T Rex or Nanotyrannus?

[Boesse]

4 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

One would hope that their personal opinion did not impact their professional evaluation. At least it shouldn’t.

That's just it - there hasn't been any professional evaluation of those specimens.

 

16 minutes ago, piranha said:

 

 

...and soon thereafter, a lot of labels will need to be revised...  

Actually, not really, because like I said the consensus view is that Nanotyrannus is a juvenile T. rex. Most museums have them all labeled (e.g. in collections and on exhibit) as juvenile T. rex specimens anyway, since it's a minority view point.

[piranha]

9 minutes ago, Boesse said:

Actually, not really, because like I said the consensus view is that Nanotyrannus is a juvenile T. rex. Most museums have them all labeled (e.g. in collections and on exhibit) as juvenile T. rex specimens anyway, since it's a minority view point.

 

 

I was not referring to institutional labels... 

[Miocene_Mason]

Strange they changed so much with age, makes you wonder how many “tooth taxons” are different aged individuals of already known species. Very stark difference in the teeth (here’s a picture I stole from @-Andy-) 

[-Andy-]

25 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Strange they changed so much with age, makes you wonder how many “tooth taxons” are different aged individuals of already known species. Very stark difference in the teeth (here’s a picture I stole from @-Andy-) 

 

 

Take note that my Rex teeth are consistently thick. My picture was trying to illustrate that even a juvenile Rex tooth has a rounded cross section unlike Nano teeth.

 

Even at the same length, a Rex tooth is much bulkier than a Nano. Rex teeth were like bone-crushing bananas, while Nano teeth were like daggers.

[bcfossilcollector]

28 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Strange they changed so much with age, makes you wonder how many “tooth taxons” are different aged individuals of already known species. Very stark difference in the teeth (here’s a picture I stole from @-Andy-) 

Very strange indeed. Not only does  the tooth morphology differ rather extensively but there is an even more pronounced difference in manus claw morphology as regards existing specimens of T rex and Nanotyrannus or what are thought to be Nanotyrannus specimens. I realize there is no consensus as of yet but oh those differences. Fascinating!!!

[Miocene_Mason]

8 minutes ago, -Andy- said:

Even at the same length, a Rex tooth is much bulkier than a Nano. Rex teeth were like bone-crushing bananas, while Nano teeth were like daggers.

Makes sense, looking at how Jane is built, it isn’t going to be hunting triceratops or nodosaurs. No bone crunching needed. 

 

I might add there are rumors “Bloody Mary” the private possible Nanotyrannus has freakishly long arms when compared to Sue.

[bcfossilcollector]

Was there not some issue as regards the histology studies done on Jane?  If Tyrannosaurus rex did live to an average maximum age of 30 and one accepts Jane as being a rex then Jane is a juvenile. But, if Jane is a Nanotyrannus and an adult might we not infer, as some paleontologists have, that Nanotyrannus had a shorter lifespan? Pure conjecture?

[bcfossilcollector]

2 minutes ago, bcfossilcollector said:

I hope the “Bloody Mary” specimen receives the study it warrants  

 

[Miocene_Mason]

3 minutes ago, bcfossilcollector said:

Was there not some issue as regards the histology studies done on Jane?  If Tyrannosaurus rex did have live to an average maximum age of 30 and one accepts Jane as being a rex then Jane is a juvenile. But, if Jane is a Nanotyrannus and an adult might we not infer, as some palaeontologists have, that Nanotyrannus had a shorter lifespan? Pure conjecture?

You’d need to compare histiologies of other tyrannosaurs to be see if there is a significant differences. Problem is, no tyrannosaurs are as well represented as T. rex.

 

I have an idea about this debate that I wonder if any one has tried. I think I’ll post it  on a seperate thread. 

[CBchiefski]

On 8/28/2018 at 4:08 PM, Troodon said:

Jane is an adult Nanotyrannus....will be the subject of a debate for years to come. 

 

On 8/28/2018 at 4:30 PM, Bobby Rico said:

Wow ok that is interesting that Jane is an adult  I thought she a juvenile.  Thank for the info . 

 

On 8/28/2018 at 5:39 PM, Troodon said:

That's what Tom Carr believes why it's a juvie Rex and the subject of his upcoming monograph.  The Paleontologists on the opposing side have other arguments.   Enjoy sitting back and watching this play out...

Not really, histology has shown Jane is not mature and still growing, even if Jane is a Nanotyrannus, the specimen is still a juvenile or sub-adult. Unless you have an issue with the methodology, that part of the debate is settled. 

