11 reasons why Nanotyrannus does NOT exist.

[TyrantFan66]

My first post on the forum was to see if anybody could show me an adult specimen of “Nanotyrannus.” I was more forceful in that approach because, from what I’ve seen on Twitter, “Nano” fans like to argue with paleontologists on the validity of the genus, even though these scientists have been studying dinosaurs for years and have degrees and Ph.Ds in different scientific fields. The evidence points them in a different conclusion compared to the public, and the fact that they are being so heavily resisted against with regards to this topic is baffling. I decided to play the “Nano” fans at their own game, and wrote a question in a cocky manner to see if anybody could give me something of value regarding an adult “Nanotyrannus” specimen. I expected a hostile reaction akin to what you find on Twitter, but the feedback was mostly positive. I was told a couple of things regarding how I worded my post, which was to be expected, among other things, but there was a comment that sent me to a post written by a person with the username "Troodon." Titled "The Case for Nanotyrannus," which I think was inspired by Larson's paper of the same name, goes over some traits that seem to be unique to "Nanotyrannus." With all due respect to Troodon, the points that they made have been debunked by multiple paleontologists who have studied "Nanotyrannus" fossils for years. Troodon also wrote a comment in response to my question, and they fell for my cocky persona and decided not to respond to the critiques that I had regarding not having an adult “Nano.” 

 

So now, I will try a different approach. I am going to list the biggest reasons why “Nano” does not exist, and see where this gets me next. These critiques, I believe, truly hinder any conclusive argument to support “Nano’s” identity, and some of these arguments come from other professional paleontologist who argue against “Nano’s” validity. Therefore, I am curious to see what the responses would be this time.

My points:

1. No adult “Nano” specimen, only juveniles.
It's truly baffling to me that only juvenile Nano species have been found, and yet it's okay to make it a separate genus. Yes, there are other dinosaurs known by juvenile, or subadult, specimens, but they are considered valid genera because of the circumstances thats surround them. Let's use Alioramus. Alioramus is known from two, maybe three if you count Qiazhousaurus, specimens that are not fully grown. So naturally, Alioramus could be a juvenile of another larger tyrannosauroid that coexisted with Alioramus and Qiazhousaurus: Tarbosaurus. However, we DO have a growth series for Tarbosaurus, with very young and mature individuals. Therefore, Alioramus (and/or Qiazhousaurus) is a valid genus. Same goes for Bagaraatan. The same cannot be said for "Nanotyrannus."

 

We only have juvenile specimens of "Nano." Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if it coexist with T. rex, but here's the problem: we do not have a growth series for T. rex. I'll talk more about this later.

 

Woodward et al., (2020), and Carr (1999), have proven that "Nanotyrannus" has no fully-grown individuals, contra Bakker et al., (1988) and Larson (2013). Since we do not have any fully grown "Nano" specimens, and we only have fully grown T. rex specimens, then the most logical conclusion is that "Nano" is a juvenile T. rex. If an adult Nano is ever discovered, then the case would be closed. However, that never seems to be the case when a supposed "Nano" skeleton is discovered. 

 

2. All juvenile T. rex specimens are labeled as “Nano.”

How the heck can a small tyrannosauroid that coexisted with a larger tyrannosauroid be considered a valid genus when we have no juvenile specimens of the latter? When no conclusive juvie rex has been named, and all young tyrannosaurids that coexisted with T. rex are named “Nano,” then the most logical conclusion to go with is that all “Nano” specimens are juvenile T. rex specimens.

 

3. “Baby Bob”.
And this is where I'm sure people will tell me about "Baby Bob." There are two problems with "Baby Bob": it's fragmentary, and it's in private hands. A privately owned specimen cannot be studied by multiple scientists who can verify its authenticity. It needs to be in a museum so that other scientists can have access to it. Second, the specimen is fragmentary. The right side of the dentary may be almost complete, but it's in private hands so we cannot tell. However, based on comparisons with other "Nano"/juvie rex specimens, you can bet that "Baby Bob" had a higher tooth counts than the adults. Or, individual variation explains why "Baby Bob" had a smaller tooth count than a typical juvenile rex. Aside from the dentary, the rest of "Baby Bob" only consists of a pubis, a femur, and a tibia. The rest of the skeleton seems to be missing. However, this cannot be verified because "Baby Bob" is a private specimen. If it wasn't, we would know how complete the specimen is. Therefore, using "Baby Bob" to validate "Nano" is detrimental.

