The Case for Nanotyrannus

[Kane]

2 hours ago, R0b said:

I would say that depends on the field of science. Personally involved in genetics and by silencing and / or over expressing a gene it is possible to proof its function.

That sounds more like engineering, but then there are those fields (medicine / biology) that do not benefit as does physics from a unified theory. Still, the word proof seems antithetical to the foundation of science, which is empiricist. In genetics, I thought it would still come down to probabilities, not proofs, regardless of expression or suppression of a gene and related function. The probabilities can be quite high, approaching p1, as we "switch on and off" certain aspects of code, or as certain criteria are met to allow for particular gene expression (such as environmental insult). 

[R0b]

9 hours ago, Kane said:

That sounds more like engineering, but then there are those fields (medicine / biology) that do not benefit as does physics from a unified theory. Still, the word proof seems antithetical to the foundation of science, which is empiricist. In genetics, I thought it would still come down to probabilities, not proofs, regardless of expression or suppression of a gene and related function. The probabilities can be quite high, approaching p1, as we "switch on and off" certain aspects of code, or as certain criteria are met to allow for particular gene expression (such as environmental insult). 

If the experiment is done correctly it can be proven, the technology is that far advanced that errors can be ruled out. The key with genetics (especially plants) is that all variables can be controlled and observed. With many other fields of science there is alway missing information.

[Kane]

56 minutes ago, R0b said:

If the experiment is done correctly it can be proven, the technology is that far advanced that errors can be ruled out. The key with genetics (especially plants) is that all variables can be controlled and observed. With many other fields of science there is alway missing information.

I think you may be conflating the core or foundational grounds of science with an application. 

 

As the technology being employed (and the method) is not proceeding by axioms, it is not de facto proof. Proof does not require the result to be real at all, as it is just a table of rules (axioms). By definition, science and proof do not mix, strictu sensu. Axiomatic process insists something must be true for all times and all cases in which the axiom applies, which is a rationalist-deductivist approach. The square root of 2 is always an irrational number, and calculating the area of an isoceles triangle is aways 2a+b because of the axioms. 

 

Even genetics, fundamentally as a science, is not about proof. Your example is an application, linked to engineering. Just as I can use physics to help me construct a good load-bearing bridge. An application cannot go so far as to prove a theory. A good example would be that we were able to reach the moon using Newtonian mechanics even though it is no longer the standard model (the distance involved was comparatively too small to worry about the smallest deviation, any more than a deviation of a nanometre spread out over the distance of a 500 m walk would significantly change our position at the end of that walk).

 

But we've wandered a bit far afield of Nano...  (Sorry, all!)

[hadrosauridae]

7 minutes ago, Kane said:

......

 

But we've wandered a bit far afield of Nano...  (Sorry, all!)

 

No, no, I want to hear more about the bridges designed by nanotyrannus and how many nanometers it takes to walk a mile in a nanotyrannus shoes.

[jdp]

Proof is for math and whiskey. 

 

Science is about assessing evidence for a hypothesis through prediction about what you would expect to see under various sets of circumstances and seeing what best explains real observations. We never have "proof" although we do have experiments or observations which support specific hypotheses.

[jpc]

On 12/8/2021 at 1:48 PM, Nanotyrannus35 said:

Isn't what they're doing kind of unscientific? I mean, in science, you're not supposed to just make assumptions. You're supposed to study the evidence, and prove something, not just assume something for the sake of money.

Absolutely.  And this really bugs me.  

[Mochaccino]

This is a very informative post, thank you. I really like the clear and easily accessible way you've visually compared specimens here. I know next to nothing about dinosaurs, but being able to see the differences plainly by eye makes the case for Nano quite convincing to the uninitiated, assuming the specimens are legitimate. Especially the fact that Nano has more tooth sockets and larger arm/claw bones than T. rex seems inconsistent with them being juvenile T.rex, as it just doesn't make sense to me that an animal would lose tooth sockets and shrink their limbs with maturity, at least based on these specimens. Is there any example in the animal kingdom where this is known to happen, extinct or current? Or alternatively, perhaps the opposite extremes of morphological variation in juveniles vs adult T.rex happened to be fossilized? Though this isn't the first conclusion I'd jump to.

 

I don't know what is enough of a difference to split genus/species in the fossil record, but at the very least it seems clear to me that very distinct morphologies exist in the fossils you've presented that don't seem to be part of the same growth series.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Mochaccino

[Phos_01]

I would like to showcase two teeth from my collection, to highlight the difference between the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the Nanotyrannus.

They happen to be almost similar in size, what makes a nice comparison. And showing a good difference in the two. 

 

On the left: Tyrannosaurus Rex size 48mm. 

