Triceratops vs Pachyrhinosaurus

[Deleted]

Triceratops

Individual Triceratops are estimated to have reached about 7.9 to 9.0 m (26.0–29.5 ft) in length, 2.9 to 3.0 m (9.5–9.8 ft) in height, and 6.1–12.0 tonnes (13,000–26,000 lb) in weight. The most distinctive feature is their large skull, among the largest of all land animals. The largest known skull (specimen BYU 12183) is estimated to have been 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) in length when complete, and could reach almost a third of the length of the entire animal. It bore a single horn on the snout, above the nostrils, and a pair of horns approximately 1 m (3 ft) long, with one above each eye. To the rear of the skull was a relatively short, bony frill, adorned with epoccipitals in some specimens. Most other ceratopsids had large fenestrae in their frills, while those of Triceratops were noticeably solid.

Pachyrhinosaurus

The largest Pachyrhinosaurus species were 8 metres (26 ft) long. It weighed about four tons. They were herbivorous and possessed strong cheek teeth to help them chew tough, fibrous plants.Instead of horns, their skulls bore massive, flattened bosses; a large boss over the nose and a smaller one over the eyes. A prominent pair of horns grew from the frill and extended upwards. The skull also bore several smaller horns or ornaments that varied between individuals and between species. In P. canadensis and P. perotorum, the bosses over the nose and eyes nearly grew together, and were separated only by a narrow groove. In P. lakustai, the two bosses were separated by a wide gap. In P. canadensis and P. lakustai, the frill bore two additional small, curved, backward-pointed horns. These were not present in P. perotorum, and in fact some specimens of P. lakustai also lack them, which may indicate that the presence of these horns varied by age or sex.

[Deleted]

I cannot see how a at least 2 ton-smaller hornless ceratopsian would have a chance against a larger better armed one, but since dinopithecus requested it maybe he will enlighten me. Right now I say its a mismatch.

[Cr1TiKaL]

Mismatch. Trike is too big and has far superior weaponry

[Godzillasaurus]

Triceratops gores the much smaller centrosaurine... Thus, it is the winner here

[Dinopithecus]

There is a debate on whether Pachyrhinosaurus had a purely keratinous horn (like rhinos) or just a boss (as normally depicted). At one point, I didn't feel inclined to favor one over the other (even slightly).



Until earlier today where I found a paper where I got the impression that they were saying a boss is probably more likely.

So, yeah, Triceratops will mostly win against a bossed centrosaurine. Hell, I might even slightly back it over even a horned Pachy given its 1-2t bigger (though it would certainly be close, and at parity, 50/50). But Pachyrhinosaurus still has the beak as a weapon and if it somehow got a chance to deliver enough blunt trauma, it could win at times.


Thank you fishfan for making it, may I add.

[Deleted]

Nov 29, 2013 18:52:53 GMT -5 Dinopithecus said:

There is a debate on whether Pachyrhinosaurus had a purely keratinous horn (like rhinos) or just a boss (as normally depicted). At one point, I didn't feel inclined to favor one over the other (even slightly).



Until earlier today where I found a paper where I got the impression that they were saying a boss is probably more likely.

So, yeah, Triceratops will mostly win against a bossed centrosaurine. Hell, I might even slightly back it over even a horned Pachy given its 1-2t bigger (though it would certainly be close, and at parity, 50/50). But Pachyrhinosaurus still has the beak as a weapon and if it somehow got a chance to deliver enough blunt trauma, it could win at times.


Thank you fishfan for making it, may I add.

What was the reason anybody would assume pachyrhinosaurus had a horn when it wasnt found with anything on its nose? All other horned ceratopsians have at least some horn bone on their skull. I understand that those horns where still covered in keratin, but for one species to have just a keratinous horn while its very close relatives also have a bone horn is unlikely in my opinion. As for the beak, while I understand animals with similar kinds of beaks, like parrots and turtles have high bite forces I dont think it would be effective against an heavy-built opponent only because it can be hard to get a good grip on such a body type.

And you're welcome. If you want more threads just request some and I'll do my best to make them as soon as possible. Its good to get some activity.

[Carcharadontosaurus]

Mismatch in favor of triceratops, even against a horned pachy, it is just much bigger and better armed.

[Dinopithecus]

Nov 30, 2013 18:29:30 GMT -5 @fishfan said:

Nov 29, 2013 18:52:53 GMT -5 Dinopithecus said:

There is a debate on whether Pachyrhinosaurus had a purely keratinous horn (like rhinos) or just a boss (as normally depicted). At one point, I didn't feel inclined to favor one over the other (even slightly).



Until earlier today where I found a paper where I got the impression that they were saying a boss is probably more likely.

So, yeah, Triceratops will mostly win against a bossed centrosaurine. Hell, I might even slightly back it over even a horned Pachy given its 1-2t bigger (though it would certainly be close, and at parity, 50/50). But Pachyrhinosaurus still has the beak as a weapon and if it somehow got a chance to deliver enough blunt trauma, it could win at times.


Thank you fishfan for making it, may I add.

