Devils Tower

Devils Tower National Monument(NPS site and the Wikipedia article) is a massive tower of igneous rocks in eastern Wyoming (apparently I have really wanted to talk about Wyoming recently), very close to the border with South Dakota. I have personally been there, photo left is from my trip there during the summer of 2007, and I must saying standing look up toward to top of the tower really makes you feel insignificant. This area is sacred to the Native American tribes (see here) in the area and is a climber's dream, they only allow a limited number of climbers a year (see here) and seeing the climbers up against the sheer rock surfaces really makes you realize just how huge it truly is, you probably get the idea that it is huge by now. The formation of the rocks themselves are very well understood so you can imagine my surprise when I saw this on the left hand side of Conservapedia:

"Atheists have no plausible explanation for Devils Tower, which sits in a plain like a watch found on a beach."

Couple of things about that. First Atheists are not the ones studying the geology of Devils Tower, that would be geologists. I personally know plenty of geologists that believe in God. But beyond the semantics and wording of the statement geologists do have explanations for the formation of Devils Tower, if you have ever been to the visitors center at the site you would know (or just been to the NPS site). In fact the idea that it was formed by Igneous rocks pushing up through the older sedimentary rocks has been around since the late 1800's. Effinger (1934) summarizes this discussion well:

Carpenter (1888) interpreted Devils Tower to represent a volcanic plug, being the duct through which the subterranean magmas passed to higher level in the earth's crust. Russell (1896) proposed the name plutonic plug for the intrusive bodies of the Black Hills, stating that they differ from the laccoliths described by G. K. Gilbert (1877) in the fact that the molten rock did not spread out horizontally among the stratified beds so as to form "stone cisterns", although some of the hills not thoroughly examined by him might reveal this structure with further study. "As they are composed of igneous matter forced into sedimentary strata and have a plug-like form, it will be convenient to call them plutonic plugs." Devils Tower is believed by him to represent an extreme type of plug, the part now remaining being an erosional remnant, where the arch of stratified rock which once surmounted the summit of the mass has been completely removed and the surrounding strata eroded away.

This pretty much means that it is an igneous rock and may have the same source as many of the other igneous mountains in the area. Effinger (1934) summarize the origin of Devils Tower as such:

From a consideration of the evidence presented it would seem most reasonable to believe that Devils Tower represents a remnant of a laccolith, probably rather small in comparison with others of the Black Hills, and separate from the Laccolith of the Little Missouri Buttes. It would seem probable that the duct through which the igneous material was injected lies beneath the tower or the talus. The stages in the formation of Devils Tower according to this hypothesis might be represented diagramatically as is shown in the succeeding charts.

Several more years of study lead to Robinson (1956) saying:

Much more detailed geologic work will have to be done in the surrounding area before the mode of origin of Devils Tower may be proved conclusively. The evidence gathered during the present investigation, however, suggests that Devils Tower is a body of intrusive igneous rock, which was never much larger in diameter than the present base of the Tower, and which at depth (1,000 feet or more) is connected to a sill or laccolith type body. The bases for this theory are—

1. The exposed portion of the Tower is the result of recent erosion. At the time of its intrusion it was surrounded and probably covered by several hundred feet of sedimentary rock.

2. The mineral composition and texture are more typical of shallow intrusive rocks, which are formed at depth, than extrusive rocks, which are formed on the surface.

3. No evidence of extrusive igneous activity has been found in the surrounding area.

4. Missouri Buttes, about 4 miles to the northwest, and the Tower have the same composition so it is assumed that they were derived from a common magma; possibly the magma of a large intrusive body, such as a laccolith or sill.

5. In a well drilled about 1-1/2 miles southwest of Missouri Buttes, near the center of a structural dome, rock similar to the Tower and Missouri Buttes was encountered at about 1,400 feet below the base of Missouri Buttes. Inasumuch as the thickness of the sedimentary rocks in this area is normally much greater than this depth, the rock in the drill hole probably represents an intrusive body, rather than the Precambrian igneous rocks upon which the younger sedimentary rocks were deposited.

6. The relatively small amount of talus, slope wash, or terrace gravel derived from the Tower and Missouri Buttes suggests that they have not been extensively eroded, and therefore the original igneous bodies were not much larger than at present.