I second what has @Boesse stated, only R. Bakker and P. Larson consider Nano to be valid, everyone else I have spoken with does not. This is less a Nanotyrannus camp for or against and more the evidence being used to support Nanotyrannus is not published on. In time we will get a better idea, as there are more tyrannosaurids out there, which hopefully will not take too long to get published. Am actually working on the ontogeny of some new specimens currently.

[-Andy-]

On 8/28/2018 at 11:04 PM, CBchiefski said:

 

 

Not really, histology has shown Jane is not mature and still growing, even if Jane is a Nanotyrannus, the specimen is still a juvenile or sub-adult. Unless you have an issue with the methodology, that part of the debate is settled. 

I second what has @Boesse stated, only R. Bakker and P. Larson consider Nano to be valid, everyone else I have spoken with does not. This is less a Nanotyrannus camp for or against and more the evidence being used to support Nanotyrannus is not published on. In time we will get a better idea, as there are more tyrannosaurids out there, which hopefully will not take too long to get published. Am actually working on the ontogeny of some new specimens currently.

 

Assuming we only included paleontologists who study theropods, David Evans and Phil Currie support Nanotyrannus as well.

 

That aside, I look forward to more research on this matter being published.

[Troodon]

Putting skulls aside for the moment I have a hard time trying to rationalize how the arms of these two Tyrannosaurids can be from the same animal.  The bones are so different that ontogeny alone cannot explain the difference.   Unfortunately  I like to look at special complete skeletons in private hands and make some determination on what I see, my blinders are off and open to what I can see and touch.   Yes Jane has no arms but the Dueler does, why it needs to be consided and not dismissed.

 

I know the owner of the dueling dinosaurs and to the best of my knowledge he has never prevented any paleontologist from examining his specimens. In fact he encouraged it when he was trying to sell them.  Many notable theropod paleontologists have and one even asked not to be acknowledged from seeing it but those that have not gone my bet was through their own wishes sad to say.   

 

My experience in talking directly with a limited number of theropod paleontologists is that quite a few support two species and some like more data and are on the fence .

[Boesse]

Oh dear, the "arm" issue - first, there aren't very many complete arms of adult T. rex. No measurements of these private specimens have ever been published, so we don't really know for certain if 1) the arms are just proportionally larger or 2) absolutely larger; and 3) we don't know the stratigraphic origin of those specimens relative to the other T. rex skeletons with arms, so it's not possible (until the finds are in a museum and published) to evaluate whether it is within the range of known variation or the range of possible variation, and if there is some change in arm size through time (as is documented for other features as varying stratigraphically through the Maastrichtian - e.g. nasal horn length in Triceratops). Lastly, for reduced structures (e.g. tyrannosaurid arms), considerable variation should not be unexpected.

[Miocene_Mason]

7 hours ago, -Andy- said:

Phil Currie support Nanotyrannus as well.

Not anymore, once Jane was found he reversed his opinion.

[Troodon]

5 hours ago, Boesse said:

Oh dear, the "arm" issue - first, there aren't very many complete arms of adult T. rex. No measurements of these private specimens have ever been published, so we don't really know for certain if 1) the arms are just proportionally larger or 2) absolutely larger; and 3) we don't know the stratigraphic origin of those specimens relative to the other T. rex skeletons with arms, so it's not possible (until the finds are in a museum and published) to evaluate whether it is within the range of known variation or the range of possible variation, and if there is some change in arm size through time (as is documented for other features as varying stratigraphically through the Maastrichtian - e.g. nasal horn length in Triceratops). Lastly, for reduced structures (e.g. tyrannosaurid arms), considerable variation should not be unexpected.

Why I made my arm comments, the bones are different they have a different morphology than Rex

Here is a COMPLETE  baby arm from a Trex that is owned Paul Sereno and compares very well with the known elements of Sue and Wyrex and not any Nanotyrannus material.  Have no idea if its been published but its housed in the proper place.  If I know about this I'm sure T. Carr is aware of it.

 

Here is an illustration of Wyrex and Nanotyrannus and Sue has a few different hand bones

 

So something is going on and should not be dismissed if the baby rex arm looks alot like adult specimens and not like a large Nano.  I would have hoped that Carr, being at the forefront of this, would have at least  taken the initiative to go see the Duelers and draw his own conclusions.   The arm bones/claws are not unique to the duelers and a number of  isolated ones have been found.

[Boesse]

Again, these are specimens in a private collection and so Carr and others are refusing to discuss them until they are made available to science, which is eminently fair. Carr, Holtz, and others have all explained that this is totally within the range of variation and not terribly surprising. These do not look terribly different to me. Again, issues of allometry are not addressed simply by stating "the arms are different!" seemingly as a non-sequitur, and again, there's also no stratigraphic data to demonstrate that they are in fact the same age.

