The Case for Nanotyrannus

[Troodon]

Nanotyrannus maxilla's that I have images to compare against

 

[MarcoSr]

I hope my memory serves me correctly on what I'm going to recount.  There is a TV show called "dino hunters" that chronicles the exploits of several different groups of dino hunters in multiple states (Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana).  The collector of the dueling dinosaurs is a regular on the show, and his exploits are chronicled every show.  Multiple shows dealt with a specimen that he excavated in Montana and which was prepped by a group that he is partnered with.  The specimen was in great condition, and a good number of associated bones were collected and prepped like skull bones, jaws with teeth, hand bones and claws, etc.  The initial ID was that the specimen was a Nanotyrannus.  On one show they had Pete Larsen come out to examine the specimen, and he confirmed the specimen was Nanotyrannus.  On the show, Pete compared a hand bone of the specimen to the same hand bone from an adult T-Rex.  The Nanotyrannus bone was noticeably larger than the T-Rex bone.  Pete said that in his mind the debate over whether Nanotyrannus was a juvenile T-Rex or a different species was over and that Nanotyrannus was definitely a different species.  So I thought this debate was basically over.  Is it still being debated?????

 

Marco Sr.

[LordTrilobite]

19 minutes ago, MarcoSr said:

So I thought this debate was basically over.  Is it still being debated?????

 

Marco Sr.

Most people seem to consider Nanotyrannus as not valid. It's still being debated because there are still people like Pete Larson who say Nanotyrannus is definitely valid.

[Troodon]

@MarcoSr   Far from over and it will take finding a juvenile T rex that is better preserved than Baby Bob to end the debate.   Pete has been the most vocal supporting it but there are other paleontologist in his camp.  Thats why I'm continuing to keep this post active so that our community can get all the facts presented especially that which is in private hands.  

[MarcoSr]

1 minute ago, Troodon said:

@MarcoSr   Far from over and it will take finding a juvenile T rex that is better preserved than Baby Bob to end the debate.   Pete has been the most vocal supporting it but there are other paleontologist in his camp.  Thats why I'm continuing to keep this post active so that our community can get all the facts presented especially that which is in private hands.  

 

16 minutes ago, LordTrilobite said:

Most people seem to consider Nanotyrannus as not valid. It's still being debated because there are still people like Pete Larson who say Nanotyrannus is definitely valid.

 

How does a hand bone shrink in size as a juvenile dinosaur gets older?  How do the Nanotyrannus doubters explain the hand bone size difference away?

 

Marco Sr.

[Troodon]

29 minutes ago, MarcoSr said:

 

 

How does a hand bone shrink in size as a juvenile dinosaur gets older?  How do the Nanotyrannus doubters explain the hand bone size difference away?

 

Marco Sr.

Jane did not have hand bones so it has not yet been studied.   Carr explains everything with Ontogeny.  The Dueling Dinosaur Nanotyrannus now in a museum, is complete and will be studied but I doubt the results will be anything different because I believe they are going into it with a preconceived vision.  Hope thats not the case, will see.

[MarcoSr]

44 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Jane did not have hand bones so it has not yet been studied.   Carr explains everything with Ontogeny.  The Dueling Dinosaur Nanotyrannus now in a museum, is complete and will be studied but I doubt the results will be anything different because I believe they are going into it with a preconceived vision.  Hope thats not the case, will see.

 

Has that Nanotyrannus specimen from dino hunters, that Pete examined on one of the episodes, been named?  It was a different specimen from the Nanotyrannus in the dueling dinosaurs.  That dino hunter specimen definitely had the larger hand bone, unless that episode intentionally deceived its viewers, or I am totally confused on what I viewed.  I just can't see how Ontogeny explains away a larger hand bone in a juvenile vs an adult, although I can understand how it can explain the other differences.  EDIT Thinking about this, I really didn't take into account sample size, so I guess Ontogeny could explain this.  I was mistakenly thinking all these Nanotyrannus had the larger hand bone.

 

Marco Sr.

Edited December 1, 2021 by MarcoSr
sample size

[Troodon]

@MarcoSr The Dueling Dino Nanotyrannus is one of the most complete theropods ever found at 99% now resides in a NC museum for study.   The one shown in the show is called Jodi named after Claytons cousin who discovered it.   Unlike the drama that was portrayed in the show Clayton immediately knew what it was but the producers needed that drama.   Clayton claims its the second most complete Nanotyrannus for completeness but did not off hand know that number since a number of bones are still in jackets.   The specimen had yet to be sold, at least when I spoke with him in September its being brokered by a third party that I cannot say.   The bones in the hand of a Nanotyrannus have a very different morphology than T rex and some are longer.  So according to Carr they are longer and have different morphology in juvie's and then become shorter and change shape in adults.   However I show an image of a juvie T rex arm, in this topic, that is identical to adults, shocking....

 

Here is a photo of one of the hand claws in Jodi and looks a larger than the one on the dueling dinosaurs

[MarcoSr]

2 hours ago, Troodon said:

  So according to Carr they are longer and have different morphology in juvie's and then become shorter and change shape in adults.   However I show an image of a juvie T rex arm, in this topic, that is identical to adults, shocking....