 

4. No complete adult T. rex hands.
Another point that is usually brought up is "Bloody Mary's" ("Dueling Dinosaurs" juvenile T. rex specimen) large hands. However, we do not have a single complete T. rex hand. "Wyrex's" hands are incomplete, and "Sue's" hands were not found with the rest of the skeleton. A manual ungual (hand claw) was found AFTER the skeleton was already dug up (Brochu, 2003, p. 103) (Dr. Thomas Holtz on Twitter). It's inconclusive if this is a T. rex hand claw, or something else. Therefore, "Bloody Mary's" hand is the first complete T. rex hand to be discovered, and it's not an autopomorphic trait of "Nanotyrannus."

 

But wait, what about UCRC-PV 1's arm?
Pic from Larson's Instagram.

UCRC's hand is smaller than "Bloody Mary's," which would make it a younger individual than "Bloody Mary." Unfortunately, UCRC has not been described in a paper, nor has an histological analysis been done on the skeleton, so it being a "subadult" is a subjective claim. Therefore, using UCRC to prove "Nano's" validity is worthless until a scientist(s) studies the skeleton, and gives a description of the specimen in a peer-reviewed paper.

 

Dr. Holtz provided a drawing of the complete arm bones of "Wyrex" on Twitter. The hand is INCOMPLETE:
Pic link here.

Therefore, "Bloody Mary's" hand is evidence for what a complete T. rex hand would have looked like towards the animal's mature age. "Wyrex's" COMPLETE hand would have looked identical if the hand was complete. UCRC's hand would have grown to look like "Bloody Mary's" if it matured to the same age.
 

It's also worth noting that all other ”complete” T. rex hands have been copied from Albertosaurus or Daspletosaurus. “Sue’s” hand is incomplete, but it was reconstructed using Albertosaurus' hand (Brochu, 2003, p. 100), and so is “Wyrex’s” (Larson and Carpenter, 2008, p. 46).

 

5. Carr (2020).

Dr. Carr's 2020 paper is one of the best papers on T. rex that I have seen. It describes the physical changes that T. rex went through during ontogeny. CMNH 7541, the "Nano" holotype, "Jane," and "Petey," all fell within the T. rex growth chart, which makes ALL "Nano" specimens juvenile T. rex specimens. This paper even made the CMNH museum recatalogue CMNH 7541 as a juvenile T. rex. The case is closed now. There is officially NO HOLOTYPE SPECIMEN for "Nano." "Nanotyrannus" is a dead genus name.

If you want to prove that "Nanotyrannus" is a valid genus, then you'd have to disprove Carr's 2020 paper, and that is near impossible now. Multiple paleontologists who study tyrannosauroids have backed up Carr's paper, so the authority figures have spoken. The burden of proof now lies on the "Nano" fans. You need an adult "Nanotyrannus" specimen.

 

6. “Nano” is not an albertosaurine.

Larson tries to lump “Nano” into the albertosaurine (Larson, 2013). However, all albertosaurine died out before “Nano” evolved (73-68 Ma) (Eberth, 2020). Yun (2015) stated that all apparent albertosaurine traits that "Nano" has are seen in other juvenile tyrannosaurs. This renders this hypothesis mute. All of "Nano's" traits can be explained away due to ontogeny.

