Will We Ever Get To See The "Dueling Dinosaurs?"

[Simon]

*SNIP*

And given the utter lack of any other predators (other than really small raptors) being found with TRex to date also makes for healthy skepticism.  Younger TRexes undoubtedly occupied the "lower predatory niches", which is an explanation for the lack of any other larg-ish theropod predators being found in the same desposits as TRex to date.

What about Dakotaraptor?

*SNIP*

Duly noted.  I edited my earlier post.  I had forgotten about Dakotaraptor. 

[suspsy]

Yeah, I don't buy into the Nanotyrannus thing either. Off the top of my head, the only paleontologists who still espouse the notion are Bakker and Larson.

More fool Phipps in the end. He'll probably end up selling it for less than $5 million.

[BlueKrono]

I doubt it. Those ranchers can be stubborn types. I think it's more likely he'll just sit on it til he croaks and then his heirs will sell it for what it's worth, and be set for life. Reminds me of some collectors I know, haha, so doubly pertinent on this site.

[suspsy]

I'll say this too: I'm eternally grateful that the law in Alberta decrees that all fossil discoveries belong to the province. It would be great if the US adopted such a law, but that's wishful thinking.

[Reptilia]

Every country should adopt such law, fossils belong to Science.

[Simon]

I'll say this too: I'm eternally grateful that the law in Alberta decrees that all fossil discoveries belong to the province. It would be great if the US adopted such a law, but that's wishful thinking.

I agree that the Canadian treatment of its fossils makes things easier and clearer.  I do wonder however if an unintended consequence of  that law is to create a disincentive for private landowners to report, or even look for, any fossil finds on their land.

[stargatedalek]

I agree that the Canadian treatment of its fossils makes things easier and clearer.  I do wonder however if an unintended consequence of  that law is to create a disincentive for private landowners to report, or even look for, any fossil finds on their land.

Sometimes if it's particularly noteworthy institutions will offer rewards for fossils, but I don't think there's any law requiring them to do so. I also recall something about crediting discoverers, but I don't know if that goes beyond record keeping and actually means they get any sort of guaranteed inclusion in media surrounding the fossil or not.

I doubt it discourages many people from searching, since the fossils most commonly sold, like ammonites and trilobites, are generally excluded.

[suspsy]

I'll say this too: I'm eternally grateful that the law in Alberta decrees that all fossil discoveries belong to the province. It would be great if the US adopted such a law, but that's wishful thinking.

I agree that the Canadian treatment of its fossils makes things easier and clearer.  I do wonder however if an unintended consequence of  that law is to create a disincentive for private landowners to report, or even look for, any fossil finds on their land.

I've never heard of such a thing happening, although I suppose it's possible. Dinosaur Provincial Park is the richest source of fossils in Canada, and you need permission to hunt or dig there. And yes, small invertebrate fossils are generally not counted.

[BlueKrono]

Oftentimes new species are named after the sheep herder or whatever who discovered it. I see this happen a lot in South America; should be a thing in North America and Asia too. I would think even a layperson would think it's pretty cool to have something named after them.

[Neosodon]

Most fossil hunters do it as a hobby, not to get rich. Taking away private ownership of fossils will not discourage most people to look for them. And the people that are only after them for the money are better off not even looking for them. I would rather museums put their money into research rather than filling the pockets of private collectors.

[Dinoguy2]

At the end of the day, this guy is no different than Martin Shkreli. Is it his right to sell his property for whatever he wants? Legally: yes. Morally: no. Scientific knowledge should be public domain. The law is on his side but it's a bad law.

I'm fine with private ownership of fossils as long as you can't make a case that we could learn something new or significant from them.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I'm fine with private ownership of fossils as long as you can't make a case that we could learn something new or significant from them.

Agreed. I have a collection of my own, including vertebrate fragments, and a few rare pieces, but nothing in my collection is (or ever will be) substantial to science. Collecting is fine; obstructing science isn't.

[Josesaurus rex]

Regarding the fossil itself, I used to be on the "Nanotyrannus" bandwagon (since I have a LOT of respect for Dr Bakker, who is the only paleontologist who has actually examined this fossil, and who champions the "Nano" view).

After some more study and discussion I now lean towards the notion that its more likely a juvenile TRex.  Study and more fossils are needed here, of course, so I hope this piece eventually winds up in a reputable institution.

The idea that TRex' arms grew to full size early in life, when the much smaller predator occupied a "raptorial" niche and would have needed to use them much like raptors used theirs for catching prey, but then stopped growing as the creature grew and became more and more dependant on its skull for catching prey, makes a lot of sense given the otherwise bizarre proportions of TRex adults. 

As an aside, I find it positively scary to imagine an animal this small taking on a fully grown ceratopsian.  It must have been by nature fearless and ferocious, or just really, REALLY hungry! 

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the documentary National Geographic mention that the bone structure of the arms of the theropod would be larger and more robust than the arms of an adult T rex, and therefore one of the causes to interpret that fossil as the remains Of a Nanotyrannus and not a Tyrannosaurus rex. What is known about it at the moment?

Nothing more than what you and I posted.  Since the fossil is in private hands, and has not undergone extensive study (which would in any event take years), all we have are the statements made by those who have had access to it (Dr Bakker being one of them), which are on the "Nanotyrannus" bandwagon for myriad reasons, only one of which is that it actually *might* be a new species.

I agree that the video where Bakker compares his own arm to the theropod's fossil arm bones is impressive, but then I've also read that these arms really aren't any different in size than those of an adult TRex.  So if they stopped growing as the animal needed them less as it grew larger, it still could be a juvenile TRex. 

And given the utter lack of any other predators (other than really small raptors) being found with TRex to date also makes for healthy skepticism.  Younger TRexes undoubtedly occupied the "lower predatory niches", which is an explanation for the lack of any other larg-ish theropod predators being found in the same desposits as TRex to date.

Basically this line of thinking (which I find to be pretty logical) holds that TRex basically "monopolized"** all the larger ecological predatory niches in its environment - occupying them sequentially as it grew into adulthood. A super-predator that dominated its environment to an extent not seen elsewhere with other species.

** Well, maybe not.  I forgot about the recently discovered "Dakotaraptor". (Thanks HD-man) Although the rarity of the find suggests that perhaps it was not plentiful. 

So I have retreated from my initial "Nanotyrannus" enthusiasm and recognize that the skeptical view makes a lot of sense too.  We won't really know what the theropod (or the ceratopsian) is until the fossil is studied .. some day .. hopefully ..

All right. Thank you very much for your reply. Greetings.