Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder to keep any debate cordial.  ;)

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

@Troodon has created an extremely informative post on this particular topic.

 

  • I found this Informative 4
  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TyrantFan66 said:

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.

That's not a deal breaker, nor that surprising. Plenty of theropods are only known from immature specimens. The problem here is that we know too much, but not quite enough.

 

On the flip side, there have not been a single transitional specimen of Tyrannosaurus and Nanotyrannus. If Nanotyrannus is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus, then a half way animal with not quite Tyrannosaurus and not quite Nanotyrannus should also exist. If true, this ontogeny would be unique to Tyrannosaurus rex. So where are the transitional forms? The problem is that you can't conveniently find what you want, even if you are certain it has to exist.

 

Since young specimens can often show basal / primitive traits, some people believed that Alioramus was a juvenile Tarbosaurus as Alioramus is only known from juvenile specimens, and at the time, Tarbosaurus was only known from adult specimens. But of course a juvenile Tarbosaurus ended up being, just a smaller Tarbosaurus. I think we still have no idea what an adult Alioramus would have looked like, but it sure isn't Tarbosaurus.

 

Obviously Nanotyrannus is not a Alioramini, but it doesn't seem like adult forms of gracile Tyrannosaurids fossilize too well for whatever reason.

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

"All specimens are juveniles, no questions asked. "

 

Based on.... ?  The MT fighting dinos 'Nano'  has not been thin sectioned, has it?  

In any case it is being worked on in North Carolina by folks who know for a fact that it is a juvie rex.  

 

The forelimb being bigger than adult T rex on some of the Nanos... No matter whether there exists an adult Nano, this argument, to me, proves Nano is not a baby rex.  No questions asked. 

Edited by jpc
  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TyrantFan66 said:

Unless someone has an adult, or even a subadult, specimen of Nanotyrannus (over 15 years old), it isn't a real genus. 

 

13 hours ago, TyrantFan66 said:

I'm not expecting anybody to give me anything of substance,

 

13 hours ago, TyrantFan66 said:

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.

 

 

13 hours ago, TyrantFan66 said:

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

 

For someone trying to research the validity of a genus you certainly have a bias that it does not exist and appear to be closed minded to certain discussions.  Not what I would expect for someone trying to engage others and you appear to be very condescending.  Why I dont plan to contribute.

  • I Agree 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
bcfossilcollector

Hi TyrantFan66. 
 

I’m certain that you are aware that the process of fossilization and the subsequent preservation of prehistoric organic material is neither precise or comprehensive in nature. This, I must admit, allows for some subjectivity, in the analysis of incomplete fossil specimens. However a detailed survey of the evidence at hand in conjunction with the anticipation of finding new evidence needs to be considered before any conclusion, regarding any incomplete specimen(s), is reached. If you have not done so, please reference Troodon’s dissertation on the subject via Top Trilo’s post. Good luck in your research!

  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is using a few terms here that are not in line with scientific reasoning, such as “proven” or the call for others to “prove” someone/something wrong. That is not exactly how science works. Let’s try reposing the question without that rationalist (not empiricist) p-word. 
 

When we refresh on the grand origins of empiricism, it is good to recall the black swan example to any absolute claims of “all swans are white.” We might say the example functions as a suitable analogy in this instance. ;) 

  • I Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...