"Dueling Dinosaurs" for sale

[Dinoguy2]

Want to know if the two beats in the Dueling Dinos specimen are really a Nanotyrannus or new ceratopsian? Want to know if the tyrannosaur skeleton can help settle the Nano/Rex debate?

Too bad. Showing how much integrity the supposed "researchers" have, who have been making such bold, sensational claims about this find to newspapers, the specimen is for sale to the highest bidder.

This makes me suspect even more that there really is nothing special about these animals, and that we're looking at a baby rex and a young Triceratops (still rare, just not new species) that happened to be buried close by each other. The fossil dealers have a high monetary interest in making it seem more rare than it is, and claiming it to be a new species and proof of Nano make the price go up to uneducated collectors and the easily duped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/arts/design/dinosaur-skeletons-headed-to-auction-not-museum.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If you still think any of the people involved in this, possibly including Bakker, have any interest in science over their own pocket book, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[suspsy]

I hope whoever buys it goes on to donate it to a museum.

I don't see why Bakker should be blamed for anything. He didn't discover the fossil. Black Hills probably just called him in as a consultant. For all we know, he could be angry and disappointed about their decision to sell such an intriguing find.

[SBell]

I worked at a museum and was offered to buy the specimen. For only 9 million. BHI is a private fossil hunting company. They are in it for the money--can't blame any particular (good) scientist for this one.

And while BHI may want some legitimacy with science, and really did want the specimen to go to a research organization, there is no institution anywhere that could afford anywhere near that. And they should know that.

[wings]

Want to know if the two beats in the Dueling Dinos specimen are really a Nanotyrannus or new ceratopsian? Want to know if the tyrannosaur skeleton can help settle the Nano/Rex debate?...This makes me suspect even more that there really is nothing special about these animals, and that we're looking at a baby rex and a young Triceratops (still rare, just not new species) that happened to be buried close by each other...

Not sure about the ceratopsian but it seems the validity of "Nanotyrannus" was probably based on Larson's brief media release (http://www.duelingdinos.com/media/dls/MT_DUELING_DINOSAURS.pdf) and Larson's 2013 article ("The case for Nanotyrannus"). As for the differences mentioned on Larson's brief study; (see =true&lightbox[width]=900&lightbox[height]=600]http://www.duelingdinos.com/media/prep-ss-b/index.html?lightbox[iframe]=true&lightbox[width]=900&lightbox[height]=600) here are some images of these elements (like figure 15 to 18, 22 or 44). Figure 44 (quadratojugal of the animal) appears to be a unique feature to "Nanotyrannus" since no other theropods have pneumatized quadratojugals; this feature can be found on the holotype (CMNH 7541) and "Jane" but not on a Tyrannosaurus proper.

[Dinoguy2]

Want to know if the two beats in the Dueling Dinos specimen are really a Nanotyrannus or new ceratopsian? Want to know if the tyrannosaur skeleton can help settle the Nano/Rex debate?...This makes me suspect even more that there really is nothing special about these animals, and that we're looking at a baby rex and a young Triceratops (still rare, just not new species) that happened to be buried close by each other...

Not sure about the ceratopsian but it seems the validity of "Nanotyrannus" was probably based on Larson's brief media release (http://www.duelingdinos.com/media/dls/MT_DUELING_DINOSAURS.pdf) and Larson's 2013 article ("The case for Nanotyrannus"). As for the differences mentioned on Larson's brief study; (see =true&lightbox[width]=900&lightbox[height]=600]http://www.duelingdinos.com/media/prep-ss-b/index.html?lightbox[iframe]=true&lightbox[width]=900&lightbox[height]=600) here are some images of these elements (like figure 15 to 18, 22 or 44). Figure 44 (quadratojugal of the animal) appears to be a unique feature to "Nanotyrannus" since no other theropods have pneumatized quadratojugals; this feature can be found on the holotype (CMNH 7541) and "Jane" but not on a Tyrannosaurus proper.

In the most recent NYT article, Larson states the specimen has three fingers. Assuming he means digits and not metacarpals, that would be pretty darn compelling evidence in favor of Nano. The only caveat is that we only know about how the hands of tyrannosaurs changed based on juvenile tarbosaurs, the baby version of which has two fingers like adults. But, Tarbosaurus has a more advanced forelimb than Tyrannosaurus, being smaller and more reduced relative to body size. So even if young Tyrannosaurus had three fingers, it's still potentially an ontogenetic feature. Still, a three fingered hand would more likely suggest something basal, maybe related to Alioramus (finger count unknown).

To sort this out you need things like bone histology studies. And $9M, apparently.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

My source of amusement in this all, Horner's rather predictable response. You could almost see that coming.