On the right: Nanotyrranus size 42mm.

 

Notice the thickness of the Trex tooth compared to the Nano, its much more rubust, made for crushing bone, while the Nano is slender blade like. 

Even the tiny Trex tooth is almost as wide as a full grown Nano tooth. Showing its a different morphology than Nano. 

 

Then I would like to showcase the bases. Tyrannosaurus Rex is seen each time on the left. Showing a clear oval roundish shape.

The Nanotyrannus shows an rectangular shape with a pinch in the middle. It reminds me of an hourglass. Sort of compressed in the middle, a clear characteristic. 

Some more examples of the two teeth together. 
 

[Troodon]

@Phos_01  Thanks for the post quite informative.  I'll add that the morphology of teeth in the dentition of Nanotyrannus is pretty consistent throughout other than the premaxillary ones making it difficult to determine jaw position of isolated teeth..  Very unlike Trex which possesses a heterodont dentition thats allows one a better opportunity to establish jaw position of an isolated tooth.   This is true regardless of age of a Trex so infant to adult jaws have a similar dentition.

[Tidgy's Dad]

3 hours ago, Troodon said:

@Phos_01  Thanks for the post quite informative.  I'll add that the morphology of teeth in the dentition of Nanotyrannus is pretty consistent throughout other than the premaxillary ones making it difficult to determine jaw position of isolated teeth..  Very unlike Trex which possesses a heterodont dentition thats allows one a better opportunity to establish jaw position of an isolated tooth.   This is true regardless of age of a Trex so infant to adult jaws have a similar dentition.

Could it not be sexual dimorphism? 

It's definitely the case with humans, other primates, wolves (and dogs). Darwin commented on sexual dimporphism in the beaks of finches which is as close as we can get now, with modern birds not having teeth.

[Troodon]

32 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Could it not be sexual dimorphism? 

It's definitely the case with humans, other primates, wolves (and dogs). Darwin commented on sexual dimporphism in the beaks of finches which is as close as we can get now, with modern birds not having teeth.

 

Anything is possible but highly unlikely given that there are other characteristics other than teeth that point to two distinct species.

[Phos_01]

On 7/18/2022 at 2:31 PM, Tidgy's Dad said:

Could it not be sexual dimorphism? 

It's definitely the case with humans, other primates, wolves (and dogs). Darwin commented on sexual dimporphism in the beaks of finches which is as close as we can get now, with modern birds not having teeth.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Phos_01
did not mean to cause trouble in this topic

[Tidgy's Dad]

19 hours ago, Phos_01 said:

interesting point of view. But Like Frank has mentioned, there are allot of other characteristics that makes this a class on its own. So that presumption is out.

I was going to leave this after Frank's relatively reasonable reply but your response has irritated me somewhat. 

I did not express a "point of view", not was it a "presumption". It was a simple question as I am interested, but do not have the wealth of experience in the subject that Frank does. As you may or may not know, I study mainly Palaeozoic invertebrates, particularly brachiopods and bryozoa, so I am not presuming to have a voice in this debate on either side. But I am curious. Brachiopod palaeontologists are also sometimes 'lumpers' or 'splitters', though the debate over whether Concinnispirifer should be a separate genus to Costellisprifer is not as well known. 

I think you meant 'taxon on its own", not "class" ? Or did you mean subspecies, species or genus? Why do you think it's an entirely different genus? 

Frank had the grace to say that "anything is possible", but he supports one view he is not saying "that presumption is out". Sexual dimorphism can go a lot further than just teeth, many of the bones in the body may be of different size and form. Then we have age, diet, environmental factors and intraspecific variation. You showing me one or two of the examples that support your personal bias is of little value. There need to be more studies and more specimens to make a more convincing argument either way, in my opinion. 

 

19 hours ago, Phos_01 said:

Tyrannosaur Rex, Trex

 proving that its actually an older specimen than the shown Trex. 

    It is Tyrannosaurus rex; species names are never capitalized. 

Proof is for mathematics and whiskey. 

You cannot prove your personal belief by showing me a couple of photos from a documentary. You may show pieces of evidence to support a claim, but this doesn't prove anything, the best you can hope for is to make your case stronger, but others may refute it or produce counter-evidence. 

 

19 hours ago, Phos_01 said:

 Tyrannosaurus Rex Phalanx (finger bone) and on the right the new found Nano,

 Nano found on this specimen Trex

Again, it's Tyrannosaurus rex. Tyrannosaurus Rex was a pop band. 

It is acceptable to refer to the taxon as T. rex after you have previously used the full form, but not "Trex". 

Why do "dino" folk always abbreviate names? "Nano", "Trike", "Steg", etc? Convenience? Laziness? Childishness? Popularist?  Certainly not helping in supporting a scientific debate. 

