The Case for Nanotyrannus

[TyBoy]

1 hour ago, jpc said:

two points:

 

1) Sereno is at the University of Chicago (my alma mater).  The Field Museum is NOT at the U of C.  Please do not assume they are one and the same just because they are in the same city.  (Yes, this bugs me).  I do not know Saitta but my guess is he has nothing to do with Paul, as the relationship is a two way street with zero traffic even though they are only 6 miles apart.  You make it sound like the Field needs Paul to be respected....The Field is a well respected research institute without him.  I dare say, more respected.  But I digress.        

 

2) Yes , anonymous review is typical for peer review.  

 

Evan's bio says he's a research associate at the Field Museum.  A lot of what I see from Paul is from the FM.  Not meant that they are associated

Edited January 3 by TyBoy

[jpc]

8 hours ago, TyBoy said:

 

A lot of what I see from Paul is from the FM.  

Knowing what I know about both outfits, I find this surprising.  But then, I do not keep up with Paul's adventures. 

Just for laughs, I googled "Field Museum Paul Sereno" and I got very little.  He is listed an as associate researcher in the museum's web site, along with about 200 others.

  

Edited January 4 by jpc

[DD1991]

On 2/12/2020 at 8:53 AM, KansasFossilHunter said:

 

There is also KUVP 156375 at the University of Kansas. I discovered this specimen on July 25, 2016. 

 

https://www.history.com/news/tyrannosaurs-rex-montana-paleontology-discovery

 

This partial skeleton includes both maxillae (see pic) as well as the illia + partial sacrum, single cervical vertebra, single presacral vertebra, a premax, right postorbital, left jugal, right metatarsal IV and some pedal phalanges as well as other assorted elements. 

 

Although the juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex specimen KUVP 156375 excavated you is not mentioned in the new paper by Nick Longrich and Evan Saitta regarding Nanotyrannus, the abstract by Burnham et al. (2018) notes that despite being a juvenile, KUVP 156375 has a maxillary tooth count consistent with that of adult T. rex rather than that of CMNH 7541 or Jane (the maxillae of the holotype of Stygivenator molnari, LACM 28471, are incomplete, so it's unclear if it had the same number of maxillary teeth as CMNH 7541). If a description of KUVP 156375 is published, it could weigh in on whether or not the difference between KUVP 156375 and CMNH 7541 in the maxillary tooth count is of taxonomic significance because the juvenile Tarbosaurus bataar specimen MPC-D 107/7 has the same tooth count as adult T. bataar. It is interesting to note that the paper by Longrich and Saitta agrees with Tom Carr in treating Dinotyrannus as a junior synonym of T. rex but does not consider LACM 28471 to be a juvenile T. rex, although no teeth are preserved for LACM 23845.

 

Burnham, Atkins-Weltman, and Jevnikar, 2018. A new juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex from the Hell Creek Formation of eastern Montana provides insights into cranial and dental ontogeny. SVP 78th annual meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico, p. 99. (PDF link here)

[Baking Geologist]

12 hours ago, TyBoy said:

Typical for those with their heads in the sand and refuse to see the evidence.

 

 

Having been around the block a time or two with different opinions and hotly debated topics I am reminded of my major professor at NIU who decided to move away from the mud slinging he was getting in economic geochemistry and go study “boring” carbonates…..in the Yucatán peninsula…..🤦‍♀️ 

[Al Dente]

On 12/4/2021 at 6:59 AM, Troodon said:

Why the Dueling Dinosaur Nanotyrannus research at the NC museum is or will be a sham/farse etc....its all about $$$ and recouping their investment.  T rex sells not Nanotyrannus.  Already advertising the Trex/Triceratops fight.  Pretty bad if this is where research has gotten.

 

On 12/4/2021 at 5:35 PM, jpc said:

I'm with troodon on this.  I was really disappointed when the NC folks got this and immediately called it a T rex avoiding even mentioning in all the press that it was a study specimen that will help determine anything about young rexes and Nanos.  They dropped the ball on that one.  The possibility to get huge numbers of people interested in a true scientific program that would help answer questions.   I think the marketing folks should have gone that direction.  

 

I know Troodon is no longer on the Forum, but I thought I would show an update in the museum's advertising. Their advertising is no longer claiming T. rex for the dinosaur. They use "Triceratops and a tyrannosaur" when describing the pair.

 

 

[Randyw]

Ooooo at least that means they are considering it

[patelinho7]

Or they realize they have no place disputing a researched argument given they have fabricated an outcome themselves 

 

Edit: *IF* that's why they made that decision.

Edited February 14 by patelinho7

[Fossildude19]

12 minutes ago, patelinho7 said:

Or they realize they have no place disputing a researched argument given they have fabricated an outcome themselves 

 

Conjecture on your part, though...

 

They may have gone with what they were told, rather than making something up themselves.

We need to be careful when ascribing or implying motive where there may be none.