[-Andy-]

1 hour ago, Boesse said:

Again, these are specimens in a private collection and so Carr and others are refusing to discuss them until they are made available to science, which is eminently fair. 

 

I can understand Carr's point of view. I must also point out however that's as good as piecing together a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces. Your picture will be incomplete.

 

That aside, the issue of studying fossils in private collection was previously discussed here. I think there's good points made by both sides:

 

[Miocene_Mason]

11 minutes ago, -Andy- said:

That aside, the issue of studying fossils in private collection was previously discussed here. I think there's good points made by both sides:

Hard issue. You want a fossil to be studied and used for science but you don’t want it to collect dust away from view. The key therein lays in giving it to the right museum with the right researchers. I wish more people would donate though,make it all a lot easier. Though I understand why they don’t want to. I know a few people who should donate but have respectable reasons why they don’t. Makes science hard though.

[-Andy-]

8 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

Hard issue. You want a fossil to be studied and used for science but you don’t want it to collect dust away from view. The key therein lays in giving it to the right museum with the right researchers. I wish more people would donate though,make it all a lot easier. Though I understand why they don’t want to. I know a few people who should donate but have respectable reasons why they don’t. Makes science hard though.

 

It's indeed a difficult topic. My friend owns a rare and valuable fossil he won from an auction. He immediately told several museums he could lend them the specimen, but all of them rejected him, instead asking he donate it. My friend asked why should he? He spent a small fortune on it. If he hasn't bought it, a random collector could well have stowed it away in a garage somewhere never to be seen. He told the museums again that if they wish to study the specimen, they can feel free to contact him as long as they refrain from asking for a donation.

 

To date they have not contacted him again, and that valuable fossil remains unstudied.

[Miocene_Mason]

9 minutes ago, -Andy- said:

 

It's indeed a difficult topic. My friend owns a rare and valuable fossil he won from an auction. He immediately told several museums he could lend them the specimen, but all of them rejected him, instead asking he donate it. My friend asked why should he? He spent a small fortune on it. If he hasn't bought it, a random collector could well have stowed it away in a garage somewhere never to be seen. He told the museums again that if they wish to study the specimen, they can feel free to contact him as long as they refrain from asking for a donation.

 

To date they have not contacted him again, and that valuable fossil remains unstudied.

I know for a fact that as we speak lays a fairly complete undescribed megalichthyid fish species in a very well known museum that is known for its fossil fish, and has been their for a while, and yet no one bothers to name it. This is particularly annoying to me because I have a few pieces from the same species and I can’t label them! Need more PhD students. 

[CBchiefski]

On 8/28/2018 at 11:52 PM, -Andy- said:

 

Assuming we only included paleontologists who study theropods, David Evans and Phil Currie support Nanotyrannus as well.

 

That aside, I look forward to more research on this matter being published.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 7:15 AM, WhodamanHD said:

Not anymore, once Jane was found he reversed his opinion.

Thanks @WhodamanHD. 
@-Andy- if you think Evans still considers Nano valid then I encourage you to ask him, if he does currently then that would be news to me. The only quick refrence I can make is that he was a co-author on https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147687 which provides strong evidence against Nano given the skull sutures were, and are still, used as a data point for Nanotyrannus' validity. In short it demonstrates that sutures cannot be used to define maturity. When I have more time, will see if I can find a public quote by him on the matter recently.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 4:58 AM, Troodon said:

Putting skulls aside for the moment I have a hard time trying to rationalize how the arms of these two Tyrannosaurids can be from the same animal.  The bones are so different that ontogeny alone cannot explain the difference.   Unfortunately  I like to look at special complete skeletons in private hands and make some determination on what I see, my blinders are off and open to what I can see and touch.   Yes Jane has no arms but the Dueler does, why it needs to be consided and not dismissed.

 

I know the owner of the dueling dinosaurs and to the best of my knowledge he has never prevented any paleontologist from examining his specimens. In fact he encouraged it when he was trying to sell them.  Many notable theropod paleontologists have and one even asked not to be acknowledged from seeing it but those that have not gone my bet was through their own wishes sad to say.   

 

My experience in talking directly with a limited number of theropod paleontologists is that quite a few support two species and some like more data and are on the fence .

 

13 hours ago, Boesse said:

Again, these are specimens in a private collection and so Carr and others are refusing to discuss them until they are made available to science, which is eminently fair. Carr, Holtz, and others have all explained that this is totally within the range of variation and not terribly surprising. These do not look terribly different to me. Again, issues of allometry are not addressed simply by stating "the arms are different!" seemingly as a non-sequitur, and again, there's also no stratigraphic data to demonstrate that they are in fact the same age.

