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 given to one of the discoveries, 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!