 

7. T. rex lost teeth as it matured.
Why is it so hard to imagine T. rex losing teeth as it matured? People compare T. rex to Tarbosaurus when it comes to tooth count, and they use Tsuihiji et al., (2011) for this, but T. rex is more derived than Tarbosaurus, and more derived dinosaurs experienced greater morphological changes as they matured. Other examples are Pachycephalosaurus and Triceratops, two other dinosaurs that coexisted with T. rex. It seems that the dinosaurs of North America 66 Ma experienced amazing transformations when they grew up. Check out Horner's 2011 Ted Talk on the matter. I don't agree with everything that guy says and does, but I have to admit that he's right about "Nano" being a juvenile T. rex.
 

Besides, "Nano" only has two more teeth than the adult T. rex specimen “Samson.” What's the problem with losing two teeth as T. rex matured?
 

And yes, I do know about BHI 6439. What’s to have stopped BHI 6439 from losing teeth as it matured? We also don’t know the age of that animal. I've seen pics of this dentary being compared with "Jane." However, it could be older than “Jane.” Tooth loss could have occurred for that specimen, which is why it has fewer teeth than "Jane" does. Second, BHI 6439 is a private specimen so it doesn’t count. It can’t be verified by other scientists for scrutiny. 

 

Carr (1999), (2005), and (2020) has proven that T. rex lost teeth during its growth, so this is an established fact now. Dr. Holtz, and Brusatte, support Carr on this as well.

 

8. “Nanotyrannus’” brain.

The skull of CMNH 7541 was damaged  (Carr’s blog, Summary, number 2), which seems have given the appearance of it having a different shape than T. rex’s. Somehow, if the brain case wasn’t damaged, then the brain would have changed shaped as “Nano” matured into a grown T. rex (Kawabe et al., 2015). 

 

9. Pneumatopore on quadrujugal is present in Daspletosaurus horneri.
Larson (2013) said that this is an automorphic trait, but once again, Carr proved this to be wrong. Carr et al., (2017) found a pneumatopore on Daspletosaurus horneri's quadrujugal. This is not a trait unique to "Nanotyrannus."

 

10. “Jane’s” teeth fit perfectly with a juvenile T. rex’s bite marks on a vertebra.
It has been said that "Nano's" teeth are too thin to belong to T. rex, but Peterson (2019) showed that "Jane's" teeth matched perfectly with the tooth marks of a juvenile T. rex's. It seems that "Nano's" teeth are stronger than what people claim, and this supports "Nano" as a juvenile T. rex.

 

11. It’s been hinted that “Nano” was a juvenile T. rex before Carr (1999).

Carpenter (1992) hinted that "Nanotyrannus" was a juvenile T. rex before Carr did in 1999. Carr (1999) only helped to solidify Nano as a juvenile T. rex, and his 2020 paper helped to end the debate.

 

Conclusion:

When the majority of scientists state that something does not exist, then that is the best conclusion supported by the evidence. These experts set the standards as to how to conduct science properly. If we do not listen to them, then science, like paleontology, ha no standards and anybody can do as they please. That leads to chaos, which is what this whole “Nano” situation is. Nobody is listening to the experts online, but the scientists are doing a great job so far in spreading the truth based on the latest research. CMNH 7541 has been relabeled as a juvenile T. rex in the CMNH museum, so we are on the right track to correcting the mistakes of the past.

 

There are only THREE ways that could bring “Nano” back:

 

1. An ADULT “Nano” specimen. No teeth, no claws, no bits and pieces of bone. We need an adult specimen that is NOT IN PRIVATE HANDS BUT IN A MUSEUM, has an EFS that shows it has stopped growing and has reached adulthood, and is heavily studied by scientific experts (mainly by the “Nano” deniers, like Carr, Holtz, Brusatte, etc.). Then, it needs to be published in a scientific paper than is peer-reviewed, and open to the public to be verified, or denied, by other scientists. “Nano” will never be verified using privately-owned specimens, or fragments of bones and teeth.

 

2. We need complete juvenile T. rex specimens that are not in private hands, and show traits that are not seen in “Nano.” This would be near impossible because all “Nano” specimens show T. rex traits.

 

3. We need a complete adult T. rex hand that shows differences from "BHI 6437 ("Bloody Mary"), which is what we do not have. Not even “Sue,” or “Wyrex,” have a complete hand.