[Simon]

If you view the size of the arm compared to the body you quickly realize that this can't possibly be a "juvenile TRex".  It is larger than the arms of full-grown TRexes.  It almost makes the critter look raptor-like.  Its a new tyrannosaurid for sure ...

I posted screen-grabs illustrating this on another thread a couple of years ago ...

[wings]

In the most recent NYT article, Larson states the specimen has three fingers. Assuming he means digits and not metacarpals, that would be pretty darn compelling evidence in favor of Nano...

The third finger that Larson was referring to is on figure 20 in the previous image link. There seems to be an articulation surface at the end of the metacarpal and also another skeletal element at the end on this metacarpal going into the matrix. It didn't look like much (probably a tiny stub) and the position of it in relation to other digits probably indicates that this is a vestigial/non-functional digit (kind of like digit IV shown on figure C (Dilophosaurus) on this image http://www.biolab.cn/uploads/allimg/090622/00064B430-1.jpg).

[Simon]

Here are several photos showing the arm - the hand alone of this Nanotyrannus is 12 inches (!) long ... "juvenile TRex?"...  ummm ... I don't think so!

[suspsy]

I think the US needs to take a page from Canada, China, Mongolia, and other countries and start regulating the fossil business much more strictly. How many museums have $9,000,000 to spare? It's completely obscene and ridiculous.

[Everything_Dinosaur]

This is a tricky area, whilst we deplore the illegal smuggling, theft, poaching etc. of fossil material and other ancient artefacts for that matter, it is worth noting that many museums work closely with commercial fossil hunters without whom a large number of specimens would be lost to erosion, attrition and so on before they could be excavated.  We hope that if sold at auction the buyer will make the fossil material available to study so that these potentially important specimens are not lost to science.

Short article with pics of the proposed auction lot: Duelling Dinosaurs up for Sale

[Simon]

I think the US needs to take a page from Canada, China, Mongolia, and other countries and start regulating the fossil business much more strictly. How many museums have $9,000,000 to spare? It's completely obscene and ridiculous.

Well, we already do that - on public lands. 

OTOH, we in the USA have an apparently antiquated (to some) concept called private property, which is one of the most important founding pillars of our society, and whatever you dig up on your own land like oil or diamonds or dinosaur bones belongs to you.

Which is as it should be.  What is nutty to me is the "Scientific community's" refusal to acknowledge research done on privately held specimens.  That is truly bizarre and counter-productive.  Here you have perhaps the best dnosaur fossil ever found, one that clearly establishes a new tyrannosaurid, and its gonna be officially ignored?

(SBell, if you are out there, you may now give us the long explanation for this practice.  You have already provided it before and I reject it out of hand.  )

[Dinoguy2]

If you view the size of the arm compared to the body

Irrelevant data point. You could say the same thing about the size of the head compared to the body in juvenile humans. We know for a fact that dinosaurs don't grow isometrically, so we need to do science to determine if such proportional differences are relevant or not.

Thanks for the photos by the way. The fact that Larson is calling that metacarpal with a tiny articular surface a third digit has convinced me he's more interested in helping hype-up the price of the specimen rather than in doing science.

Seriously, I'm wide open to this being Nanotyrannus. I would love Nano to be real. It would be extremely exciting to have another, possibly more basal lineage of tyrannosaurs living alongside T. rex. Maybe somehow tied into the dryptosaurs even. But as a proponent of this thing called science, using things like proportional differences to support such a claim seem like obvious reaching for a preferred outcome, i.e. pseudoscience, by folks like Larson, rather than like people acting like scientists and trying like mad to DISPROVE their favored hypothesis before they are forced to accept it as true.

I have never once seen a Nano-fan try to disprove their hypothesis, while I've seen many anti-nantites state specifically what is would take for their hypothesis to be falsified, If you are a nano fan, look up the term "null hypothesis" and let me know if you still think you are engaging in a scientific debate.

I would accept Nanotyrannus as valid in an instant if a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex was found that clearly differed from the Nano holotype, or if one of the purported Nano specimens tested as histologically as mature as a large T. rex specimen, or if a large Lancian tyrannosaurid turned up that clearly differed from T. rex (with many teeth and a jugal fenestra) and could be considered an adult Nano. I would accept Nano as probably valid if a juvenile form like this Dueling specimen turned up with clearly basal traits unlikely to be explained by ontogeny, like three actual fingers or Alioramus-like nasal crests.

So there's my falsification criteria. For supporters of Nano, what evidence you would accept that would convince you Nano is a juvenile T. rex?

Keep in mind, science is not about trying to prove a hypothesis right, which is often impossible. It's about trying to prove alternative or "null" hypotheses wrong, to leave your hypothesis as the only reasonable one in order to be accepted.

