuseum]

That's why I love Colin's explanation. He explains exactly where the theory comes from, but that it certainly isn't the only theory.

[@william3100]

In what direction? The quill/feather idea or the highly ornamented scale idea?

[@andrewshear2927]

Oh sorry, the quill idea.

[@william3100]

@@andrewshear2927 what makes you think the quill idea is more likely to you than the ornamented scale idea? The guy in the video didn't really explain the likelihood of it in detail.

[@brianhammer5107]

well, they weren't feathers - for sure ..... and the 'quills' found on the earlier species ARE controversial, some paleos even stating they are not part of that dinosaur's fossil at all but are part of a plant that was fossilized with it - more study is needed

[@michaeldeak5727]

More recent studies show morphological similarities with turkey beards and bristles on Congo peafowl. They're definitely not plants.....

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

I love this channel! ❤ I love collecting things...rocks, bones, feathers.... learning about dinosaurs and other ancient animals, to me, is just a continuation of learning about my favorite things.

[@Iheartgametheory]

Awesome video dude. When I get the money I want to see Lane as soon as possible.

[@houstonmuseum]

You can see her for free every Tuesday from 5p-8p!

[@Dinozilla2009]

I always have been to your museum so many time I love it so much but when is saw the skin I had seen the holes and I hat thought that it had quills

[@Thedude-mo1sn]

Those look like holes from fighting with other triceratops

[@BulletSponge178]

Not remotely. They're not Nerf horns. Those are delicate dimples compared to what horns would do.

[@TheMightyN]

Except beetles do tend to burrow in things like bone or a carcass--much would those burrows be organized. So, how are we positive these depressions don't belong to an insect?

[@william3100]

Probably because the animals skin was lying down flat on the ground when it died. The beetles would have to burrow up through the dirt with the skin pressing down on it or dig through the other side to get to those points, which doesn't make any sense to me. I think those beetles burrow into animal skin on the top where it's much easier to form organized spaces between them instead of underneath.

[@TheMightyN]

@@william3100 Not necessarily. Most, if not, some species of beetle would prefer brooding their eggs in a carcass, providing the incubating larva the nutrients contained from the animal it'll later consume.

[@william3100]

​​@@TheMightyN but then the larvae, when grown enough, will come out from the top side rather than on the ground-facing side of the carcass into the ground. Those beetles implement the eggs into the carcass from the top-facing side I presume? That would mean that the holes go inward rather than outward like the fossils. Edit: they also only do that for small animals like small birds and rodents. Not to megafauna like triceratops. That's because they have cover the carcass in inches of dirt before rolling them into a ball, then lay the eggs in. I just found out about that. Unless you're assuming giant man-sized beetles existed back then, I don't see that happening.

[@scatman9166]

Because the spikes are always located in the centre of a large scale, if they were made by insects they’d be randomly placed. They also correspond to a divot in the skin impression on the ground. Whether or not triceratops had quills it almost certainly had some sort of lump or spike on those scales

[@haileymiller7382]

Keep in mind this is an imprint like putting your hand in mud instead of there being a lump in the mud its going to be a "hole" so all those deeper spots you're seeing are going to be lumps on the dinosaur

[@cb5600]

Maybe the tendon is a quill?