The Case for Nanotyrannus

[Abstraktum]

A few new pictures from the young T-Rex at the Dinopark Altmühltal. 

 

For mor check this topic:

 

 

[Troodon]

I have edited the first page, my oversight, to include the Witmer Lab Braincase study which demonstrates a difference between T-rex and Nanotyrannus braincases.

[Abstraktum]

On 12.3.2019 at 7:25 PM, Troodon said:

It's unfortunate that the skeleton Jane does not have the two sketal areas discussed in this topic: Arms and Braincase.  More reason for the Dueling Dinosaur Nanotyrannus to be studied. 

 

 

This is an interesting topic for me. What actual bones where discovered with Jane? I think everybody is familiar with the cast of Jane, but I never say a picture/sketch of what bones actually where discovered. 

And what other specimens from Nanotyrannus where discovered? I'm aware of Jane, and the holotype skull from 1942. But what other bone material is out there?

There seems to be a lot more T-Rex material than there is Nanotyrannus material. 

 

Glad if someone can help me

[LordTrilobite]

22 minutes ago, Abstraktum said:

This is an interesting topic for me. What actual bones where discovered with Jane? I think everybody is familiar with the cast of Jane, but I never say a picture/sketch of what bones actually where discovered. 

And what other specimens from Nanotyrannus where discovered? I'm aware of Jane, and the holotype skull from 1942. But what other bone material is out there?

There seems to be a lot more T-Rex material than there is Nanotyrannus material. 

 

Glad if someone can help me

There's the undescribed Bloody Mary from the Duelling Dinosaurs. Very complete specimen.

[jdp]

My understanding is that the Dueling Dinos skeleton is currently in a museum and is under study by competent professionals. If it is truly something new and different, we'll soon know.

[Troodon]

The dueling dinosaur skeletons are still in private hands and in a legal dispute over ownership in the mineral rights issue of Montana.  Once this issue is resolved, which it will be, it will open the door for a sale to an institution.

 

The dueling dinosaur Nanotyrannus is virtually complete just missing a few bones. +90% complete.

 

 

 

Jane completeness image by Scott Hartman

 

[jdp]

I must be thinking of a different contentious dinosaur fossil then.

[Abstraktum]

12 hours ago, Troodon said:

Jane completeness image by Scott Hartman 

 

Thanks for the info.

I really love Scotts work, but I find it very hard to search his webpage for a specific Dino. I looked at his webpage again and still can't find this sketch of Jane. It's not listed as Nanotyrannus and with Tyrannosaurus rex this one is just not included in the Index.

[Troodon]

2 hours ago, Abstraktum said:

 

Thanks for the info.

I really love Scotts work, but I find it very hard to search his webpage for a specific Dino. I looked at his webpage again and still can't find this sketch of Jane. It's not listed as Nanotyrannus and with Tyrannosaurus rex this one is just not included in the Index.

Sometimes a google search works for me for his drawings.

[Troodon]

Here are photos of the Cleveland Museum Nanotyrannus skull, the real deal not a cast

 

 

 

 

[Bobby Rico]

Beautiful . It has got some formidable  chompers . 

[Troodon]

I added this in my opening remarks:

 

A recent paper which CLAIMS that the Nanotyrannus Jane and Petey are still growing therefore they have to be T rex is ridiculous. WHY, just because they are growing?   We have no idea what stage in their life cycle they were and obviously they are not adults.  Nano's grow, we have no idea how large, and have similar life cycles has do T rex's.  If it was not for all the other supporting evidence to validate Nanotyrannus it might make sense but the claim is nonsensical.  To draw such a conclusion gives one the impression that there was very narrow thinking in the process and results preconceived.

[rfarrar]

I see nothing in the recent paper which would help in the taxonomic determination of the Burpee specimens. Publishing data without drawing a comparison to the results from other specimens doesn't help identify a specimen. Very little actual hard data about the Burpee specimens has been published to assist in a comparison. Indeed, it appears that more osteological and surface morphology information has been published about the privately held specimen(s) of Nanotyrannus than about the Burpee specimens. Just because a specimen is held by a public-owned institution does not guarantee scientific access, nor does it guarantee that the specimen will be utilized in research.

