Tyrannosaurus Split into 3

[Takama]

While i cannot see the article due to Natgeo wanting my Email, It appears Tyrannosaurus is split.     And its not without controversey

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/call-to-split-tyrannosaurus-rex-into-3-species-sparks-fierce-debate

[suspsy]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/mar/01/tyrannosaurus-rex-may-have-been-three-species-scientists-say

Thomas Carr and Steve Brusatte are not convinced. I've read the paper and while I think Gregory Paul and Scott Persons make an interesting and possible case, it's definitely not a home run. And like Carr, I was surprised at the inclusion of privately owned specimens.

[MLMjp]

So this is the study some paleontologists were teasing that would create quite the fuzz...Yeah.

As always, this is not definitive, other paleontologist are skeptical, multiple revisions would have to be made, more studies by other paleontologist...etc.

Now, I want to adress this from a more "dinosaur fan" perspective. So for this section, lets forget about "science doesn't care about what you think, it cares about what is real" for a moment.

Tyrannosaurus is the most iconic dinosaur and the only one whose species name is widely know, the Rex, the T.rex. The human mind can´t conceive a Tyrannosaurus without the rex, and yeah Tyrannosaurus bataar was a thing when some believed Tarbosaurus to be part of the genus, but the thing, there was a significant difference between them, one was American, the other asian.This study proposes that some of the  most famous Tyrannosaurus specimens are not T.rex. The two most iconic specimens, Stan and Sue, are being proposed as being part of these two new species and that just feels...unbelievable. Rober Bakker wrote  "a name like 'T. rex' is just irresistible to the tongue". Imperator sounds cool, regina not so, but they are not Tyrannosaurus rex.

Again, science must go on, and our personal preferences must not get in the way of discovering the truth. But I wanted I to address how we are talking about something so iconic and so imprinted on our minds that I´m sure a lot of people as well as me can't help feeling that this shouldn't change.

[suspsy]

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

[Gwangi]

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

Bengal and Siberian tigers are the same species, Panthera tigris. It would be more like the difference between a lion (P. leo), tiger (P. tigris), and leopard (P. pardus).

All of this strikes me as overly complicated and unnecessary. I don't doubt that there were different species and sub-species of Tyrannosaurus but all this lumping and splitting that Greg Paul fancies just makes things confusing. Case in point, it was Paul's classification methods that turned the Jurassic Park Deinonychus into Velociraptor, creating 30 years of confusion and debate. And it's also noteworthy that the guy that lumped Einosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, Achelousaurus, and Styracosaurus into Centrosaurus now thinks that there are enough differences between Tyrannosaurus specimens that they represent 3 different species. So far I've only read articles about the paper, so I'll just end it there until I'm better informed. Those are just my initial thoughts.

[MLMjp]

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

I wasn't talking about T.rex becoming a nomen dubium. There is the holotype and more specimens for sure. What I was talking about is the fact that the most iconic Tyrannosaurus specimens could no longer be Tyrannosaurus rex. REX is so iconic and imperator and regina are not. Feels like they are taking away an important part of it.

Anyway, I gonna side with the more skeptical approach and wait for further research. Time and science will tell.

[suspsy]

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

Bengal and Siberian tigers are the same species, Panthera tigris. It would be more like the difference between a lion (P. leo), tiger (P. tigris), and leopard (P. pardus).

I meant in terms of overall appearance as opposed to taxonomy. Anyone can tell a living tiger, a lion, and a leopard apart, but I suspect that the three proposed Tyrannosaurus species would be nearly indistinguishable in life, even if they were magically standing next to each other. Of course, I could be wrong. They might well have had different coloration and integument. Or you know, they might all have simply been T. rex.

I really don't think this new paper is going to stick. And even if further research validates the splitting, I don't think it will mean very much for the public perception of T. rex. Sue will always be a T. rex to most people.

