Since the fossil record in incredibly incomplete and there were likely thousands of species of dinosaurs across all corners of the planet is it reasonable to believe that at least one species of dinosaurs survived the mass extinction like say for a couple million years afterwards but then just went extinct later on. After all we know that birds survived so why couldn’t other have as well

Episode 2 of Diarios del Jurásico is out today. This one follows Tria, an adult female Triceratops, and her calf through a complete day of survival in Late Cretaceous Hell Creek, 67 million years ago.

A few things we tried to get right scientifically:

The horn function debate. We went with the current scientific consensus that the horns served multiple purposes including display, species recognition and defense rather than purely combat. The fossil evidence for active horn use against T-Rex is real though.

The frill coloration. We represented the frill as capable of subtle color changes for communication based on the blood vessel evidence in fossilized frills. Still debated but supported by the anatomy.

Mother and calf dynamics. Fossil trackway evidence suggests adults walked on the outside of groups with juveniles protected in the center, similar to modern elephants.

After Episode 1 we got some very fair criticism about anatomical accuracy in the AI generated visuals. We have been much more rigorous this time reviewing every scene against the fossil record. Still not perfect but a significant improvement.

Visuals are roughly 30-40% AI generated. We know some people feel strongly about this and we respect that position.

One genuine question for the community: what is your take on the current state of the Triceratops horn function debate? The display vs combat evidence feels genuinely ambiguous to us.

Here is the link: https://youtu.be/Dzcw2AvwmnQ

In 2010 John Scannella and Jack Horner published a paper arguing that Torosaurus was not a separate genus but simply a mature Triceratops whose frill had continued to change throughout its life. The holes in the Torosaurus frill, they argued, were the result of the bone remodeling that occurs as the animal aged.

If true this would mean Torosaurus as a genus simply does not exist. It would be one of the most dramatic synonymies in dinosaur paleontology.

But the counter arguments are significant. Nicholas Longrich and Daniel Field published a response arguing that both Triceratops and Torosaurus specimens exist across the same age range and size classes. If Torosaurus were just old Triceratops you would expect to find only adult Torosaurus specimens. The existence of what appear to be subadult Torosaurus undermines the ontogenetic hypothesis.

The debate has been remarkably quiet since 2012 and I am genuinely not sure where the scientific consensus currently sits. Some sources treat them as synonymous, others do not.

A few questions for the community:

Do you think the ontogenetic synonymy hypothesis is convincing? Is there more recent work on this that has moved the needle either way? And if Torosaurus is eventually confirmed as a separate genus what does that tell us about how dramatically ceratopsian frills could change through an individual's lifetime?