[wings]

...But as a proponent of this thing called science, using things like proportional differences to support such a claim seem like obvious reaching for a preferred outcome, i.e. pseudoscience, by folks like Larson, rather than like people acting like scientists and trying like mad to DISPROVE their favored hypothesis before they are forced to accept it as true...

Doesn't it sounded a little harsh? Proportional differences probably doesn't hold much weight in this discussion but you have to also understand that this was based on a preliminary report. Larson's words are "...The relative length of the skull and neck, the number of tooth positions, the relative and actual size of the arm and hand bones plus an additional number of skeletal characters preserved in this new specimen seem to demonstrate that Nanotyrannus lancensis is a valid taxon, and not a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex...". Isn't it too soon for us to critize him unless we also know what these "additional skeletal characters" are? These might well be traits that he thinks is quite unique to the animal. I think it is fair to say that from the above statement it sounds like Larson is talking about a combination of factors and not just about proportion alone. Honestly, I don't see Carr (1999) really tries to DISPROVE his favored hypothesis (which is juvenile Tyrannosaurus) either. I just would rather look into both sides first (not just skimming through them) before making any judgement call on them.

In Larson's 2013 article, he does talk about some of these features on "Nanotyrannus" (if it's a valid species). This study shows that BMR P2002.4.1 ("Jane", presumably also a "Nanotyrannus") appears to be larger than any Tyrannosaurus of the same age through Erickson's (2004) logistic growth graph. In suture closure of BMR P2002.4.1 seems to be more ontologically advanced than FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"). For example, Larson found that "Jane" has visible sutures on only the first 11 caudals; no suture can be found on 12th and onwards whereas "Sue" has visible sutures on the first 15 caudals (In BHI 3033 another adult specimen has 10 and TCM 2001.90.1 has at least 15). The ilium, ischium and pubis on both sides are fused with no visible suture on "Jane" and no other Tyrannosaurus specimen is preserved with this condition (these specimens seem to have "open" sutures between the ilium and pubis and between the  ilium and ischium). When they are preserved in an articulated condition they fall apart during preparation (FMNH PR2081, BHI 3033, MOR 555, AMNH 5027). As for these so called "additional skeletal characters", Larson is probably referring to features like the anterior illiac hook (not found in Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus), the shape of the shoulder socket, the antorbital fossa, position of the maxillary fenestra, "Jane" appears to have a greater vomer "height" (central portion of the shaft has a greater vertical dimension) than BHI 3033. Pneumatization of the quadratojugal (not found in any other theropods), the position of the v-2 cranial nerve facial opening (Tyannosaurus has it lies at the suture whereas "Nanotyrannus" lies a small distance behind the suture), Probably you can google this paper so I won't get into too much detail here. Also the paper examines pneumatization through ontogeny and demonstrates the tooth count hypothesis is unproven via sampling.

[Simon]

I understand the point about the fact that proportions change as an animal grows.  However arms that have reached a certain size DO NOT SHRINK.  To my eyes, the arms of this Nanotyrranus - especially the hand - are ALREADY larger than the arms of a full-grown TRex - the hand in particular is enormous.  I wish we had some dimensions for Sue's arms and the dimensions of this Nano's for comparison ... how likely would it be that the arms of this Nano would not grow another inch as the animal grew (if it was indeed a young TRex)?

[Dinoguy2]

Isn't it too soon for us to critize him unless we also know what these "additional skeletal characters" are?

Of course, the time for that is if and when a paper is ever published describing the specimen. I was responding to specific points people were making in this thread. But it is equally irresponsible of Larson to make claims about a specimen before a paper is submitted to peer review. All he's doing right now is talking out of his rear, and we're left to respond to him in kind

I understand the point about the fact that proportions change as an animal grows.  However arms that have reached a certain size DO NOT SHRINK.

Where is that fact published?

How do you know the arms of this specimen are larger than the arms of any T. rex specimen without seeing any published measurements?

One prediction the Nano=Juvi Rex hypothesis makes (any good hypothesis must make predictions that can be tested) is that T. rex would have to inhabit different ecological niches and utilize different lifestyles or at least hunting styles as it grew. If anything, we might even expect smaller juveniles to be better adapted at grappling prey when young, with the arms becoming vestigial with size. It just occurs to me that this would nicely solve the mystery of T. rex's tiny but apparently well-muscled forelimbs...

[Simon]

I understand the point about the fact that proportions change as an animal grows.  However arms that have reached a certain size DO NOT SHRINK.

Where is that fact published?

How do you know the arms of this specimen are larger than the arms of any T. rex specimen without seeing any published measurements?