[Dinoguy2]

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

I wasn't talking about T.rex becoming a nomen dubium. There is the holotype and more specimens for sure. What I was talking about is the fact that the most iconic Tyrannosaurus specimens could no longer be Tyrannosaurus rex. REX is so iconic and imperator and regina are not. Feels like they are taking away an important part of it.

Anyway, I gonna side with the more skeptical approach and wait for further research. Time and science will tell.

Greg Paul flat out said he started investigating this issue in the first place because he hates when people say T. rex and wanted to find evidence to make them stop 😂

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

Bengal and Siberian tigers are the same species, Panthera tigris. It would be more like the difference between a lion (P. leo), tiger (P. tigris), and leopard (P. pardus).

All of this strikes me as overly complicated and unnecessary. I don't doubt that there were different species and sub-species of Tyrannosaurus but all this lumping and splitting that Greg Paul fancies just makes things confusing. Case in point, it was Paul's classification methods that turned the Jurassic Park Deinonychus into Velociraptor, creating 30 years of confusion and debate. And it's also noteworthy that the guy that lumped Einosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, Achelousaurus, and Styracosaurus into Centrosaurus now thinks that there are enough differences between Tyrannosaurus specimens that they represent 3 different species. So far I've only read articles about the paper, so I'll just end it there until I'm better informed. Those are just my initial thoughts.

Note that he lumped those ceratopsids into Centrosaurus but kept them different species. One of the reasons stated in the paper for splitting Tyrannosaurus is that dinosaurs should have multiple species in a genus. This is Paul's whole schtick. He lumps ceratopsids to make them more like modern animals, multiple species in one genus. He couldn't do that with Tyrannosaurus so he has to split the one species into 3. But in the end it's the same result. He wants dinosaurs to have more multispecies genera, so he makes it happen.

[bmathison1972]

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

Bengal and Siberian tigers are the same species, Panthera tigris. It would be more like the difference between a lion (P. leo), tiger (P. tigris), and leopard (P. pardus).

I meant in terms of overall appearance as opposed to taxonomy. Anyone can tell a living tiger, a lion, and a leopard apart, but I suspect that the three proposed Tyrannosaurus species would be nearly indistinguishable in life, even if they were magically standing next to each other. Of course, I could be wrong. They might well have had different coloration and integument. Or you know, they might all have simply been T. rex.

I really don't think this new paper is going to stick. And even if further research validates the splitting, I don't think it will mean very much for the public perception of T. rex. Sue will always be a T. rex to most people.

I am following suspsy's rationale here. However, whether or not it 'sticks' the published names are now part of the nomenclatural history of the genus and can't be ignored. I have the Safari 'Sue' figure and will be keeping it databased as T. rex for the foreseeable figure.

[Dinoguy2]

As I stated in the Eofauna thread, it's the methodology that is controversial, not the possibility that there was more than one Tyrannosaurus species. And it's not like T. rex itself is in any danger of becoming a nomen dubium. And if Sue really is to be T. imperator, well, they're still a T. Just think of them as a Bengal tiger as opposed to a Siberian.

Bengal and Siberian tigers are the same species, Panthera tigris. It would be more like the difference between a lion (P. leo), tiger (P. tigris), and leopard (P. pardus).

I meant in terms of overall appearance as opposed to taxonomy. Anyone can tell a living tiger, a lion, and a leopard apart, but I suspect that the three proposed Tyrannosaurus species would be nearly indistinguishable in life, even if they were magically standing next to each other. Of course, I could be wrong. They might well have had different coloration and integument. Or you know, they might all have simply been T. rex.

I really don't think this new paper is going to stick. And even if further research validates the splitting, I don't think it will mean very much for the public perception of T. rex. Sue will always be a T. rex to most people.

I am following suspsy's rationale here. However, whether or not it 'sticks' the published names are now part of the nomenclatural history of the genus and can't be ignored. I have the Safari 'Sue' figure and will be keeping it databased as T. rex for the foreseeable figure.