[Greyideas]

Baby bob, a baby t-rex (whos owner tried to sell it on online for 2 million dollars after 1 year of being kept at some university) has around 12 teeth. All adult T-rex's have twelve teeth, showing that just like Tarbosaurus (which is a very close relative of rex), baby t-rexs had the same amount of teeth as the adult form. Nanotyrannus fossils have a different tooth count to all Tyrannosaurus Rex specimens.  You could say they lost a few teeth as a teen, but that would be strange. If people want to use an albertosaurine like Gorgosaurus, then you can go ahead and believe that Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger because there is evidence for that in albertosaurine theropods. This latest study led by Jack Horner is just a sneaker way for him to get scientists believing in his "T-rex was a pure scavenger idea", this however might just be an opinion. So yeah, there is still a case for nanotyrannus, dentary-wise that is!

 

*note, I maybe wrong in a sentence or two, but I tried to use first hand accounts as much as possible

 

 

Sources

 

First hand account from the owner of Baby Bob 

Gorgosaurus was a scavenger thing (this argument maybe null as Dinosaurs replace teeth, but its still a possibility) https://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/starweb/geoscan/servlet.starweb?path=geoscan/fulle.web&search1=R=101672

[Greyideas]

14 hours ago, Troodon said:

I added this in my opening remarks:

 

A recent paper which CLAIMS that the Nanotyrannus Jane and Petey are still growing therefore they have to be T rex is ridiculous. WHY, just because they are growing?   We have no idea what stage in their life cycle they were and obviously they are not adults.  Nano's grow, we have no idea how large, and have similar life cycles has do T rex's.  If it was not for all the other supporting evidence to validate Nanotyrannus it might make sense but the claim is nonsensical.  To draw such a conclusion gives one the impression that there was very narrow thinking in the process and results preconceived.

I totally agree with you, also my teeth argument may lead some credence 

[-Andy-]

Do we have a list of all young confirmed T. rex? This is what I have at the moment:

 

MOR 6625 "Chomper" - Not sure if T. rex or Nano. Remains are too fragmentary but is potentially the youngest T. rex

 

Baby Bob - Age unknown? But said to be the youngest ever from good remains. Estimated to be 20 feet long

 

Unnamed specimen prepped by Akiko Shinya - Dentary jaw length is 35cm

 

UCRC-PV1 - Sub-adult. No other info available

 

LACM 23845 - 27 feet long

 

Tinker - 30.5 feet long

 

Rocky (housed in Dinosaur Museum Altmühltal) - Subadult. Estimated to be 32.8 feet

 

Bucky - 34 feet long

 

Are my information correct? Also, does anyone have any picture or info of LACM 28741, the Jordan theropod?

[Troodon]

11 hours ago, Greyideas said:

Baby bob, a baby t-rex (whos owner tried to sell it on online for 2 million dollars after 1 year of being kept at some university) has around 12 teeth. All adult T-rex's have twelve teeth, showing that just like Tarbosaurus (which is a very close relative of rex), baby t-rexs had the same amount of teeth as the adult form. Nanotyrannus fossils have a different tooth count to all Tyrannosaurus Rex specimens.

That's the argument I make in this topic with a baby T rex jaw that compares well with adult ones and is very different that Nanos.  Bob Detrich when he had ownership of Baby Bob showed it too me when it was in exhibit at the Tucson Show a couple of years ago and it's clearly a small T rex.  Unfortunately drivers of this theory like Thomas Carr refuse to look at specimens that are not the holy depositories of museums.  I recall Pete Larsen telling me that if it wasn't for  T C. this whole issue would be non-existent.

 

6 hours ago, -Andy- said:

Do we have a list of all young confirmed T. rex? This is what I have at the moment:

The list is long and looks good, cannot offhand see anything missing.   Not sure those skeletons that reflect over 30 feet T rex's are the best to compare against in this argument but most of the others should be studied.   Unfortunately some of the best comparative specimens are in private hands.   Also not all skeletons are equal, take Jane its missing two key elements in my argument her arms and braincase. 

[Troodon]

20 hours ago, rfarrar said:

I see nothing in the recent paper which would help in the taxonomic determination of the Burpee specimens. Publishing data without drawing a comparison to the results from other specimens doesn't help identify a specimen. Very little actual hard data about the Burpee specimens has been published to assist in a comparison. Indeed, it appears that more osteological and surface morphology information has been published about the privately held specimen(s) of Nanotyrannus than about the Burpee specimens. Just because a specimen is held by a public-owned institution does not guarantee scientific access, nor does it guarantee that the specimen will be utilized in research.