What was the reason anybody would assume pachyrhinosaurus had a horn when it wasnt found with anything on its nose? All other horned ceratopsians have at least some horn bone on their skull. I understand that those horns where still covered in keratin, but for one species to have just a keratinous horn while its very close relatives also have a bone horn is unlikely in my opinion. As for the beak, while I understand animals with similar kinds of beaks, like parrots and turtles have high bite forces I dont think it would be effective against an heavy-built opponent only because it can be hard to get a good grip on such a body type.

And you're welcome. If you want more threads just request some and I'll do my best to make them as soon as possible. Its good to get some activity.

The boss is believed by some to have anchored a purely keratinous horn. Some people have stated that the possibility of keratin weapons on bosses cannot be ruled out.

I see nothing wrong with some genera having bone horns and only a few genera with keratinous horns. I'm pretty sure some rhinocerotid genera have/had horns while some didn't. I can see some ceratopsids having horns of different composition.

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2013 9:00:31 GMT -5 Dinopithecus said:

Nov 30, 2013 18:29:30 GMT -5 @fishfan said:

What was the reason anybody would assume pachyrhinosaurus had a horn when it wasnt found with anything on its nose? All other horned ceratopsians have at least some horn bone on their skull. I understand that those horns where still covered in keratin, but for one species to have just a keratinous horn while its very close relatives also have a bone horn is unlikely in my opinion. As for the beak, while I understand animals with similar kinds of beaks, like parrots and turtles have high bite forces I dont think it would be effective against an heavy-built opponent only because it can be hard to get a good grip on such a body type.

And you're welcome. If you want more threads just request some and I'll do my best to make them as soon as possible. Its good to get some activity.

The boss is believed by some to have anchored a purely keratinous horn. Some people have stated that the possibility of keratin weapons on bosses cannot be ruled out.

I see nothing wrong with some genera having bone horns and only a few genera with keratinous horns. I'm pretty sure some rhinocerotid genera have/had horns while some didn't. I can see some ceratopsids having horns of different composition.

No rhino has ever been found with a bony horn core. All other ceratopsians have been found with bony horn cores. I dont see why pachyrhinosaurus would only have a keratinous horn when all its close relatives do not. Its not like there are any rhino species that are different then their relatives horn structure. I think its more likely that it just lost the sharp horn completely and it reshaped into the boss for whatever reason. Is there any other reason as to why the pachy may have had a horn instead of a boss?

[Dinopithecus]

Dec 1, 2013 12:19:43 GMT -5 @fishfan said:

Dec 1, 2013 9:00:31 GMT -5 Dinopithecus said:

The boss is believed by some to have anchored a purely keratinous horn. Some people have stated that the possibility of keratin weapons on bosses cannot be ruled out.

I see nothing wrong with some genera having bone horns and only a few genera with keratinous horns. I'm pretty sure some rhinocerotid genera have/had horns while some didn't. I can see some ceratopsids having horns of different composition.

No rhino has ever been found with a bony horn core. All other ceratopsians have been found with bony horn cores. I dont see why pachyrhinosaurus would only have a keratinous horn when all its close relatives do not. Its not like there are any rhino species that are different then their relatives horn structure. I think its more likely that it just lost the sharp horn completely and it reshaped into the boss for whatever reason. Is there any other reason as to why the pachy may have had a horn instead of a boss?

I didn't say there were rhinos with bone horns. I said some rhinos had horns (keratin) while others didn't, thus it wouldn't be so hard to believe for family members to have different features. I see nothing wrong with one genus having one thing and another genus another.


However, this is irrelevant since I found a study, which, judging from its context, concluded a boss is more likely from comparing the texture of the boss and at of living animals (muskoxen, rhinos).

www.academia.edu/229159/The_facial_integument_of_Pachyrhinosaurus_Ceratopsidae_Ornithischia_Morphological_and_histological_correlates_of_novel_skin_structures

[Just some guy]

Edit: they're making guesses off of highly eroded bone textures. While it's still likely the most probable idea, a horn is still very possible, as a guy I recently conversed with put it. But really? Is it so damn hard to think they went from bone horn to keratin horn?

[destroyer]

you guys are stupid

[destroyer]

you guys hardly know about dinosaurs

[Cr1TiKaL]

Nov 13, 2015 16:14:31 GMT -5 destroyer said:

you guys are stupid

You actually came to this thread just to say something as idiotic as that? Why? If you would have had a better understanding of dinosaurs then you would actually post on which animal wins this match-up.

Anyway, Triceratops is much bigger and has far better weaponry. I can't really see any advantage Pachyrhinosaurus has over Triceratops. Triceratops takes this, about 8-9/10.

[Just some guy]

@destroyer You call people stupid an unknowledgable on a subject yet you provide no reasoning for such statements? That tells me you should speak for yourself.

Anyway, while I still think Triceratops wins, I may have underestimated Pachyrhinosaurus' formidability. While the ability to pierce something (Triceratops) is likely still better than blunt force ramming (Pachyrhinosaurus), at these multi-ton scales, the latter will be far deadlier than it would be at smaller scales. I'm not sure of a perhaps 50% heavier Triceratops (~4t vs. ~6t?), but something similar in size to Pachyrhinosaurus could suffer serious consequences if it got rammed by the thick-nosed ceratopsian.