At Least A Third Of Known Dinosaur Kinds And Species May Not Have Existed

 


Back in 2009, the paleontological community made a stunning admission:
 
At least a third of known dinosaur species may not have existed but might have actually been juveniles of other species. [1]  Some cited examples of dinosaurs misidentified as unique dinosaur species but might have actually been juvenile species are triceratops, and lesser known species such as nanotyrannus, Dracorex, stygimoloch and pachycephalosaurus.
 
Triceratops is now believed to be only a partially mature Torosaurus. [2]

Image credit: New Scientist, Montana State University
https://web.archive.org/web/20160703093433/https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713-500-morphosaurs-how-shape-shifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us/

     

          

                

                                                                                                                     Image credit: Wikipedia
                                                                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops_BW.jpg

 

                                                                                    

          

                                                                                                                   Image credit: Wikipedia

                                                                   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Torosaurus_TD.png

 
 
Nanotyrannus is just a juvenile T-Rex. [3]
 
 

                                                                                                            Image credit: Wikipedia
                                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nanotyrannus_lancensis.png

                                                                                                                                Image credit:
                                                            https://jurassic-world-san-diego.fandom.com/wiki/Kifo

 
And Dracorex and stygimoloch are just pachycephalosaurus at different stages of growth and maturity.  [4]

Image credit: New Scientist, Montana State University
https://web.archive.org/web/20160703093433/https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713-500-morphosaurs-how-shape-shifting-dinosaurs-deceived-us/

It is even a well-known fact that juveniles of some animals do not possess the same features of their adult forms.  For example, tadpoles, which are infant version of frogs look vastly different from an adult frog and caterpillars are just the larval stages of moths and butterflies and if the only thing we knew of caterpillars and butterflies were of fossilized remains and had never seen living specimens, we might have thought they were two vastly different lifeforms as well; same with frogs and tadpoles, but because living specimens of frogs and butterflies do exist and have been observed and studied, we have knowledge of their reproductive processes and how their offspring mature.
 
But when it comes to animals that we have never before seen in existence, we know almost nothing about them.  Granted that their remains, depending on their condition and completion may give us some idea as to what they might of looked like, what their diet might have consisted of, and in some cases, even whether they might have been solitary or social creatures, we know nothing beyond what we are able to deduce from the remains.  We don’t know anything of their temperament, we don’t know anything of their mating habits or seasons, we don’t know anything of their means of reproduction in all cases, and that paleontologists have admitted they might have mistaken physically immature members of the same species for different species just goes to show how much we do not know about animals that we have never been able to study and observe alive. 
 
And if paleontologists have mistaken juvenile members of some dinosaur species for separate species, then it is also possible that in some cases, males and females of some kinds of extinct animals may have also been mistaken for separate kinds and species; another possibility that paleontologists have also admitted. [5]

Even the males and females of many different living creatures do not look exactly alike or possess the same features as the other and I am not talking about reproductive anatomy.  For example, when it comes to chickens, roosters have spurs on their feet.  

                                                                        Image credit: Akarawut Lohacharoenvanich, Pinterest

                      https://www.vecteezy.com/png/10792675-white-free-range-male-rooster-isolated-on-white-background

                                                                   The hens don’t.

                                                                                              Image credit: Marlin Crowell, Pinterest                                                https://www.vecteezy.com/png/48394923-young-white-hen-chicken-isolated-on-transparent-background

 
 
And if all we had known about chickens were from fossilized remains and had never seen one actually living, we might very well have easily mistaken hens and roosters as being different species or variations of chicken but we know that this is not the case because we have living specimens that can be studied and observed.
 
Here is another example and maybe an even better one:  Angler fish.  Male angler fish appear vastly different in size and even appearance to the female angler fish as the female angler fish is immensely larger than the male and they both look vastly different from each other.  

                                                                             Image credit: National Geographic
                             https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/facts/anglerfish

                                                                                          Image credit: Australian Geographic                                                                    https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/nature-wildlife/2023/03/the-fish-with-a-parasite-for-a-partner/

 

And if all we knew about angler fish were from fossilized remains and had never seen a living specimen, again, we might think that male and female angler fish, due to the vast differences in their size and appearances, were different types of fish, but because there are living specimens that can be observed and studied we know that this is not the case and that the males of the angler fish species just happen to vastly smaller than the females.

  
The point of all this is that when it comes to the fossilized remains of creatures that have never been observed or studied living, a lot of assumptions, theories, and conjectures are made and which are subject to error and if ever we were to discover living members of creatures presently known only to us by their fossilized remains, much of what we thought of them and imagined about them would be proven wrong.
 
Creationists have often been confronted with the question of how Noah would have been able to fit all the millions of animals both presently living and those no longer living on the ark if the Genesis account of creation and history were true and the best answer that creationists can give is that Noah did not have to bring every single variation or species of each kind on the ark but just representatives of every living kind because the Bible says that before global flood that seven pairs of all fowl and what were designated as clean animals and two pairs of the unclean animals (Gen. 7:2-3) on the ark to keep all the respective kinds and variations alive and there has even been much speculation and even debate within the Young Earth Creationist community as to what would count as a distinct kind in some cases and according to the Hebrew, the word kind, which is called miyn, means not just a distinct kind but can also be defined as a sort or species even within a distinct kind [6] which means that in some cases, there might have been more flexibility within animal kinds that entered onto the Ark than what many Creationists have assumed and insisted.
 
And if it so turns out that a number of dinosaur species may have been misidentified and are only juvenile or male and female members of the same species, then that further solves the problem of how Noah could have had room for all known existing animals on the Ark; there weren’t as many species in existence as was once thought to have been.
 
 
 
 
End notes:
 
 
 
1.  Lin Edwards, “Researchers claim a third of dinosaurs might never have existed,”
Phys.org, October 13, 2009
https://phys.org/news/2009-10-dinosaurs.html
 
2.  Ibid.
 
3.  Ibid.
 
4.  Jillene Bailey, “Shape-shifting dinosaurs,” Creation Ministries International, June 11, 2025
https://creation.com/en/articles/shape-shifting-dinosaurs

5.  Brian Handwerk, “A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?” National Geographic, pg. 2, October 9, 2009
https://web.archive.org/web/20091012014259/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091009-dinosaur-species-never-existed_2.html

6. James T. Strong,  “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance” H 4327, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990, original Strong’s Concordance published in 1890
 
 
 
Scripture references:
 
 
 
1.  Genesis 7:2-3