linguistic:translation, information:highlighting
Species

After Triceratops was described, between 1889 and 1891, Hatcher collected another thirty-one of its skulls with great effort. The first species had been named T. horridus by Marsh. Its specific name was derived from the Latin word horridus meaning "rough" or "rugose", perhaps referring to the type specimen's rough texture, later identified as an aged individual. The additional skulls varied to a lesser or greater degree from the original holotype. This variation is unsurprising, given that Triceratops skulls are large three-dimensional objects from individuals of different ages and both sexes that which were subjected to different amounts and directions of pressure during fossilization.

In the first attempt to understand the many species, Richard Swann Lull found two groups, although he did not say how he distinguished them. One group composed of T. horridus, T. prorsus, and T. brevicornus ('the short-horned'). The other composed of T. elatus and T. calicornis. Two species (T. serratus and T. flabellatus) stood apart from these groups. By 1933, alongside his revision of the landmark 1907 Hatcher–Marsh–Lull monograph of all known ceratopsians, he retained his two groups and two unaffiliated species, with a third lineage of T. obtusus and T. hatcheri ('Hatcher's') that was characterized by a very small nasal horn. T. horridus–T. prorsus–T. brevicornus was now thought to be the most conservative lineage, with an increase in skull size and a decrease in nasal horn size. T. elatus–T. calicornis was defined by having large brow horns and small nasal horns. Charles Mortram Sternberg made one modification by adding T. eurycephalus ('the wide-headed') and suggesting that it linked the second and third lineages closer together than they were to the T. horridus lineage.

With time, the idea that the differing skulls might be representative of individual variation within one (or two) species gained popularity. In 1986, John Ostrom and Peter Wellnhofer published a paper in which they proposed that there was only one species, Triceratops horridus. Part of their rationale was that there are generally only one or two species of any large animal in a region. To their findings, Thomas Lehman added the old Lull–Sternberg lineages combined with maturity and sexual dimorphism, suggesting that the T. horridus–T. prorsus–T. brevicornus lineage was composed of females, the T. calicornis–T. elatus lineage was made up of males, and the T. obtusus–T. hatcheri lineage was of pathologic old males.

These findings were contested a few years later by paleontologist Catherine Forster, who reanalyzed Triceratops material more comprehensively and concluded that the remains fell into two species, T. horridus and T. prorsus, although the distinctive skull of T. (" Nedoceratops ") hatcheri differed enough to warrant a separate genus. She found that T. horridus and several other species belonged together and that T. prorsus and T. brevicornus stood alone. Since there were many more specimens in the first group, she suggested that this meant the two groups were two species. It is still possible to interpret the differences as representing a single species with sexual dimorphism.

In 2009, John Scannella and Denver Fowler supported the separation of T. prorsus and T. horridus, noting that the two species are also separated stratigraphically within the Hell Creek Formation, indicating that they did not live together at the same time.