Good plan. I don't know what the alternative would even be. Most companies don't state what specimen, if any, their figures are based on. So if you follow Paul most "T. rex" figures are now "T. sp." or just "Tyrannosaurus".

[Dynomikegojira]

Kinda wonder where Alamotyrannus fit's into all this, that said not entirely convinced but definitely interesting.

[Carnoking]

Gonna be following this one for sure.

[Gwangi]

Note that he lumped those ceratopsids into Centrosaurus but kept them different species. One of the reasons stated in the paper for splitting Tyrannosaurus is that dinosaurs should have multiple species in a genus. This is Paul's whole schtick. He lumps ceratopsids to make them more like modern animals, multiple species in one genus. He couldn't do that with Tyrannosaurus so he has to split the one species into 3. But in the end it's the same result. He wants dinosaurs to have more multispecies genera, so he makes it happen.

I know. The irony here is that he lumped together many very different genera into one genus but then turns around and splits up one species into several on the basis of what appears to be, very little. It seems like a counterintuitive mindset where his only goal is to just have many species within one genus, reasoning be damned. He's trying to get the same result with opposite approaches. Logic would suggest that if Pachyrhinosaurus is the same genus as Styracosaurus and they're both Centrosaurus then the differences between these Tyrannosaurus specimens are too minimal to justify splitting the genus up. I hope that makes sense.

[DerbesSchuhwerk]

https://youtu.be/bgZUE8tiLGs

[Sim]

I find this very interesting.  It struck me as strange that there was only one Tyrannosaurus species.  The classification of Tarbosaurus as Tyrannosaur bataar is untenable in my opinion, its differences in the skull are too great compared to T. rex to be in the same genus and would have created opposed physical attributes in the two species.  So as I said, it seemed strange to me that there was only one species of Tyrannosaurus, it lived for such a long time in so many places and in different climates, all of which is unusual for a terrestrial animal, as far as I know.  It also had different morphs that don't seem to be due to gender - in the past I remember reading that the gracile specimens of T. rex were only found in the more recent populations.  Then there's also that genera that lived alongside T. rex existed as different species over time, Triceratops being one example.

The London Natural History Museum has an article on this topic: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2022/march/controversial-paper-suggests-there-are-three-tyrannosaurus-species.html
I haven't been able to check the other articles linked to in this thread.  The article I linked to has a reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus imperator by Gregory Paul.  In the article Paul Barrett made an interesting comment about how he thinks these "species" of Tyrannosaurus would have been able to mate with each other.  I think he's right, but that doesn't mean they are the same species, there are extant species which breed with other species and produce hybrid offspring so that may have happened with Tyrannosaurus too.

I'll be interested to see how this develops.  A final thought I have is how it seems strange to call one species "Tyrannosaurus regina" since it's a different species to T. rex and the relationship between the two is not male and female.  Also, if I'm not mistaken, Tyrannosaurus is a masculine name so giving it a feminine species name sounds weird to me.  And finally they called the gracile species "regina" while the robust morph(s) have been more often associated with being female T. rex.  "Prince" whatever that is in Latin, seems like it would be a better name for the gracile species, or maybe "agilis" meaning agile.

[Crackington]

Very interesting theory and I enjoyed watching the first half of the video of Tom Holtz and Dave Hone posted by D @DerbesSchuhwerk -thanks.

Sounds like a lot more work is needed on the timeline and on identifying greater significant differences between the specimens.

It also made me wonder whether what they've really high-lighted are just different breeds of Tyrannosaurus? Especially as other authorities think they could have mated with each other, as @Sim mentioned.

[Leyster]

I suggest anyone not to get too attached to these new species... the article wasn't so well received (to put it mildly), here is an example of (some) of its issues.

[Psittacoraptor]

From the same person who brought us the Iguanodont classification PNSO perhaps rightfully ignored. And of the course the "gracile" species is called regina...

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

There are plenty of differences between Mantellisaurus and Iguanodon, unlike this Tyrannosaurus.

[Lynx]

So basically that one spider man meme, nice.