Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'nanotyrannus v t rex'.
-
Hell Creek Formation Juvenile Tyrannosaurid Teeth
ThePhysicist posted a gallery image in Member Collections
From the album: Dinosaurs
A juxtaposition of the bases of two juvenile Tyrannosaurid tooth crowns from the Hell Creek Formation. Nanotyrannus: Dawson Co., MT Tyrannosaurus: Carter Co., MT- 1 comment
-
- 3
-
- dinosaur tooth
- hell creek formation
- (and 9 more)
-
I am a university student studying T. rex, so of course, I ran into the Nanotyrannus debate. People have been arguing about Nanotyrannus being valid, but there's a huge problem: No adult specimen. Unless someone has an adult, or even a subadult, specimen of Nanotyrannus (over 15 years old), it isn't a real genus. This is why I am here. I know people collect fossils and post pics of them on here, so I'm willing to see what people may, or may not, have. My question is: Does anybody have an adult Nanotyrannus specimen? In simpler terms, does anybody have a Nanotyrannus femur larger than 70 cm ("Jane's" and "Petey's" are over 70 cm)? Or a tibia about 90 cm or larger ("Jane's" and "Petey's" are 80-something cm, from what I've seen)? A fibula would work too. I'm willing to give the pro-Nano side a chance here. I'm in contact with a couple of paleontologists, some on the pro-Nano side and some on the anti-Nano side, and if anybody has any hind limb bones of a supposed Nano, then may I please see a pic of it? This is the only way you can prove that Nano exists. Teeth and hand claws will not cut it. As far as I'm concerned, all Nano teeth and hand claws are juvenile T. rex teeth, and T. rex claws. I'm asking for hindlimb bones only. Skull bones would do fine as well. Try to prove that tooth loss does not occur in T. rex ontogeny by providing pics of a maxilla or dentary. NO teeth, only a dentary or a maxilla. I'm not expecting anybody to give me anything of substance, but I wanted to give this a shot to see if I would be proven wrong. I'm being harsh because, if Nano exists, then there should be an adult specimen. All specimens are juveniles, no questions asked. Therefore, the genus does not exist. The only adult specimens of any tyrannosaurid that coexisted with Nano is T. rex, therefore Nano is a juvenile. It's just that simple. Prove me wrong though. Let me reiterate: Pics of femurs, tibias (even fibulas), maxillas, and dentaries, are what I'm after. If we can get a cross-section of a Nano femur, or tibia, and get an age estimate of 17 or older, or has extensive Haversian remodeling, then I'll believe that the genus exists, along with the majority of other paleontologists. Let's see how this goes!