 

19 hours ago, Phos_01 said:

 Id wish they would give the Nano the name it deserves.

That would be Nanotyrannus lancensis, then? 

 

I have no personal opinion on the debate, but am interested to see how it proceeds in the future, I am very grateful for Frank's opinions as he has a wealth of personal experience with these fossils in this formation as well as his personal study, but I will not be told that the matter is settled or proven. 

[Phos_01]

26 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I was going to leave this after Frank's relatively reasonable reply but your response has irritated me somewhat. 

I did not express a "point of view", not was it a "presumption". It was a simple question as I am interested, but do not have the wealth of experience in the subject that Frank does. As you may or may not know, I study mainly Palaeozoic invertebrates, particularly brachiopods and bryozoa, so I am not presuming to have a voice in this debate on either side. But I am curious. Brachiopod palaeontologists are also sometimes 'lumpers' or 'splitters', though the debate over whether Concinnispirifer should be a separate genus to Costellisprifer is not as well known. 

I think you meant 'taxon on its own", not "class" ? Or did you mean subspecies, species or genus? Why do you think it's an entirely different genus? 

Frank had the grace to say that "anything is possible", but he supports one view he is not saying "that presumption is out". Sexual dimorphism can go a lot further than just teeth, many of the bones in the body may be of different size and form. Then we have age, diet, environmental factors and intraspecific variation. You showing me one or two of the examples that support your personal bias is of little value. There need to be more studies and more specimens to make a more convincing argument either way, in my opinion. 

 

    It is Tyrannosaurus rex; species names are never capitalized. 

Proof is for mathematics and whiskey. 

You cannot prove your personal belief by showing me a couple of photos from a documentary. You may show pieces of evidence to support a claim, but this doesn't prove anything, the best you can hope for is to make your case stronger, but others may refute it or produce counter-evidence. 

 

Again, it's Tyrannosaurus rex. Tyrannosaurus Rex was a pop band. 

It is acceptable to refer to the taxon as T. rex after you have previously used the full form, but not "Trex". 

Why do "dino" folk always abbreviate names? "Nano", "Trike", "Steg", etc? Convenience? Laziness? Childishness? Popularist?  Certainly not helping in supporting a scientific debate. 

 

That would be Nanotyrannus lancensis, then? 

 

I have no personal opinion on the debate, but am interested to see how it proceeds in the future, I am very grateful for Frank's opinions as he has a wealth of personal experience with these fossils in this formation as well as his personal study, but I will not be told that the matter is settled or proven. 

 

Did not ment to cause trouble or harm in this topic. Should not have posted at all, as this is the opposite of what I was hoping for. 

My English or proper writing can be full with errors as its not my native language and im heavy dyslexic , and im no were to be a scientist or an Paleontologist or educated as many of the people on this forum.

 

Have a nice day 

[Tidgy's Dad]

1 hour ago, Phos_01 said:

 

Did not ment to cause trouble or harm in this topic. Should not have posted at all, as this is the opposite of what I was hoping for. 

My English or proper writing can be full with errors as its not my native language and im heavy dyslexic , and im no were to be a scientist or an Paleontologist or educated as many of the people on this forum.

 

Have a nice day 

I'm sorry that you are upset. 

You have every right to post your opinion on any topic, but if it is a direct reply and criticism of a post of mine, I will react accordingly. I was not correcting your grammar or general English, which seems pretty good to me, but your meaning seemed quite clear.

Your dyslexia certainly explains and justifies the use of "Trex", "Nano" etc., I apologize for any offence caused. 

You have a splendid day too. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Tidgy's Dad

[mr.cheese]

1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I was going to leave this after Frank's relatively reasonable reply but your response has irritated me somewhat. 

I did not express a "point of view", not was it a "presumption". It was a simple question as I am interested, but do not have the wealth of experience in the subject that Frank does. As you may or may not know, I study mainly Palaeozoic invertebrates, particularly brachiopods and bryozoa, so I am not presuming to have a voice in this debate on either side. But I am curious. Brachiopod palaeontologists are also sometimes 'lumpers' or 'splitters', though the debate over whether Concinnispirifer should be a separate genus to Costellisprifer is not as well known. 

I think you meant 'taxon on its own", not "class" ? Or did you mean subspecies, species or genus? Why do you think it's an entirely different genus? 

Frank had the grace to say that "anything is possible", but he supports one view he is not saying "that presumption is out". Sexual dimorphism can go a lot further than just teeth, many of the bones in the body may be of different size and form. Then we have age, diet, environmental factors and intraspecific variation. You showing me one or two of the examples that support your personal bias is of little value. There need to be more studies and more specimens to make a more convincing argument either way, in my opinion. 