I appreciate your thoughts on this subject Bob.  It has to be frustrating to see the amount of media attention and hype its received on conclusions that are not based sound evidence.

[Greyideas]

5 hours ago, Troodon said:

That's the argument I make in this topic with a baby T rex jaw that compares well with adult ones and is very different that Nanos.  Bob Detrich when he had ownership of Baby Bob showed it too me when it was in exhibit at the Tucson Show a couple of years ago and it's clearly a small T rex.  Unfortunately drivers of this theory like Thomas Carr refuse to look at specimens that are not the holy depositories of museums.  I recall Pete Larsen telling me that if it wasn't for  T C. this whole issue would be non-existent.

 

The list is long and looks good, cannot offhand see anything missing.   Not sure those skeletons that reflect over 30 feet T rex's are the best to compare against in this argument but most of the others should be studied.   Unfortunately some of the best comparative specimens are in private hands.   Also not all skeletons are equal, take Jane its missing two key elements in my argument her arms and braincase. 

Wait, Thomas Carr? I thought I would expect better from him! He really has lost it after that Montanaspinus stuff. Thats not good. 2020 will be the year of nonsensetyrannus you could say

[Greyideas]

On 3/29/2019 at 6:38 AM, Troodon said:

Sometimes a google search works for me for his drawings.

I have an issue with how Scott Hartman takes a side

[Troodon]

Added a couple of additional pieces to the case for Nanotyrannus to my initial post, just posted by Pete Larsen

See my initial post on page 1 for specifics

 

[Dinoguy89]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

Added a couple of additional pieces to the case for Nanotyrannus to my initial post, just posted by Pete Larsen

See my initial post on page 1 for specifics

Thanks for the read Frank, from your point of view why is this argument still ongoing? Many in the field seem to agree that nano is its own species, so why is this still a discussion? What do you think will end this argument once and for all?

[Troodon]

Well I call it the ostrich syndrome...a condition that affects lot of dinosaur paleontologists.

 

A good number of paleontologists believe it's not valid because the papers and words are coming from influential people who also suffer from the above condition.  Unfortunately most are not willing to look at what is in private hands or look beyond what's in front of them.

 

It's going to take a museum to be open minded when they study the next skeleton that has features which are distinctive.  

 

 

 

@Dinoguy89

[Dinoguy89]

14 hours ago, Troodon said:

Well I call it the ostrich syndrome...a condition that affects lot of dinosaur paleontologists.

 

A good number of paleontologists believe it's not valid because the papers and words are coming from influential people who also suffer from the above condition.  Unfortunately most are not willing to look at what is in private hands or look beyond what's in front of them.

 

It's going to take a museum to be open minded when they study the next skeleton that has features which are distinctive.  

 

 

 

@Dinoguy89

Haha yeah it does seem that way. It's strange why they do this and if anything it almost comes across as lazy. Especially when compared to other evidence that's been presented, including what's on this forum. Just shows what a great place this is!

[Ptychodus04]

15 hours ago, Troodon said:

Well I call it the ostrich syndrome...a condition that affects lot of dinosaur paleontologists.

 

A good number of paleontologists believe it's not valid because the papers and words are coming from influential people who also suffer from the above condition.  Unfortunately most are not willing to look at what is in private hands or look beyond what's in front of them.

 

It's going to take a museum to be open minded when they study the next skeleton that has features which are distinctive. 

 

1 hour ago, Dinoguy89 said:

Haha yeah it does seem that way. It's strange why they do this and if anything it almost comes across as lazy. Especially when compared to other evidence that's been presented, including what's on this forum. Just shows what a great place this is!

 

@Troodon thanks for this thread. It was both factual and enlightening. You clearly put forward the evidence for your position and that makes the topic easier to understand. I think this topic sheds light on the subjectivity and person bias that so easily directs our conclusions as scientists. There's a bit of professional arrogance that can cloud one's thinking if one allows it. This situation appears to be a case of certain big name scientists unwilling to say they were wrong and refusing to consider all the data, an exact opposite of Tykoski et al 2019 where they readily recognized an error in their original assessment of the Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum parietal. After more specimens were prepared and studied, they realized their conclusions were incorrect and corrected the data in a peer reviewed paper. This is how science is supposed to work.