Redesigning a tyrant: Meet the new Tyrannosaurus rex

[Sim]

Oh, and for those who don't know, Manospondylus is the senior synonym for Tyrannosaurus, and being the first name, it has priority over Tyrannosaurus.

Regarding Tyrannosaurus and Manospondylus, it's not so simple, as seen on the Tyrannosaurus Wikipedia page under the "Manospondylus" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Manospondylus

[Simon]

Loxodon - Thank you for the link.  However, that article talks about the juvenile Tyrannosaur dubbed "Jane".  It does not address the "Dueling Dinosaurs" theropod referred to by Bakker.  Until that one has been studied and proved to be a juvenile Tyrannosaurus, I will continue to lean on the side of it being a new species, once again, based on the simply "eyeball test".

Not having the "professional ethics of paleontologists" myself, (did anyone else laugh out load at that line in the article I wonder), I choose not to pretend that the "Dueling" tyrannosaurid does not exist.

BTW, I agree about "Jane", but the as-yet-unstudied "Dueling" theropod looks to me to be different from "Jane", the size of the arms being its most striking feature.

If it does prove to be just a juvenile Rex, it will show that the TRex Jrs. were a raptor-like, nasty piece of work, a true nightmare for herbivores of all sizes...

[Patrx]

Isn't the "Dueling Dinosaurs" specimen currently in the hands of a private collector, rendering it scientifically useless?

[Balaur]

Oh, and for those who don't know, Manospondylus is the senior synonym for Tyrannosaurus, and being the first name, it has priority over Tyrannosaurus.

Regarding Tyrannosaurus and Manospondylus, it's not so simple, as seen on the Tyrannosaurus Wikipedia page under the "Manospondylus" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Manospondylus

I do think that Manospondylus is still synonymous. And to be honest I hate the name Manospondylus, I was trying to use it in conversation, which I guess makes it even more awkward.

[FYI: - a condescending tone in a post such as yours above does not tend to make people more receptive to your argument - quite to the contrary]

Sorry if that was the vibe my post had, I didn't mean to sound condescending.

[stargatedalek]

I believe Loxodon mentioned Nanotyrannus in an attempt at humour (I for one found it funny), and not in reference to any specific fossil attributed to the genus but rather in regards to the theory (practically a trope by this point honestly) that juvenile Tyrannosaurus fossils are a separate genus. While the dueling dinosaurs fossil may in fact represent a new species there is no reason to conclude that it is proof of the existence of "Nanotyrannus".


*Edit* I tried to post this while the board was down for a few minutes, appears I'm severely late.

[Balaur]

The "Dueling Dinosaurs" was up for auction, but nobody bought it.

[Patrx]

The "Dueling Dinosaurs" was up for auction, but nobody bought it.

Aha. Thanks for the clarification

[Loxodon]

Loxodon - Thank you for the link.  However, that article talks about the juvenile Tyrannosaur dubbed "Jane".  It does not address the "Dueling Dinosaurs" theropod referred to by Bakker.  Until that one has been studied and proved to be a juvenile Tyrannosaurus, I will continue to lean on the side of it being a new species, once again, based on the simply "eyeball test".

Not having the "professional ethics of paleontologists" myself, (did anyone else laugh out load at that line in the article I wonder), I choose not to pretend that the "Dueling" tyrannosaurid does not exist.

BTW, I agree about "Jane", but the as-yet-unstudied "Dueling" theropod looks to me to be different from "Jane", the size of the arms being its most striking feature.

If it does prove to be just a juvenile Rex, it will show that the TRex Jrs. were a raptor-like, nasty piece of work, a true nightmare for herbivores of all sizes...

The dueling dinosaurs specimen shows the same features as Jane, albeit to a more extreme degree. Yes, the arms are much larger proportionally, but so what? It is fully possible that they simple stopped growing at some point, meaning that young tyrannosaurs had proportionally larger arms, similar in nature to those of their ancestors, which then became increasingly vestigial and useless as the animal increased in size. Similar things happen in modern animals, and there is no rule saying that every bit of an animal must be larger in an adult. It is even possible for limbs to literally decrease in size during growth.

In science, a rule of thumb is always to accept the most simple explanation. It can still be challenged, but in lieu of definitive evidence either way, tell me which of these sounds most plausible: That the small tyrannosaur with proportions similar to those of a young Tyrannosaurus, found in the same place as Tyrannosaurus, is indeed just a Tyrannosaurus, or that it somehow presents a new taxon which just so happens to resemble a young Tyrannosaurus in pretty much every way?