 

    It is Tyrannosaurus rex; species names are never capitalized. 

Proof is for mathematics and whiskey. 

You cannot prove your personal belief by showing me a couple of photos from a documentary. You may show pieces of evidence to support a claim, but this doesn't prove anything, the best you can hope for is to make your case stronger, but others may refute it or produce counter-evidence. 

 

Again, it's Tyrannosaurus rex. Tyrannosaurus Rex was a pop band. 

It is acceptable to refer to the taxon as T. rex after you have previously used the full form, but not "Trex". 

Why do "dino" folk always abbreviate names? "Nano", "Trike", "Steg", etc? Convenience? Laziness? Childishness? Popularist?  Certainly not helping in supporting a scientific debate. 

 

That would be Nanotyrannus lancensis, then? 

 

I have no personal opinion on the debate, but am interested to see how it proceeds in the future, I am very grateful for Frank's opinions as he has a wealth of personal experience with these fossils in this formation as well as his personal study, but I will not be told that the matter is settled or proven. 

If it helps @Phos_01I didn't know half of what is mentioned above, well I did know Tyrannosaurus Rex was a rock band! But the whole capitalise and I have no idea what a taxon is either. 

I will say @Tidgy's Dadis a very active and from my experience and nice and also passionate member here, don't confuse passion for anger Phos.  As there is such a massive amount of knowledge and experience (often hard won!) in this place, we all need to take our time and flesh stuff out sometimes and not jump ahead of thought trains etc! 

Please take a breath and come back and enjoy the forum, it really is a nice place to learn and chat about something we all have in common, a passion for fossils !

[Troodon]

Let me point out that paleontologists have described several Tyrannosaurus rex   skeletons has male (ie: Stan) and female (ie: Sue) .   The skull morphology is pretty similar as well as their dentition.   Again juvenile jaws presented in this topic mimic adult one.   I'm comfortable with saying we have multiple Tyrannosaurids in this deposits but will remain open minded that anything is possible since new discoveries can change or validate existing notions.

[Cartoonfossil]

On 29/3/2562 at 3 นาฬิกา 36 นาที, Troodon said:

โครงกระดูกไดโนเสาร์ที่ต่อสู้กันตัวต่อตัวยังคงอยู่ในมือของเอกชนและอยู่ในข้อพิพาททางกฎหมายเกี่ยวกับการเป็นเจ้าของในประเด็นสิทธิแร่ของมอนทานา เมื่อปัญหานี้ได้รับการแก้ไขแล้ว ก็จะเปิดประตูสู่การขายให้กับสถาบัน

 

ไดโนเสาร์ตัวต่อตัว Nanotyrannus เกือบจะสมบูรณ์เพียงแค่ขาดกระดูกไม่กี่ชิ้น +90% เสร็จสมบูรณ์

 

 

ภาพความสมบูรณ์ของเจนโดย Scott Hartman

 

Nanotyranus is trex it real?

[Troodon]

6 hours ago, Cartoonfossil said:

Nanotyranus is trex it real?

I put this topic together so that everyone can form their own opinion based on a bigger picture of information and not the myopic view shared by some.  I certainly believe Nanotyrannus is valid why I put this out there.

[Cartoonfossil]

3 hours ago, Troodon said:

ฉันรวบรวมหัวข้อนี้เพื่อให้ทุกคนสามารถแสดงความคิดเห็นของตนเองโดยพิจารณาจากภาพรวมของข้อมูล ไม่ใช่มุมมองสายตาสั้นที่บางคนแบ่งปัน แน่นอนฉันเชื่อว่าNanotyrannusถูกต้องว่าทำไมฉันถึงวางสิ่งนี้ไว้ที่นั่น

And you thinking nanotyranus is trex? 

[Troodon]

There are two Tyrannosaurids in the Hell Creek/Lance Formations

Tyrannosaurus rex

Nanotyrannus lancensis

[jpc]

I agree with Frank, but I am looking forward to seeing how the fighting dinosaurs get described.   

 

[Troodon]

39 minutes ago, jpc said:

I agree with Frank, but I am looking forward to seeing how the fighting dinosaurs get described.   

 

Me too

[hadrosauridae]

1 hour ago, jpc said:

I agree with Frank, but I am looking forward to seeing how the fighting dinosaurs get described.   

 

 

Is there any hints of when the paper will be published?

[Newground69]

Hi, while learning and looking at identification number/reference of various specimens/bones on the main post, I ended up seeing this new hypothesis, I don't think I have seen a talk about it yet.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363046827_Nanotyrannus_is_Dryptosaurus_A_Summary