7. Columnar jointing is common in intrusive bodies formed at comparatively shallow depths.

But wait these paper says that there are still questions as to the origin of Devils Tower. Yes in a way, we know it is igneous and we know how it got to where it is so when I think origin this is what I mean but the main question right now is did this igneous rock reach the surface and form a volcano (Effinger, 1934; Robinson, 1956). In other words we know what Devils Tower is and how it got there, but we don't know if it reached the surface, far from a question of origins.

So I figured I would check to see what the Conservapedia article of Devils Tower said to see if maybe there was further explanation. The relevant part of the article reads (click here to read the version of the article from the date I read the article, 8/28/2010):

There are two implausible atheistic theories about the origin of Devils Tower:

one theory is that it was formed by molten igneous rock forcing its way into the area's sedimentary rock, cooling before reaching the surface, and the sedimentary rock being eroded away.[2]

the other theory is that Devils Tower is the remains of a volcano, though no other evidence of volcanic activity has been found in the area.

Both theories are baseless and absurd because there is no extrusive igneous activity in the area, and there is no evidence of volcanic activity in the area either.[3]

Intelligent design explains the rock well: it is a work of art worth seeing.

Hey look those are in fact the two competing ideas for what happened during the formation of Devils Tower. My question is how does not finding extrusive igneous rock near by invalidate both hypothesis? No extrusive igneous activity would tend to lead to the first theory you stated that the magma did not reach the surface. The only thing is that area that was the surface at the time has since eroded away which could lead to the possibility of the magma as having reached the surface but it is something we will most likely never know for sure, although maybe there is a more recent paper that I didn't find that has settled the debate. I also don't see how a rock monolith shows intelligent design but I will agree with them on one thing, this National Monument is definitely worth going to see at some time. I'll leave you with one more of my pictures this time of the talus pile at the base of the tower.


Sources:
Effinger, W.L., 1934, A report on the geology of Devils Tower National Monument: National Park Service, Field Division of Education: Berkeley, California

Robinson, C.S., 1956, Geology of Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1021-1

Both papers can be read online if you want to read the whole thing Effinger (1934), click on contents on the left hand side, and Robinson (1956), click on table of contents on the bottom of the screen and from there you can navigate to any part of the paper. I found them thanks to this site which has a list of papers published about many of the National Park Service entities.

National Park Service Series

Say it ain't so Wyoming

I was born in the state of Wyoming (I lived there for 2 months oh the memories) and both my parents went to the University of Wyoming so I will read a story about the state when I happen across it. Lately the stories that I have been seeing haven't been so pleasant. I know a lot of people still remember what happened right around a year ago now with the University of Wyoming Geological Museum, this was bad enough to get my dad to pull some of the money he give to the University and instead gave it to the group that kept the museum open, if you don't remember Chinleana has the reasoning, the University posted an article about the people who donated to help keep the museum open, (also if you are on facebook become a fan of, or like or whatever the heck it is, the Save the University of Wyoming Geological Museum). Over the past week a few other stories have grabbed my attention and these ones are not good either.

The first one I found here (the Guardian article and NPR article that inspired it). I don't know why I didn't say something when I first read it but now the author has another article in which he mentions sending a letter to the Governor of Wyoming and he asked for help. I figured I would say something even if it is just my little blog with very few followers. The story comes down to the state owns some land within Grand Teton National Park, to see all the federal land within Wyoming go here (for your own state go here), that is to be used for educational purposes but the Governor is planning on selling the land off to private citizens. While this would be allowed if the Governor used the money for schools, which he said he would, it would be a severe disappointment and would drastically reduce the beauty of the area if a private developer put houses or what have you within the park. Now states all over the country are looking for money right now so I guess I understand why the Governor would want money. Oh wait maybe not:

We're not short of revenue. We're in pretty good shape. Our revenues are ahead of projections. We’re sitting on about $800 million in cash reserves and we expect the next projections to show revenue probably $200 million to $300 million over projections. So this thing about the Grand Teton is not driven by that.

I remember going through the Tetons when I was like 5 years old between that the Geologic Museum and Yellowstone that is all the I remember from Wyoming. The problem is that the Governor of Wyoming doesn't really seem to care what people outside of the state think (see next story) so it is going to come down to people within Wyoming sending angry mail to the Governor before he is going to stop.