11 hours ago, -Andy- said:

 

I can understand Carr's point of view. I must also point out however that's as good as piecing together a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces. Your picture will be incomplete.

 

That aside, the issue of studying fossils in private collection was previously discussed here. I think there's good points made by both sides:

 

 

 

11 hours ago, -Andy- said:

 

It's indeed a difficult topic. My friend owns a rare and valuable fossil he won from an auction. He immediately told several museums he could lend them the specimen, but all of them rejected him, instead asking he donate it. My friend asked why should he? He spent a small fortune on it. If he hasn't bought it, a random collector could well have stowed it away in a garage somewhere never to be seen. He told the museums again that if they wish to study the specimen, they can feel free to contact him as long as they refrain from asking for a donation.

 

To date they have not contacted him again, and that valuable fossil remains unstudied.

It is a very difficult issue but unless we maintain the repeatability then it is no longer science. Bringing in a few experts once or twice does not allow for repeatability, what about in 10, 50, or 100 years from now when the experts at that point in time wish to see the specimens? From a purely scientific standpoint, studying a specimen which may not always be available for research is fruitless. If someone wants to keep a specimen, that is fine by me however it is never going to be worth a hard study then. If nothing else, no journal would accept a publication using it as data because the specimen may not always be available. Specimens can only contribute to the body of knowledge and be used as data when others can go and look at them. The debate of Nano could likely be settled if the Montana dueling dinos specimen was donated or sold for a reasonable price to an accredited museum/university. I do not fault its owner for wanting as much as was asked, but this was far above what any interested scientifically based party could offer. Until such a time as the dueling dinos are in a public collection or more specimens are found, then any data from them cannot be used, which is a shame. Often this is one of the key points where I think professionals and amateurs loose sight of each other’s goals, neither side is actively trying to fight the other but sadly fighting often results.
 

Just to be clear, I do not care if Nano is valid or not, I care that we get this correct and at present, the data supports Nano being the Juvenile form of T rex, while it falsifies Nano as its own valid genus. More data might change the current conclusion or might strengthen it.

 

10 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

I know for a fact that as we speak lays a fairly complete undescribed megalichthyid fish species in a very well known museum that is known for its fossil fish, and has been their for a while, and yet no one bothers to name it. This is particularly annoying to me because I have a few pieces from the same species and I can’t label them! Need more PhD students. 

Alas, we need more scientist in all fields really.

[DPS Ammonite]

@CBchiefski This is a question to all. Are institutes/persons that want to study and publish on a fossil hesitant to buy the fossil for reasons other than they do not have the money? In other words, does buying a fossil for study some how taint the fossil and put into question the provenance? 

[PaleoNoel]

2 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

@CBchiefski This is a question to all. Are institutes/persons that want to study and publish on a fossil hesitant to buy the fossil for reasons other than they do not have the money? In other words, does buying a fossil for study some how taint the fossil and put into question the provenance? 

I believe that most scientific institutions are underfunded and understaffed because they cannot afford to employ what would be a preferable amount of people. It's certainly a shame as it stretches out the time it requires to properly describe new species. As for the Montana dueling dinos, I have spoken to the discoverer/owner before and he's a very personable and genuine man. It's also my opinion that the way Jack Horner spoke about him in a number of articles was degrading to his character.

[Miocene_Mason]

10 hours ago, DPS Ammonite said:

@CBchiefski This is a question to all. Are institutes/persons that want to study and publish on a fossil hesitant to buy the fossil for reasons other than they do not have the money? In other words, does buying a fossil for study some how taint the fossil and put into question the provenance? 

Unless it’s very well labeled or has matrix attached it takes away its exact place in the strata. I’m not a paleontologist (yet) but if I were I’d want to base my papers on as much museum-found material as possible. Now if there’s something that could be critically important (like these “Nanotyrannus” specimens) it may be worth acquiring.

[CBchiefski]

@DPS Ammonite That is a difficult question and rather complex. It is honestly is one I try to avoid, in short, depends on the institution as some have the funds, but most simply do not. Sue being bought for such a large amount did radically increase the value of fossils, in many ways it was a paradigm shift. Many buys do not have a major impact on the value of fossils but after sue, the market prices went up for everything, so I suppose like most aspects of life, it depends. Never met the owner @PaleoNoel but I do agree, we should not attack a person's character. There will be good news on the MT dueling dinos before too long, sadly I cannot say much else.  Sorry for the long delay everyone, was busy with SVP and life.

A decent update from the recent Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting, during which there was additional falsification of the Nano hypothesis. The video is also a great overview of the entire Nano debate.
.

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by CBchiefski
Added comments