I believe Loxodon mentioned Nanotyrannus in an attempt at humour (I for one found it funny), and not in reference to any specific fossil attributed to the genus but rather in regards to the theory (practically a trope by this point honestly) that juvenile Tyrannosaurus fossils are a separate genus. While the dueling dinosaurs fossil may in fact represent a new species there is no reason to conclude that it is proof of the existence of "Nanotyrannus".

I did mean it as a joke, yeah, though I of course also really do believe that it is a young Tyrannosaurus. It was not actually my intention to start a debate however.

[Balaur]

The "Dueling Dinosaurs" was up for auction, but nobody bought it.

Aha. Thanks for the clarification

Your welcome.

[Simon]

Isn't the "Dueling Dinosaurs" specimen currently in the hands of a private collector, rendering it scientifically useless?

Yes it is in the hands of private collectors, without whom it might never have been uncovered.  If you mean that it hasn't been officially studied, that is true as well.  But Bob Bakker has been examining it, and its a very, very exciting find.  Hopefully it will find its way into a museum collection eventually and be given the detailed study it deserves.  (The archaic and foolish position of the Society of Paleontologists regarding privately held fossils, even those that are made available for study, as has been the case here, is reminiscent to me of the traditional "ostrich sticking its head into a hole in the ground" visual - and yes, I know that Ostriches do not actually do that, its just a metaphor for a person who is ignoring reality)

Turns out this fossil wasn't quite the goldmine that the collectors thought it would be, so maybe they will lower their asking price ...

[Simon]

*SNIP*

Sorry if that was the vibe my post had, I didn't mean to sound condescending.

No offense taken.  I guess it was just the "super-pedant" in you coming out? 

(I did go back and reword my original post as it, too, could have been interpreted as being persnickety in its initial version)

[Simon]

The dueling dinosaurs specimen shows the same features as Jane, albeit to a more extreme degree. Yes, the arms are much larger proportionally, but so what? It is fully possible that they simple stopped growing at some point, meaning that young tyrannosaurs had proportionally larger arms, similar in nature to those of their ancestors, which then became increasingly vestigial and useless as the animal increased in size. Similar things happen in modern animals, and there is no rule saying that every bit of an animal must be larger in an adult. It is even possible for limbs to literally decrease in size during growth.

In science, a rule of thumb is always to accept the most simple explanation. It can still be challenged, but in lieu of definitive evidence either way, tell me which of these sounds most plausible: That the small tyrannosaur with proportions similar to those of a young Tyrannosaurus, found in the same place as Tyrannosaurus, is indeed just a Tyrannosaurus, or that it somehow presents a new taxon which just so happens to resemble a young Tyrannosaurus in pretty much every way?

I can buy that.  That's following the principle of "Occam's Razor".

Its just more exciting to think we have found something new and weird.  If it was just a juvenile TRex, then we know what filled the smaller predatory niches - raptorial, nasty, juvenile TRexes from Hell (Creek  )

[Gwangi]

Isn't the "Dueling Dinosaurs" specimen currently in the hands of a private collector, rendering it scientifically useless?

Yes it does, and no peer reviewed study has ever been conducted on it which is a shame, but it is what it is. It ultimately makes the fossil virtually worthless. I can't take Bakker's word that it represents a Nanotyrannus. As charismatic and influential as he is, he has some pretty crackpot ideas that put up red flags when I see his name attached. Cretaceous extinction via spread of disease anyone? Bakker has a Nanotyrannus agenda. He's one of the guys who erected the genus after all. And I did watch the Dueling Dinosaurs videos.

As for the arms being proportionately larger. So what? My daughter's head is larger than mine compared to body size. That doesn't make her a new species, it makes her a juvenile with different proportions than an adult.

For the record, I too wish that Nanotyrannus was a valid genus. That just doesn't seem to be the case. Occam's Razor and all that. 

[Simon]

Isn't the "Dueling Dinosaurs" specimen currently in the hands of a private collector, rendering it scientifically useless?

Yes it does, and no peer reviewed study has ever been conducted on it which is a shame, but it is what it is. It ultimately makes the fossil virtually worthless. I can't take Bakker's word that it represents a Nanotyrannus. As charismatic and influential as he is, he has some pretty crackpot ideas that put up red flags when I see his name attached. Cretaceous extinction via spread of disease anyone? Bakker has a Nanotyrannus agenda. He's one of the guys who erected the genus after all. And I did watch the Dueling Dinosaurs videos.