So this next story just makes me shake my head. Years ago, 1995, wolves were first reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in Idaho and Wyoming. This was an attempt to get back these animals to number before humans had hunted them to extinction in the Western United States (the Wikipedia article is a good read). Last week a federal judge angered people in Idaho and Montana when he ruled that since Wyoming isn't being very protective of the wolves the EPA cannot allow hunting to go on in those two states. Since Wyoming allows the killing of wolves within 80% of the state by whatever means this will prevent wolves from getting back to sustainable numbers within the state. I ran across another story today in which the Governor says that if the Federal government want to save the wolves than they can pay for them. No seriously he did:

“I don’t want to spend any state money on it,” he [Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming] said of wolf management. “Let the feds do it. Why should I pay state money to be a toady to the federal government?”

Why should you pay state money, oh I don't know, maybe because people in your state killed them all off, yes I know the people who did it aren't alive anymore point still stands. Later the article says this:

The most recent court decision stripping Montana’s and Idaho’s authority over wolves said the Endangered Species Act couldn’t be bifurcated across state lines. In other words, wolves in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana either all had to be under federal protection or all under acceptable state plans that ensure their persistence.

That could make Montana and Idaho put pressure on Wyoming to reject the predator zone in favor of trophy game status statewide. Under such a scheme, wolf shooters in Wyoming would need a license, although seasons and limits could be liberal.

But Freudenthal said he didn’t care about pressure from other states.

“Neither has 100 percent of the state in the recovery area,” he said. “We do.”

This is why I don't think he will care if people from outside of the state of Wyoming care about the selling of land within the National Parks. He doesn't care what people think of his state, that he could lose tourist dollars apparently doesn't scare him much either.

Govenor please stop playing politics with the environment!

20 years and $7.6 Million

So apparently today is the 71st anniversary of the premiere of the Wizard of Oz, thanks google, but as you may have guessed from the title that isn't what this post is about. Today marks the 20th anniversary of the discovery of Sue the Tyrannosaurus rex. Sue may be the most famous example of her species and a lot of that revolves around the long and difficult story it took for her to finally end up at The Field Museum in Chicago, Brian Switek at Dinosaur Tracking has a good summary of the events (here) so I don't feel that I need to rehash them.

What often gets left out of the story is that while yes there was the whole disagreement over where the fossil was found, typically the Black Hills Institute (BHI) is treated as the good guys who got screwed over. While the BHI is better than most it is still in fact a for profit group. So this means that while they do publish a lot on what they find they still do sell to private collections so examples like this whale will not be around for future research. I have discussed this previously so I won't worry about retyping it up here.

What is the use of Geology in Louisiana

So Louisiana is at it again, and by it I mean doing something that they will probably regret in the long hall. So while I have covered many other things that I consider stupid in political actions in Louisiana (see here and here) this threatens the very safety of the state itself. The current budget for the upcoming fiscal year at LSU does not cover the cost of the Louisiana Geological Survey (Source).

Let me give you a little background. Unlike most states where the state geological survey is under the control of the state government directly in Louisiana the geological survey exists within the auspices of Louisiana State University, see link article for why. Well over the last few years LSU, along with most other major public universities, have been facing budget shortfalls. This is bad because it means that the universities must make some sacrifices this typically entails no new hires until the economy is turned around. LSU was facing a bigger budget crisis than most other major universities to the point that programs as large as some library functions were in the talks to get cut. Unfortunately for LGS they are one of the programs that is currently on the chopping block.

Now I am probably a little biased because I am a geologist by training but I find not just the LGS but also the USGS and most geological surveys to be important to the infrastructure of the state/country. In Louisiana this is especially important. Why? The main reason is that Louisiana's very existence is dependent on what the LGS finds.

LGS Director Chacko John said he was not previously approached about the decision, and he was surprised when he heard LGS was facing the axe in the next round of budget cuts.
John stressed the importance of the department’s work to the oil and gas industry. The LGS discovers new oil and gas deposits using geological mapping, which greatly benefit the industry.

John said no institution in the state ranks near LGS in many areas, like modeling of aquifers, locating of natural resources and mapping the state.

It is also important in these state completely dependent on the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico that it understands how levees on the sides of the river work because the elevation of New Orleans is between -6.5 and 20 feet (-2 and 6 meters) (Source). This makes the area prone to massive storm damage during hurricanes (see Hurricane Katrina). Also the geologic map of Louisiana is currently out of date and the LGS is in the process of updating it this will help with future understanding of both where the Mississippi River has been and where it might go in the future and how we can save lives.

So I plead with you Louisiana save the Louisiana Geological Survey, and to anyone who might be reading this make sure you spread the word.

Here's your sign

If I may quote Bill Engvall's classic line referring to someone's utter stupidity the following fits it to a T.

