In the flurry of early paleontology every hunter wanted to make a name for themselves and every museum wanted a big skeleton to display. When uncovereing skeletons during digs, any minor differences in skulls and size were attributed to a different species, or similar species from the same family tree. Where are the babies though? Could it be that what was previously thought of as a different species are actually different stages of development for the same species?
Horner makes so much sense with this logical research - I don't often come on here and praise mainstream scientists but I think they are spot on with this. If you know any kids, show them this video quickly as it turns out they have a good few less dinosaur names to remember!
I'm just glad the consensus is to keep the first name, so we don't lose Triceratops.
Jones: [looks at Sallah] You said their headpiece only had markings on one side, are you absolutely sure? [Sallah nods] Belloq's staff is too long. Jones and Sallah: They're digging in the wrong place!
The video was interesting to say the least. I had never thought of that matter in such a way before since it wasn't that interesting to me while growing up. I always thought Jurassic Park to be just best guesses of what dinosaurs would've looked like. Didn't think about their little ones though, untill that video.
The guy is right about scientists and their egos or should we say "scientists" not to be confused with real researchers, who consider more possibilities.