 

This is why “Nano” does not exist.

 

On the bright side, we finally have a growth series of T. rex that shows how this awesome animal transformed as it grew. We should be happy that we have any juvenile T. rex specimens at all. 

 

Second, I do understand what the “Nano” fans are going through. My favorite sauropod used to be “Seismosaurus.” Later on, I learned that multiple scientists have proven that it is actually Diplodocus. I was in denial for a while, but I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. Now, my favorite sauropod is Diplodocus. That’s how science works.

 

There are plenty of other small-medium-sized tyrannosauroids that the “Nano” fans could gravitate towards to: Alioramus, Qiazhousaurus (or Alioramus sinensis, depending on who you talk to), Nanuqsaurus, Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Bagaraatan, Raptorrex, or any of the other earlier tyrannosauroids (Guanlong, etc.). All of these dinosaurs have been backed up by scientists for decades as being valid genera.

 

Alioramus is a valid genus because we have a growth serious of Tarbosaurus that shows that Alioramus’ traits are distinctive from Tarbosaurus’. This has been stated mainly  by Steven Brusatte, an expert on tyrannosauroids. He also states that “Nano” does not exist, and since he is an expert, his research bears more weight on “Nano” being an invalid taxon (Brusatte et al., 2016).

 

On the other hand, I highly doubt that anyone can argue against Carr’s 2020 paper. With so much detail in it, it would be near impossible to prove Carr wrong on “Nanotyrannus’” invalidity.

 

Unless there is a secret adult fossil of “Nanotyrannus” hidden somewhere, and it is in the process of being placed in a museum, then the most scientifically based conclusion is that “Nanotyrannus” does not exist. The ONLY tyrannosauroid present in North America 68-66 Ma is Tyrannosaurus rex.

 

With regards to the scientists, or scientific advocates, that support “Nano” as valid, I have no ill will against them. For example, Peter Larson. I really do like the guy. He’s passionate about dinosaurs, and helped to discover numerous T. rex fossils. Dr. Bakker is a revolutionary in paleontology, no questions asked. Philip Manning is also very passionate about dinosaurs, and helped to describe the T. rex specimen “Trix.” “Dinosaur” George is another one. I loved his QnA videos back in the day. Unfortunately, with the evidence I’ve laid out above, they’re wrong about “Nanotyrannus” being valid.

 

Links:

Carr (2020):

https://peerj.com/articles/9192/

 

Woodward et al., (2020):

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/1/eaax6250.full

 

Brusatte et al., (2016):

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/23714255/23714179._AAM._BrusatteetalNanotyrannusResponseMSRevision.pdf

 

Carr (1999):

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/227005733.pdf

 

Horner (2011):

 

 

Carr and Williamson (2004):

https://www.academia.edu/2291683/Diversity_of_late_Maastrichtian_Tyrannosauridae_Dinosauria_Theropoda_from_western_North_America

 

Carr (2005):

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009NC/webprogram/Paper156740.html

 

Larson (2013):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289687970_The_case_for_Nanotyrannus

 

“The Case for Nanotyrannus” by Troodon:

 

 

Yun (2015):

https://peerj.com/preprints/852/

 

Bakker et al., (1988):

https://zenodo.org/record/1037529#.X9Ai5CVOmEf

 

Carpenter (1992):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314988830_Tyrannosaurids_Dinosauria_of_Asia_and_North_America

 

Eberth (2020):

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjes-2019-0019

 

Carr’s blog (Summary, number 2).

http://tyrannosauroideacentral.blogspot.com/2013/09/nanotyrannus-isnt-real-really.html?m=1

Larson and Carpenter (2008) (P. 46):
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tyrannosaurus_Rex_the_Tyrant_King/5WH9RnfKco4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Wyrex
 

Kawabe et al., (2015):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129939

 

Tsuihiji et al., (2011):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232865497_Cranial_Osteology_of_a_Juvenile_Specimen_of_Tarbosaurus_bataar_Theropoda_Tyrannosauridae_from_the_Nemegt_Formation_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Bugin_Tsav_Mongolia

[hadrosauridae]

The fact you are using Horner as a basis to prove anything about T.rex or Nannotyranus puts your entire basis for an argument in doubt.  Honestly, I'm not going to wade through this gluttony of cited sources.  Many authors who write papers have biases and intentionally ignore conflicting data in order to "prove" their own desires.  I'm no academic with anything to defend.  I can just as easily say my case filled with teeth are all T.Rex instead of a mixture.  All dinos are good in my book.  But to claim they are the same flies in the face of the evidence I have seen.  