So I have grown cautious about linking people to Conservapedia of late, mostly because it just inflates their already overgrown egos over there, but what people have been saying as of late is too good not too. See it makes sense if Conservapedia argues against Evolution or even global climate, change those are typically things on the conservative agenda. Recently they have decided to take on Einstein's Theory of Relativity posting two articles (here and here). Now I don't have any real reason to say what has already been said instead I will direct you to the place to find out just how crazy these two articles are, an article on Climate Progress entitled
Conservapedia: The theory of relativity is a liberal plot
Except when it is being used to defend the 6000-year age of the Earth or attack Copernicus.
It is a good read but be prepared to have your mind blown by how crazy what they are trying to push over at Conservapedia.

Or you could just watch the excellent break down of the situation by Rachel Maddow below:


This is a perfect place for Bill to step in for us.
"Here's your sign"

Definition of Gish Gallop

So the technique known as Gish Gallop is a common creationist tactic used to confuse an argument by throwing out so much information that if the person they are arguing against tries to refute it all they will be spending hours doing it. The technique may have been made famous but Dr. Duane Gish but I think Eric Hovind, yes the son of Kent Hovind, has perfected it.



Everything he said in lesss than a minute I could refute but it would take me several days. Now that is just inpressive.

To college or not to college?

So as someone currently pursuing a masters degree you can probably guess where I stand on the question in the title, college then more college then more college etc. So when I came across this article advocating not going to college I read through what he had to say and thought oh man I have to say something. Now most of what needs to be said has been said over and over again in the comments on the article itself but I still had to have my 2 cents, this is the Internet after all we are all allowed to our 2 cents.

I will address each of his points one at a time.

1. More than 60% of people entering college take more than four years to graduate. So whatever you think your kids are going to cost you to go to college, add 20% to 100%.

He is right that most people take longer than 4 years to finish but that is because most 18 year olds don't know what they want to do when they grow up

"It's taking me more than four years basically because when I arrived here I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life. I floated between a couple of different majors and then tried for bilingual education. I love it and it's my dream job," Howerter said. "Now I just want to get my bachelor's as quickly as possible, and get my teaching certificates through a master's program."

What you major in is typically a life long decision and something that should be thought out carefully but most colleges want you to decide right away. While this might be a flaw in the system some schools are making a change and not letting you decide until after your first or second year so you have taken your core area classes and know what might interest you before you decide on a major. You also have to consider that an increasing of jobs now require, or would prefer, you to have a masters degree. This is college that also has to be added on but often times, especially in the sciences, a lot of this extra schooling is assisted by the University.

2. The cost of the average college tuition has gone up nine-fold since 1976 versus seven-fold for health care and three-fold for inflation.

A good reason for this is found by doing a quick google search for funding for universities. Universities are dependent on states for some of their funding and as this has decreased the cost has to be passed on to someone, not saying it is right but a university is a business after all. You want to slow the rate of tuition increase ask your state and federal representatives to increase funding to your state universities.

3. The differential in lifetime income between a college graduate and a non-college graduate over a 45 year career is approximately $800,000 (read on).

I can not speak for this number for sure but he doesn't cite a source so I have no idea where he got it from.

4. If I put that $200,000 that I would've spent per child to cover tuition costs, living expenses, books, etc. into bonds yielding just 3% (any muni bonds) and let it compound for 49 years (adding back in the 4 years of college), I get $851,000. So my kids can avoid college and still end up with the same amount in the worst case.

I really have no idea where that $200,000 amount came from. The college board states:

For the 2009-10 academic year, average tuition and fees range from $2,544 at public two-year colleges and $5,930 at public baccalaureate colleges, to $32,349 at private doctorate-granting universities. The average published price at private baccalaureate colleges is $24,040; at for-profit institutions it is $14,174.

Even if you take the largest number in there you end up with less than $130,000 over 4 years and if the student were to stick around for another year you end up with just over $161,000. And note that none of those numbers include financial aid etc. To see the college boards full report go here.

5. If smart, motivated, ambitious kids (the type of kids who get the most out of college) avoided college I'm sure the differential would be a lot less than $800,000 and may even be negative (i.e. they would make more if they avoided college and started going into the business world earlier).