One prediction the Nano=Juvi Rex hypothesis makes (any good hypothesis must make predictions that can be tested) is that T. rex would have to inhabit different ecological niches and utilize different lifestyles or at least hunting styles as it grew. If anything, we might even expect smaller juveniles to be better adapted at grappling prey when young, with the arms becoming vestigial with size. It just occurs to me that this would nicely solve the mystery of T. rex's tiny but apparently well-muscled forelimbs...

Its not published, its my initial impression after viewing the video where Prof Bakker is examining the arms - you can see their size vs his own arms.  That's why I'd love to know the dimensions of Sue's arms, given that it is the largest complete Trex found with arms.

What you are saying is that the arms of a juvenile Trex might have grown extremely quickly, then stopped growing altogether after reaching their maximum size during the youth of the individual, as the head grew larger in proportion to the body.

Is that possible?  Certainly.  Which is why the comparison of the arms of this specimen with known adult TRex arms would be so intriguing.   Right now, as it is looking like a raptor more than a TRex, I am inclined to believe it is a different animal from TRex....

[wings]

Isn't it too soon for us to critize him unless we also know what these "additional skeletal characters" are?

Of course, the time for that is if and when a paper is ever published describing the specimen. I was responding to specific points people were making in this thread. But it is equally irresponsible of Larson to make claims about a specimen before a paper is submitted to peer review. All he's doing right now is talking out of his rear, and we're left to respond to him in kind

To me, the preliminary report is just almost like an announcement of their find (or what they think they have found). I don't think this particular article was aiming at the scientific community as any kind of definitive proof to the validity of "Nanotyrannus".  Since it is labelled as a "preliminary report", the impression that I get would be that not all info that has been mentioned in it is "solid". My responds was mainly about comment like this (...i.e. pseudoscience, by folks like Larson, rather than like people acting like scientists and trying like mad to DISPROVE their favored hypothesis before they are forced to accept it as true...), it sounds more like a general comment about his character rather than (some of) his work. If he's never gone through the scientific procedures in any of his work then your comment is fine but that is not the case here (about him trying to proof the validity of "Nanotyrannus"). It might be frustrating if you only knew about the preliminary report but not the 2013 article (kind of like a more comprehensive follow up on the topic of "Nanotyrannus"); if that is the case, personally I think it is the reader's problem that he/she is not aware of these but not the author. I mean they are out there but you just have to look for them.

...One prediction the Nano=Juvi Rex hypothesis makes (any good hypothesis must make predictions that can be tested) is that T. rex would have to inhabit different ecological niches and utilize different lifestyles or at least hunting styles as it grew. If anything, we might even expect smaller juveniles to be better adapted at grappling prey when young, with the arms becoming vestigial with size. It just occurs to me that this would nicely solve the mystery of T. rex's tiny but apparently well-muscled forelimbs...

Isn't it odd for you to suggest this hypothesis when you know well enough that we don't have a definitive test on an animal's "hunting style" at the moment (which was discussed on the hadrosaur tail thread)...

[Balaur]

This is not right. We shouldn't be selling such beautiful and rare fossils when scientists can examine it in detail and advance are scientific knowledge instead of some random rich guy decorating his house with a fossil sitting and collecting dust. This is just not what I think people should be doing.

My second opinion on this fossil. This concerns the Nanotyrannus/juvenile Tyrannosaurus debate. While this is intresting, and I actually question my original position (that Nanotyrannus is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus) and was unsure. However, while I am not a paleontologist, I just want to briefly peep into this discussion and give my opinion. The large arms are quite a surprise, but I actually thought of what other possible explanations there could be instead of Nanotyrannus is real. I came to the conclusion that maybe, during the Tyrannosaurus's growth stage, the arms shrunk in size. I still think currently that Nanotyrannus is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus, but until there is new evidence that contradicts our currently knowledge (histological analysis showing it is an adult, three fingers, ect.)

My third opinion on this fossil. It is beautiful, and nicely preserved. I am very curious about the undescribed chasmosaurinae. That is very exciting, and I hope we get a name for it.

[Dinoguy2]

What you are saying is that the arms of a juvenile Trex might have grown extremely quickly, then stopped growing altogether after reaching their maximum size during the youth of the individual, as the head grew larger in proportion to the body.

Is that possible?  Certainly.  Which is why the comparison of the arms of this specimen with known adult TRex arms would be so intriguing.   Right now, as it is looking like a raptor more than a TRex, I am inclined to believe it is a different animal from TRex....

Sue's measurements, like most theropod specimens, are on Theropod Database: http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Tyrannosaurusrex

humerus (385 mm), radius (173 mm),... metacarpal II (104 mm), phalanx II-1 (45 mm)

We don't have Sue's distal phalanges, but it looks like its arms were two and a half to three feet long when complete. It's 2.3 feet without phalanx II-2, II-3, and the claw, which would add around half a foot.