 

 

I can't understand how a hand bone can physically shrink in size from a juvenile to an adult.  The hand bone of Jodi on the dino hunter show was larger/longer than that of an adult T-Rex hand bone that Pete was comparing it to.

 

Thank you for the information on Jodi.  That was all new to me.

 

Marco Sr.

[Troodon]

Just now, MarcoSr said:

 

I can't understand how a hand bone can physically shrink in size from a juvenile to an adult.  The hand bone of Jodi on the dino hunter show was larger/longer than that of an adult T-Rex hand bone that Pete was comparing it to.

 

Thank you for the information on Jodi.  That was all new to me.

 

Marco Sr.

 

One of the big issues in this debate... just does not make sense.  

[MarcoSr]

23 minutes ago, Troodon said:

 

One of the big issues in this debate... just does not make sense.  

 

3 hours ago, Troodon said:

 

 

I forgot to comment on that Jodi hand claw. OMG, Awesome!!!!!!!

 

Marco Sr.

[Troodon]

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.

 

 

 

[ThePhysicist]

6 hours ago, 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.

I agree that they are relying on "T. rex hype" for advertisement, but it's also what most published literature supports currently. There's also this on the same page:

 

 

Additionally, Dr. Lindsay Zanno responded to someone on Twitter asking if the Tyrannosaur was a juvie rex, "best science right now says yes, but of course we will apply new data to the question as is the scientific way! Stay tuned!" She is the head of Paleontology at the museum. 

[Troodon]

2 hours ago, ThePhysicist said:

Tyrannosaur was a juvie rex, "best science right now says yes, but of course we will apply new data to the question as is the scientific way! Stay tuned!" She is the head of Paleontology at the museum. 

Yea right,  “If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you” 

 

Oh...And in the very fine print

 

Hope I'm wrong

[jpc]

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.  

Edited December 4, 2021 by jpc

[Carcharodontosaurus]

How does one explain the histological evidence showing that all studied Nano specimens are juveniles?

[R0b]

3 minutes ago, Carcharodontosaurus said:

How does one explain the histological evidence showing that all studied Nano specimens are juveniles?

Do you have references for that?

[Troodon]

4 hours ago, Carcharodontosaurus said:

How does one explain the histological evidence showing that all studied Nano specimens are juveniles?

No the study just showed that Jane was still growing,  so what.  We have no idea of the growth stage she was in or how large Nanotyrannus become with so few specimens to study, unlike T rex, or when what they become adults.   To draw a conclusion that its T rex just based on that information is preposterous and feeding the bias that was created by Tom Carr.  

 

So you close your eyes to all the other information presented in this topic?

 

[carch_23]

On 12/4/2021 at 10:59 PM, 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.

 

 

 

Just gonna  throw this out there, but for those who collect/ purchase specimens, is there a possibility that in time (though I do see it being done now) isolated Tyrannosaur teeth from Hell Creek will be distinguished based just on the teeth morphology itself? Say if Nano has been “confirmed” to be a Juvy rex, though we all know nano teeth have very distinctive features that differ from rex teeth of even the same size, those teeth would be sold as the “old nano” and would therefore be priced accordingly? As based on sellers I find, Nano and rex teeth, although some studies say are the same thing, are priced veryyyy differently.  

 

Just find it quite funny how the majority of media now are leaning towards the ‘Nano is Juvy rex’ side. Though morphological differences say otherwise, therefore retailers still sell them as two different things, while of course, one being triple the price of the other lol. 

 

Btw, apologies in advanced if this question should be in a new thread! Ill transfer and make a new one if need be

Edited December 5, 2021 by carch_23

[hadrosauridae]

I think that if nano were to be confirmed as a juv rex, the teeth would become re-labelled and sold as rex and yes, the price would likely be adjusted as well.  

I dont buy teeth, but I do look from time to time and yes it has perplexed me that rex and nano are priced differently.  I guess that rex teeth have more appeal, and therefor command a higher price.  

[Nanotyrannus35]

On 12/4/2021 at 4:59 AM, Troodon 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.

[Kane]

7 minutes ago, 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.

Technically speaking, there is no "proof" or "proving" in science. A good read here. 

[Nanotyrannus35]

2 minutes ago, Kane said:

Technically speaking, there is no "proof" or "proving" in science. A good read here. 

Thanks for the information. I guess that theory would have been a better choice of words.

[-Andy-]

On 12/5/2021 at 12:51 PM, Carcharodontosaurus said:

How does one explain the histological evidence showing that all studied Nano specimens are juveniles?

 

This ( https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax6250 ) is the histology study you are referring to, yes?

 

The two specimens studied are BMRP 2002.4.1 "Jane" and BMRP 2006.4.4. While the study shows is that they were still growing, it does not disprove or prove they are Nanotyrannus because we have no idea how big Nanotyrannus (if valid) could grow up to. After all, BMRP 2002.4.1 "Jane" is 6.5 m at the time of her death. Meanwhile, Gorgosaurus could grow up to 9 m long while Albertosaurus could grow up to 10 m long

[R0b]

On 12/8/2021 at 9:58 PM, Kane said:

Technically speaking, there is no "proof" or "proving" in science. A good read here. 

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.