And yet they already tend to anyway, see Bill Gates etc. The people who get the most out of college are the middle of the road kids. They have a good head on their shoulders but are not quite ready to go out and take over the world yet and in all likelihood will fill the jobs in middle management that they would not have gotten without college. There is also more to college than just getting a book education. This is where most students learn to live away from home, learn to interact with people from many different areas, and other skills that will benefit them not just in their chosen career path but throughout life in general.

6. The average debt burden of a college graduate is $23,000. Up from $13,000 10 years ago. Students with professional degrees can see their debt burden go higher than $200,000. Total student borrowing has topped $75,000,000,000. It's too much for young adults just starting their careers.

This isn't a reason not to go to college so much as a reason to reform the system and get more money to higher education. Also isn't this article about people sending their kids to school and the way it seemed earlier is that the parents were paying?

7. Alternatives to spending $200,000 per kid so they can waste four years of their lives:

Yes apparently college is a waste of four years of your life all you college graduates/college students out there.

Give them $20,000 to start one to five businesses. Most businesses fail but that's ok. The education from the process lasts a lifetime and the network you build when you start a business will lead to many future jobs and possibilities.

A third of new businesses fail within the first two years and half within the first 5 (source). And in many cases this is with people who know how to run a business having their business fail. I do not know if having an 18 year old without a college education in charge of a business is really going to pull in many investors who tend to still be wary of people over 25 with a college degree.

Travel the world. That would be an education that pays many dividends and is much cheaper. Your kids can then go to college with a much more mature view of the world.

Or you could let them graduate from college so they are more mature when they travel the world.

Work. They won't get the best jobs but they can make money, network, get a "hands-on" education, learn the value of money and go to college in their 20s when they can afford it -- and make every dollar worth it. Plus your kids will have a more clear idea of what they want to do in the world.

This is a good idea but if you can afford to send them to college why not help them out. I agree that summer jobs during undergrad were the reason that I made sure I worked hard in school. It is also not likely that they will have saved up enough by the time they are in their 20s to be able to afford college.

Volunteer. Let them see a side of life that is harder and where they can add value. An education like that is invaluable.

Another thing that you could have them do during high school or during their off time from college, they will learn just as much but not have to stop their education in the process.

Do nothing but read. Get the benefits of a college education without paying the $200,000. I'd be happy to support a child that wants to home school a college education.

You cannot home school college, and as I said earlier there is more to college than the degree at the end. Besides I doubt that your 18 year old is going to spend all their time at home reading.

This article tries to make college seem like a financial impossibility but there is plenty of financial aid available out there for those who look for it, yes at times it is in the form of loans but there are plenty of scholarships and grants as well. I had a year off in between my undergraduate and the start of my graduate degree programs and while I was working it was not in a job that payed very well or that was a direct use of my degree. It was still difficult after that year to start up education again. But that does not mean that if you have taken time off you shouldn't go back to school and there are plenty of good reasons to take time off but none of these are good reasons. Sorry for the length of this article but I felt it needed to be done.

Nothing new

So recently a film came out called Darwin: The Voyage That Shook the World and while that may make the video sound like an interesting film but it is apparently by Creation Ministries International and Fathom Media. Yes that's right it's a creationist piece attempting to show how if Darwin knew what we knew now he would not have come up with Evolution. This is nonsense if he knew what we knew now his theory would have been even stronger than it was when he originally wrote it.

eSkeptic Magazine, part of Skeptic magazine, did a feature article on it in this week's issue, if you are not a subscriber to eSkeptic it is free I strongly suggest it (sign up here), discussing the film. They brought in three experts in the field of biology and had them address each of the main claims made in the film. It is a very interesting read and very well done and hopefully should help for in the future when you will probably have many of these claims thrown your way.

What interested me the most about this article was how the claims that the film makes are essentially the same ones that have been made by Creationists for year. Almost all of these have been refuted but they keep using them. It is annoying to address the same claim over and over again but I guess I am not in the demographic that they are targeting.

Creationism on hold, for now

A little over a week ago I wrote a post about Livingston Parish School Board talking about trying to teach creationism in their science classrooms. I ended that post with this:

There is some good that I can see with the school board finally deciding to teach creationism. This will give the ACLU a chance to sue over this bill and to finally get it struck down and prevent other schools from going through the same thing. Lets just hope that is what happens.

Well it turns out that the school board decided not to teach creationism this upcoming year, although they put a group together to study if it is feasible. Why? Well an article published by the Baton Rouge Advocate says this:

A decision to teach creationism could become expensive for the parish school system, said Marjorie Esman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“If they were to do it, they could anticipate that any litigation would result in them not only losing, but having to pay enormous legal fees,” she said. “They would be wasting a huge amount of taxpayer money on a battle they can’t win.”

