Jump to content

Nanotyrannus or Teenage T. Rex?


Scylla

Recommended Posts

from the paper:

 

...Together, our results support the synonomization of “Nanotyrannus” into Tyrannosaurus and fail to support the hypothesized presence of a sympatric tyrannosaurid species of markedly smaller adult body size.  Our independent data contribute to mounting evidence for a rapid shift in body size associated with ontogenetic niche partitioning late in T. rex ontogeny and suggest that this species singularly exploited mid- to large-sized theropod niches at the end of the Cretaceous.

 

...Synonymization of Nanotyrannus with T. rex means that rather than two sympatric tyrannosaurid taxa within faunal assemblages of the HCF, only one valid tyrannosaur species—T. rex—is currently recognized.

 

 

Woodward, H.N., Tremaine, K., Williams, S.A., Zanno, L.E., Horner, J.R., Myhrvold, N. 2020

Growing up Tyrannosaurus rex: Osteohistology refutes the pygmy “Nanotyrannus” and supports ontogenetic niche partitioning in juvenile Tyrannosaurus.

Science Advances, 6(1)6250:1-8  PDF LINK

  • I found this Informative 8

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time is steadily approaching to start relabeling all those 'Nano' specimens ... a perfect start for 2020!  emo73.gif :P

  • I found this Informative 1

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion will continue I think since there are some so far unstudied fossils in privte collections which suggest the opposite. Also, the authors of the paper write:

 

"Here, we provide histological data that can be used to reject the hypothesis that Nanotyrannus was erected on the basis of a skeletally mature “pygmy” individual, resulting in two remaining alternative hypotheses: (i) Nanotyrannus is a valid taxon, but the holotype and all currently referred specimens including BMRP 2002.4.1 and BMRP 2006.4.4 are immature, with no skeletally mature individuals yet known; and (ii) CMNH 7541, BMRP 2002.4.1, BMRP 2006.4.4, and other mid-sized tyrannosaurid specimens collected from the HCF represent juvenile ontogenetic stages of T. rex."

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i understood, it is strong sign, that "Nanotyrannus" may be a juvi T-Rex.

As stated in the article, further investigations are needed to harden the hypothesis...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flx said:

This discussion will continue I think since there are some so far unstudied fossils in privte collections which suggest the opposite. 

I doubt those fossils in private collections will get cut up to measure the growth rings.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scylla said:

I doubt those fossils in private collections will get cut up to measure the growth rings.

 

 

I also doubt those pesky paleontologists would be interested in any replicas of the fossils, especially for sophisticated methodologies like osteohistological bone analysis.

Verifiable and reproducible results are essential, rendering any unstudied specimens in private collections useless.  The paper also includes an 18 page supplemental: LINK

  • I found this Informative 2

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Scylla

@piranha

Yup, specimens in private collections are useless, especially for osteological studies. 

I just wanted to say that you may have to change the labels a couple of times more in the future. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments are the same as when I put this topic together.  There is an elephant or multiple ones in the room and until they get addressed its pretty clear to me we still have multiple tyrannosaurids in the Hell Creek.   That's all I plan to say on this subject, my topic speaks for itself 

 

 

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the initial reaction among the dinosaur cognoscenti, it certainly sounds like the death knell for Nanotyrannus.

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more and more I hear about this debate, makes me lean closer to T-Rex. But still think Nanotyrannus is possible. In other words Stuck I don’t know which one, compelling evidence on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2020 at 12:14 PM, piranha said:

 

 

I also doubt those pesky paleontologists would be interested in any replicas of the fossils, especially for sophisticated methodologies like osteohistological bone analysis.

Verifiable and reproducible results are essential, rendering any unstudied specimens in private collections useless.  The paper also includes an 18 page supplemental: LINK

 

On 1/2/2020 at 12:24 PM, Flx said:

@Scylla

@piranha

Yup, specimens in private collections are useless, especially for osteological studies. 

I just wanted to say that you may have to change the labels a couple of times more in the future. :)

 

Not useless, just use deferred. If collected and preserved properly they may end up in a museum or university collection one day. 

 

Also, another news article:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/tyrannosaur-fossil-debate

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Fossildude19 changed the title to Nanotyrannus or Teenage T. Rex?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...