 

There ARE juvenile T.Rex  with the same morphology as the adults and separate from Nanno.  Their are Nanno with separate morphology from T.Rex.

[Tidgy's Dad]

I don't know enough about this debate to pick a side, but you have clearly thought a lot about this TyrantFan66. 

Nicely laid out argument, in my opinion.

1 hour ago, hadrosauridae said:

  All dinos are good in my book.

Hmm.

[Carcharodontosaurus]

Just a small correction, Raptorex is a juvenile Tarbosaurus.

[Praefectus]

You seem to have your mind already made up on the issue, so I won't bother with a lengthy response. I'll simply suggest that this is not an issue that will be solved overnight and it is certainly not an issue that will be resolved by forum and Twitter posts. Keep an eye on the published academic literature as the future may hold surprises. 

 

Eppur si muove

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

I agree with the comments above. While I do have an academic background as an archaeologist, my main area of palaeontological expertise lies with marine reptile. That means I'm not necessarily the most suited person to get into your debate. However, I do feel that there are some general academic issues with your argument that might make it difficult for others to respond. First and foremost of those is that people on this forum are (for the most part) not professional palaeontologists and may not even be academics. As such, while certain prominent archaeologists (I cite Hodder, for one) have argued that where it concerns the past, any person's interpretation is as good as another's, even if that "other" is an archaeologist, and I can imagine a certain line of reasoning being applied to the field of dinosaur palaeontology, asking non-academics to overthrow an academic argument you clearly fervently support is not exactly pitching a fair playing field. Not only are academics able to set aside more time to keep up-to-date with the newest developments in their field and in possession of a more appropriate skill-set to tackle the data (which is not to deny the great extent of knowledge certain members of this forum have), they are also more likely to be aware of unpublished data that has yet to be made available to the general public (and, when this happens, may still be paywalled, restricting truly global access).

 

But, as you must undoubtedly be aware of, even academic publications should be approached with the necessary criticism, since in the "publish or perish"-world we live in, academics, unfortunately, have great benefit in advancing their own agenda, to the point where, in certain disciplines, how an article will influence the researcher's Google Scholar points becomes just as, if not more important as the actual content. In a world where grants are handed out to academics who already know, at the outset of their proposed research project, what the socially accepted outcome will be, it should come as no surprise that data will be interpreted such as the grant-givers require. This is one of the biggest reasons for me having lost faith in academia...

 

If, however, from a neutral stance, you're looking to find out whether there's any evidence of Nanotyranus' existence held in private hands, then you've come to the right place. Notwithstanding, this would require you to be accepting of specimens not deposited with public institutions - which you've already stated you're not, seeing as you're less than neutral stance towards "Baby Bob". While I understand the reservations academia has to private ownership, I also think that by being so categorical about it, they're missing out on a lot of rare data that could be really useful to the advancement of the discipline. Of course I fully understand the concerns pertaining to the destruction of sites through careless collecting or commercial (over)exploitation, and I'm not saying this is an easy topic to tackle. But by taking a categorical approach to amateurs and amateur collections, you're dismissing the many valuable contributions made by amateurs over the years, with inclusion of unique specimens held in some of these collections. It can be much different too, as it is in Dutch archaeology, where amateur collections are often used as part of research projects, and rare archaeological finds find their way to the national museum after the discoverer has had time to enjoy the piece for themselves. Thus, I don't think it's an outright issue of access to specimens or need for a ban on private collecting, nor academia being stuck-up about specimens held in private hands, but rather a concern of having the proper legislation and popular support for this legislation in place.

