Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-25118285-20160124174440/@comment-26934287-20160416202646

Tyranno66 wrote: Topkek12 wrote: ASDFGirl wrote: Topkek12 wrote: Tyranno66 wrote: Topkek12 wrote: Tyranno66 wrote: Topkek12 wrote: Tyranno66 wrote: Topkek12 wrote: ASDFGirl wrote: 81.84.110.5 wrote: The quills are innacurate as it is right now. From what it seems instead of quills Triceartops had large like, really large scales on it's back. Once again, we need to know where you got that info The quills were along the tail; you show pictures of the back. There is a quilled individual in the Museum of natural science of Houston TX. I want a link to that. Just to see the credibility of that statement. http://bigstory.ap.org/content/houston-museum-unveils-85-million-dinosaur-hallIt was a bit of searching as there is no study about it yet (since they'll release it when analylzing all of the mummy and that can take decades) Well, that article already had it wrong when saying that it's the 'only Triceratops skin found to date', which is incorrect seeing as there are multiple unpublished Triceratops skin impressions. Now it's my time to ask for a link. Voila. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/triceratops-wasnt-toxic-53573135/?no-isthttp://markwitton-com.blogspot.pt/2015/12/dinosaur-scales-some-thoughts-for.html All three articles (including tyranno's) are about the same one - Lane the triceratops at Houston And the point is? " Well, that article already had it wrong when saying that it's the 'only Triceratops skin found to date', which is incorrect seeing as there are multiple unpublished Triceratops skin impressions."

Said by you literally 11 minutes ago. Well, maybe the 'multiple' part was not exactly correct. But the point still stands that there is no hard evidence towards long, porcupine-like quills.