As for the arms being proportionately larger. So what? My daughter's head is larger than mine compared to body size. That doesn't make her a new species, it makes her a juvenile with different proportions than an adult.

For the record, I too wish that Nanotyrannus was a valid genus. That just doesn't seem to be the case. Occam's Razor and all that. 

All points well-taken.  What struck me in viewing the videos is that the arms appear to be larger than those of an adult TRex (and some of the full size fossils like Sue are reconstructed with truly puny arms).  I can't "buy" the idea that the arms shrank as the animal grew.  That is why I am so intrigued by this fossil, and (along with everyone else) hope that it will eventually get the proper examination that it deserves.  Because, after all, without actual dimensions to compare to adult specimens, we really don't know.  It just looks so tantalizing ...

[Loxodon]

I can buy that.  Its just more exciting to think we have found something new and weird.  If it was just a juvenile TRex, then we know what filled the smaller predatory niches - raptorial, nasty, juvenile TRexes from Hell (Creek  )

I agree, it would be more exciting, unfortunately that does not make it true. Then again, if it is relatively small-bodied late Cretaceous tyrannosaurs you want, you need look no further than Alioramus, an animal with proportions so similar to those of a young Tyrannosaurus like Jane, that for a long time there was confusion as to whether it was actually it's own thing, or just a young Tarbosaurus. Then they went and found a huge relative and it was pretty much settled. Note that this does not add validity to Nanotyrannus, as Alioramus was always clearly quite different from Tarbosaurus, the confusion stemmed from the fact that the holotype is actually a juvenile itself, and that no similar large bodied animals were known. We now also know that Tarbosaurus juveniles were not as agile in form as young Tyrannosaurus, meaning that these are two animals which looked quite different when young, but grew more similar over time. Now that is interesting to me.

Also, there actually was a small "raptor" in Hell Creek, Acheroraptor, so that one probably filled the raptorial niches 

[Halichoeres]

So I'm confused on one point: is the "Nanotyrannus" arm longer in raw terms than that of an adult T. rex, or just proportionally longer? Because partial resorption is a pretty weird (though not impossible) thing for an amniote to do.

[Gwangi]

So I'm confused on one point: is the "Nanotyrannus" arm longer in raw terms than that of an adult T. rex, or just proportionally longer? Because partial resorption is a pretty weird (though not impossible) thing for an amniote to do.

I'm confused by this too. Because I was under the impression that Nano's arms while larger comparatively were ultimately the same size give or take of T. rex arms.

[Balaur]

So I'm confused on one point: is the "Nanotyrannus" arm longer in raw terms than that of an adult T. rex, or just proportionally longer? Because partial resorption is a pretty weird (though not impossible) thing for an amniote to do.

I'm confused by this too. Because I was under the impression that Nano's arms while larger comparatively were ultimately the same size give or take of T. rex arms.

The arms of "Nanotyrannus" are the same size as adult Tyrannosaurus. So, when a subadult Tyrannosaurus grows up, the arms don't change size, but they are smaller compared to the rest of the body. I hope that clears it up.

[Halichoeres]

So I'm confused on one point: is the "Nanotyrannus" arm longer in raw terms than that of an adult T. rex, or just proportionally longer? Because partial resorption is a pretty weird (though not impossible) thing for an amniote to do.

I'm confused by this too. Because I was under the impression that Nano's arms while larger comparatively were ultimately the same size give or take of T. rex arms.

The arms of "Nanotyrannus" are the same size as adult Tyrannosaurus. So, when a subadult Tyrannosaurus grows up, the arms don't change size, but they are smaller compared to the rest of the body. I hope that clears it up.

It does, and answers the main objection I would have to the juvenile T. rex hypothesis. I'm pretty sure my feet have been the same size since I was like 12, even though I'm like 40 centimeters taller, and I didn't even have to catch my own food.

[Plasticbeast95]

Please, I don't want to start an argument, ok? I'm just the kind of person that requires proof, ok? So can we please drop this? ok?

This reminds of another member a while back who got banned. The same guy who went on about Disney conspiracies. Also had the same kind of argument towards feathers. Was also about your same age.

Oh ya, I saw some of that guy's posts when I was browsing the forums one day.  Kingdino or something? Anyway, I dont have "arguments" or anything, I'm just more conservative towards feathering species that we dont know for sure whether they were feathered or not.  Ok? As others have said, its up in the air at this point.

I know I said we should drop this, but I just wanted to make this clear.