 

While I digress and do appreciate well laid-out argument, my advise, in conclusion, is to lower your expectations and take an even more open stance to the discussion. You may have your opinion as to the direction the argument should go. But providing the answer yourself is never a good outset for asking questions. Instead, may be posit a hypothesis (and I'd advise a single one at a time) and see how people react to that. I'm sure you'll find that the discussion you'll land in then will be much more informative than the responses you're getting now. Good luck!

[R0b]

Funnily enough due to Discovery documentaries I was in the Nano doesn’t exist camp. After reading the previous topic you created and the replies to it I have seen evidence they are different. 

[Welsh Wizard]

An interesting thesis which I can’t really add to or challenge as I know very little about the subject.

 

What I find interesting is that where there are large numbers of skeletons of certain dinosaurs, there does seem to be quite a variation in the skeletal elements.

 

Take iguanodon for example. Here’s a paper describing how some of the bones can vary quite significantly between individuals.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313461040_Individual_variation_in_the_postcranial_skeleton_of_the_Early_Cretaceous_Iguanodon_bernissartensis_Dinosauria_Ornithopoda

[Nanotyrannus35]

@TyrantFan66

 

Do you have explanations for the differences of the species that @Troodon had mentioned in the topic "The Case for Nanotyrannus" such as the teeth differences?  

[Welsh Wizard]

29 minutes ago, Nanotyrannus35 said:

Do you have explanations for the differences of the species that @Troodon had mentioned in the topic "The Case for Nanotyrannus" such as the teeth differences?  

No I don’t. Like I said, I don’t know much about the subject.

[hadrosauridae]

30 minutes ago, Nanotyrannus35 said:

Do you have explanations for the differences of the species that @Troodon had mentioned in the topic "The Case for Nanotyrannus" such as the teeth differences?  

 

I wouldnt hold your breath for a reply.  This "student" already has his outcome formulated and is trying to cull the specific data points to support his supposition.  Wonderful start for such a budding young scientist! I must have missed that particular part of the scientific method in school.

[Nanotyrannus35]

59 minutes ago, Welsh Wizard said:

No I don’t. Like I said, I don’t know much about the subject.

Sorry, the question was directed to @TyrantFan66

[hadrosauridae]

1 minute ago, Welsh Wizard said:

No I don’t. Like I said, I don’t know much about the subject.

I think he was asking the OP.

[Welsh Wizard]

Oops. I realise that now. Sorry.

[Fossildude19]

On 11/7/2021 at 6:04 PM, TyrantFan66 said:

My first post on the forum was to see if anybody could show me an adult specimen of “Nanotyrannus.” I was more forceful in that approach because, from what I’ve seen on Twitter, “Nano” fans like to argue with paleontologists on the validity of the genus, even though these scientists have been studying dinosaurs for years and have degrees and Ph.Ds in different scientific fields. The evidence points them in a different conclusion compared to the public, and the fact that they are being so heavily resisted against with regards to this topic is baffling.

 

I decided to play the “Nano” fans at their own game, and wrote a question in a cocky manner to see if anybody could give me something of value regarding an adult “Nanotyrannus” specimen. I expected a hostile reaction akin to what you find on Twitter, but the feedback was mostly positive. I was told a couple of things regarding how I worded my post, which was to be expected, among other things, but there was a comment that sent me to a post written by a person with the username "Troodon." Titled "The Case for Nanotyrannus," which I think was inspired by Larson's paper of the same name, goes over some traits that seem to be unique to "Nanotyrannus." With all due respect to Troodon, the points that they made have been debunked by multiple paleontologists who have studied "Nanotyrannus" fossils for years. Troodon also wrote a comment in response to my question, and they fell for my cocky persona and decided not to respond to the critiques that I had regarding not having an adult “Nano.” 