Livingston Parish School Board President Keith Martin, who acknowledges that the parish school system faces major financial challenges, said the cost of litigation does have to be taken into consideration.

“A lawsuit is something you always have to factor in because of finances of the board,” Martin said.

While this is not the way I would have preferred to have seen this happen I am glad that at least for the next year they will not be teaching creationism in Livingston Parish.

There is one problem, however. They have not completely taken the idea of teaching creationism off of the table for the 2011-2012 school year. As I said earlier they have formed a committee to look at the possible options. The lawyer for the school board does seem to think that teaching creationism is illegal.

Tom Jones, the School Board’s attorney, said a board member brought the issue up when evolution was mentioned as being part of the state’s 2008 Science Education Act.

Jones said his previous research indicated that under the U.S. Constitution public schools can’t teach religion or the religious theory of creationism.

“Without a doubt it’s a constitutional issue,” and state law does not supersede the U.S. Constitution, he said.

Mr. David Tate the person who first brought up the issue of teaching creationism doesn't seem to get it though:

Tate said teaching evolution as a theory is fine, but there are other ideas.

“Creationism is another thought of how things came into being,” he said. “Give every theory due time” in the classroom.

To the citizens of Livingston Parish Mr. Tate is not helping your cause. He is holding you back do not support him in upcoming elections (I don't know when he will be up for reelection sorry) and listen to the experts, if for no other reason than you risk hurting the financial situation of your schools.

State of the Climate

NOAA released their 2009 State of the Climate a few days ago. I have not read the whole document (it is 224 pages), which can be downloaded here, just the press release so I don't feel that I can speak too in depth on it but I figured I would let anyone who wanted to know about it know about it.

NOAA also has a website to answer your questions on what climate change will do to the world (yes the website really is climate.gov). NOAA also has a facebook page if you are interested.

Yes your childhood favorite still exists!

So recently a paper was published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology that synonymized two species of ceratopsian into one species (Scannella and Horner, 2010). These two species were the world famous Triceratops (photo on left, from Houston Museum of Natural Science, a cast of a Triceratops skull, by author) and a lesser known species known as Torosaurus. Both of these lived at around the same time and in the same area. Scannella and Horner use a large amount of techniques to help determine this but I am not going to go into because the techniques they used I am not an expert on (see here for a better summary).

This synonymization has a lot of people upset that they are losing another icon of their childhood, like Pluto. We all grew up and Triceratops is one of the most famous of all dinosaurs, often depicted in epic battle with everyone else's favorite Tyrannosaurus rex. But as Brian Switek over at Dinosaur Tracking, and David Orr at Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs point out (here and here) the name Triceratops is safe. Why is this? The answer is quite simple, it was named first, Triceratops in 1889 and Torosaurus in 1891. Why does that matter? The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the rules that determine if a name is valid and how to name a new organism, says this for when two species are synonymized:

23.3. Application to Synonymy. The Principle of Priority requires that a taxon formed by bringing together into a single taxon at one rank two or more previously established nominal taxa within the family group, genus group or species group takes as its valid name the name determined in accordance with the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.1] and its Purpose [Art. 23.2], with change of suffix if required in the case of a family-group name [Art. 34].

With the Principle of Priority saying:

23.1. Statement of the Principle of Priority. The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it, unless that name has been invalidated or another name is given precedence by any provision of the Code or by any ruling of the Commission. For this reason priority applies to the validity of synonyms [Art. 23.3], to the relative precedence of homonyms [Arts. 53-60], the correctness or otherwise of spellings [Arts. 24, 32], and to the validity of nomenclatural acts (such as acts taken under the Principle of the First Reviser [Art. 24.2] and the fixation of name-bearing types [Arts. 68, 69, 74.1.3, 75.4]).

This is a long way to say that if something is named first it gets to keep the name if we make two creatures into one (very technically written I know). So what this means is that Torosaurus is now Triceratops, as the name of the paper says, so everyone's favorite ceratopsian is safe from getting the Pluto treatment, sorry Pluto we miss you buddy.

Source
Scannella, J.B. and J.R. Horner. 2010. Torosaurus Marsh, 1891, is Triceratops Marsh, 1889 (Ceratopsidae: Chasmosaurinae): synonymy through ontogeny Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 30 (4), 1157-1168