 

So now, I will try a different approach. I am going to list the biggest reasons why “Nano” does not exist, and see where this gets me next. These critiques, I believe, truly hinder any conclusive argument to support “Nano’s” identity, and some of these arguments come from other professional paleontologist who argue against “Nano’s” validity. Therefore, I am curious to see what the responses would be this time.

 

 

The problem with STARTING OFF with a harsh, forceful, or cocky approach is that you lose out on the input of people who are turned off by that approach. Frank (Troodon) bailed on your topic without even commenting, because of this, and yet you seem to be happy that he "Fell for my cocky persona, and decided not to respond..." 

 

Not sure how that plays into your wanting a rational discourse on the topic, with starting off by alienating some of the audience. ???

Chances are, he, and others, are likely to ignore this topic as they don't want to deal with you based on the first impression that you made.   

 

You now probably lose out on some knowledgeable input because you chose the more confrontational path.

If you had spent a few days on the Forum sizing up the audience before posting, you would have seen that we don't allow the drama that other "social media" websites allow. You'll notice we try to head things off at the pass, by jumping in and saying to keep things cordial? I did that because of your harsh tone, and didn't want things to escalate.

 

Troll-ish behavior is not condoned here.

 

We are interested in FOSSILS. The science, not the controversy, or animus between rival factions. Not everyone has a dog in the Nano vs T-rex game. ( And just FYI, not everyone here may even care about dinosaurs, or this topic.) 

 

Next time, (if there is one) try leading with the rational approach, rather than trying to push buttons to get a reaction. Scientific discourse should be about discussion and facts, not button pushing and "winning". 

 

A wise person once said, ... "You catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar."

 

Just a thought.

 

[jpc]

I am not going to argue point by point, but let's take No 10 as a f'rinsatnce:

 

10. “Jane’s” teeth fit perfectly with a juvenile T. rex’s bite marks on a vertebra.
It has been said that "Nano's" teeth are too thin to belong to T. rex, but Peterson (2019) showed that "Jane's" teeth matched perfectly with the tooth marks of a juvenile T. rex's. It seems that "Nano's" teeth are stronger than what people claim, and this supports "Nano" as a juvenile T. rex.

 

The wording on this is a perfect example of how your pre-determined beliefs influence your thesis.  

 

One could just as easily have said :

 

“Jane’s” teeth fit perfectly with a Nanotyrannus bite marks on a vertebra.
It has been said that "Nano's" teeth are too thin to belong to T. rex, but Peterson (2019) showed that "Jane's" teeth matched perfectly with the tooth marks of a juvenile T. rex's. It seems that "Nano's" teeth are stronger than what people claim, and this supports "Nano" as a juvenile T. rex.

 

You did not list the reference for Peterson 2019... I would like to see this.  

[Runner64]

@TyrantFan66 if you are a student like you say, a small bit of advice. Questioning the validity of specimens and past studies is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process.
 

However, bias will completely ruin one’s reputation and credibility. I know several examples of this in my own field of study.  On that note, I suggest avoiding definitive statements.  Science is an ever expanding concept and is also continuously revised.  Please keep in mind as you move along in your studies. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Runner64

[JohnJ]

23 hours ago, TyrantFan66 said:

The ONLY tyrannosauroid present in North America 68-66 Ma is Tyrannosaurus rex.

 

Hmm...real life is typically more complex when it comes to top predators and scavengers.  Further, your assertion exceeds a data set you acknowledge is in many ways deficient.

[Crusty_Crab]

As a self-professed invertebrate lover, I truly have no "dog in the fight." In my opinion, I find your technical arguments convincing. I am open to any pro-Nano-Tyrannosaur arguments. I like your citations, even though I have to profess that I don't have the time nor the inclination to look them up and verify them myself. Any arguments attacking the other camp are neither appreciated nor convincing. That includes calling out someone out from the other camp for their perceived fallacies. That also includes the opposing point of view, invalidating the whole argument simply because they cited a specific person. I truly hate platitudes, because they tend to oversimplify issues. In this case, I am compelled to cite one that is repeated in my workplace as a starting point of discussion: Attack the problem, not the person. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Crusty_Crab

[jdp]

as a professional paleontologist: lol

[jdp]

To clarify: the manner in which the formal scientific discussion on "Nannotyrannus" has taken place is not super convincing and doesn't really adhere to the taxonomic standards just about everywhere else in the field, and there is some absolutely ridiculous argumentation ("it loses tooth loci as it grows!!!") which are biologically implausible. I don't really care either way because dinosaurs just do not get me super jazzed up but you can't tell me that it's totally acceptable to name 5 different diplodocines from the Carnegie Quarry and then turn around and tell me that the differences between definitive Tyrannosaurus and at least some putative Nannotyrannus material don't rise to the level of species-level or genus-level distinction.

[Top Trilo]

My focus is not on dinosaurs so can't comment on the debate itself but I was wondering why does the Nanotyrannus debate receive so much attention? Genus and species names change all the time. Is it just because it involves the most famous fossil, T. rex? Would it create any problems or benefit anyone if the debate gets settled? 

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 hour ago, Top Trilo said:

My focus is not on dinosaurs so can't comment on the debate itself but I was wondering why does the Nanotyrannus debate receive so much attention? Genus and species names change all the time. Is it just because it involves the most famous fossil, T. rex? Would it create any problems or benefit anyone if the debate gets settled? 

Yes, it's because Tyrannosaurus rex is the most famous dinosaur, indeed fossil, in the world and there a lot of people interested in this and working on the species.

If I started a thread on whether Parvohallopora should have been separated from Hallopora or not, I doubt it would attain a lot of momentum.

Likewise, many people are not concerned about the use of Leptaena rhomboidalis as a wastebasket taxon. 

It seems to me that some professionals and amateurs on both sides of this debate not only have some sort of agenda, but that they are trying to fit the facts to their opinion rather than following the facts to the truth. 

Settling the debate once and for all would prove a problem only to those who refuse to accept evidence, the Flat Earther approach. I, for one would like to know the answer as I wish to know as many true things as possible. It's a benefit to know the truth. 

 

[jdp]

3 hours ago, Top Trilo said:

My focus is not on dinosaurs so can't comment on the debate itself but I was wondering why does the Nanotyrannus debate receive so much attention? Genus and species names change all the time. Is it just because it involves the most famous fossil, T. rex? Would it create any problems or benefit anyone if the debate gets settled? 

 

Because big egos and big press are involved.

[TyrantFan66]

Extra notes:
1. Peterson (2019) on showing "Jane's" teeth fit with T. rex:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331499897_Feeding_traces_attributable_to_juvenile_Tyrannosaurus_rex_offer_insight_into_ontogenetic_dietary_trends

 

2. Nano's teeth are ontogenetic, or they are Dakotaraptor teeth. I've been told both of that by Holtz himself (pers. comm.). Dakotaraptor's teeth are hard to distinguish from "Nano's." Besides, teeth will not sway the scientists who are against "Nano's" existence. You need an adult specimen. Besides, Peterson (2019) already proved that "Nano's" teeth are compatible with T. rex's in terms of creating puncture marks that are characteristic of T. rex's bite marks.

 

3. The point is to make sure that remember what the scientists, the ones who study the fossil material, are saying about the topic, and ignoring them is not going to help your argument. They are the experts, and failure to take heed on what they say is dangerous to the science. If people need a little, or forceful, push in this direction, then it is necessary in order to help spread the truth. The truth is that there is no evidence for "Nano's existence. This is why we get "documentaries" like "Dino Death Match" on Nat Geo, filled with outdated evidence that has been debunked numerous times. Carr and Holtz declined because the "doc" was unscientific and ignoring the majority consensus. In fact, Holtz was treated horrible on the making of the "doc," so he left. The majority consensus is supported by the most evidence. This is not how you treat the authority figures in science.

 

Brusatte has said on Twitter than we need an adult "Nano" specimen, and most paleontologists agree. Arguing against Brusatte, and others like him, with outdated evidence will not work. No adult specimen, no "Nano."