Redesigning a tyrant: Meet the new Tyrannosaurus rex

[Plasticbeast95]

that's all fine and good, but I'm going to wait for some physical evidence before I believe, ok?

Physical evidence for what? We know that both ornithischians and theropods had integument, meaning that fuzz of some sort was almost certainly ancestral to Dinosauria. This would mean that early sauropods would have fuzz of some sort, there is no way around it. Whether later sauropods retained it is of course up for debate, but why are you challenging the phylogenetic bracket in the context of sauropod integument, yet support it when used within theropoda?

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?

[Rain]

Well, he is giving you proof

[Yutyrannus]

that's all fine and good, but I'm going to wait for some physical evidence before I believe, ok?

Physical evidence for what? We know that both ornithischians and theropods had integument, meaning that fuzz of some sort was almost certainly ancestral to Dinosauria. This would mean that early sauropods would have fuzz of some sort, there is no way around it. Whether later sauropods retained it is of course up for debate, but why are you challenging the phylogenetic bracket in the context of sauropod integument, yet support it when used within theropoda?

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?

That is proof.

[tyrantqueen]

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.

[Gwangi]

This is all of course assuming that the feathers on theropods and the integument on ornithischians didn't evolve independently. They might be completely unrelated. The same for the pycnofibers on pterosaurs which so far have not been linked to feathers on theropods. It may seem unlikely that this sort of integument would evolve three times independently but we really just don't know. Until we do know, lets not get on a member's case for not accepting that sauropodomorphs had feathers. It's still up in the air at this point. I am also inclined to think that feather-like structures are basal to ornithodira but I would not go so far as to say "basal sauropodomorphs almost certainly had them".

[Yutyrannus]

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.

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. I think he only got banned temporarily though, he seems to have left the forum since then.

[Sim]

This is all of course assuming that the feathers on theropods and the integument on ornithischians didn't evolve independently. They might be completely unrelated. The same for the pycnofibers on pterosaurs which so far have not been linked to feathers on theropods. It may seem unlikely that this sort of integument would evolve three times independently but we really just don't know. Until we do know, lets not get on a member's case for not accepting that sauropodomorphs had feathers. It's still up in the air at this point. I am also inclined to think that feather-like structures are basal to ornithodira but I would not go so far as to say "basal sauropodomorphs almost certainly had them".

Very well said Gwangi!  I've seen people argue against feathers on animals there's no known reason to think lacked them (e.g. dromaeosaurids), but I've also seen people argue (just as strongly) their speculation is fact regarding feathers on animals we don't have enough evidence to know if they had feathers or not.  Both cases don't make pleasant reading.

There's just a few things I'd like to say.

1. It seems like we'll never see the end of Concavenator misinterpretations.  One of the images in the link in the first post says Concavenator shows evidence of feathers.  This 'evidence' rests entirely on the bumps on its ulna having been interpreted as quill knobs by the palaeontologists that described Concavenator.  Not everyone agrees with this interpretation.  Darren Naish has pointed out that the bumps would have been unusually far up and irregularly spaced for quill knobs. He also pointed out that many animals have similar structures along intermuscular lines that act as tendon attachment points among other things.  This dissent has been supported by other palaeontologists too.  So, Concavenator having feathers is conjecture.  As far as I'm aware, quill knobs are the attachment points for large feathers that are subjected to high pressure.  So, nothing like the feathers shown on that Concavenator in the Saurian image, or the short feathers on other Concavenor reconstructions, or those bizzare 'quills' found on so many Concavenator reconstructions.

2. The length of the largest Yutyrannus is said to be 9 metres, not 10.

3.
It would be so good if this inaccurate image stopped being used!  Sciurumimus was suggested to be a megalosauroid initially, but this initial study was criticised by several researchers, who noted that some of the old analysis the scientists used to plug in data from the new fossil were incomplete and missing relevant data on various species.  The relationships of Sciurumimus were tested again in an analysis containing all of the original data, plus additional data and corrections.  This revised analysis found Sciurumimus to be a coelurosaur.  So, feathers aren't known from megalosauroids.  Perhaps it's a typo, but it's never been suggested a megalosaurid had feathers.  It was suggested for a megalosaurOID (Sciurumimus, which turned out to be a coelurosaur) but not for a megalosaurID which is what the image implies.

[Loxodon]

This is all of course assuming that the feathers on theropods and the integument on ornithischians didn't evolve independently. They might be completely unrelated. The same for the pycnofibers on pterosaurs which so far have not been linked to feathers on theropods. It may seem unlikely that this sort of integument would evolve three times independently but we really just don't know. Until we do know, lets not get on a member's case for not accepting that sauropodomorphs had feathers. It's still up in the air at this point. I am also inclined to think that feather-like structures are basal to ornithodira but I would not go so far as to say "basal sauropodomorphs almost certainly had them".

I agree, presuming that ornithodiran integument is homologous is indeed speculation. Considering what we know however, it seems more plausible than the alternative, so is more than just "pure" speculation. Perhaps it is important to make a clarification here: If dinosaurian integument is all homologous, then basal sauropods definitely had it, there is no way around it, but if the integuments on theropods and ornithischians is not homologous, then there is no reason to think that sauropods would have had it. To that end, I am going off the presumption that it is homology we are seeing.

So, nothing like the feathers shown on that Concavenator in the Saurian image, or the short feathers on other Concavenor reconstructions, or those bizzare 'quills' found on so many Concavenator reconstructions.

Yeah, I don't know why that infographic shows it with dense layers of fuzz all over it's arms. I am all for carnosaurs with integument, and I find it plausible that Concavenator probably had fuzz of some sort whether the alleged quill knobs turn out to be the real deal or not, but it is important to label speculation as such.

It would be so good if this inaccurate image stopped being used!  Sciurumimus was suggested to be a megalosauroid initially, but this initial study was criticised by several researchers, who noted that some of the old analysis the scientists used to plug in data from the new fossil were incomplete and missing relevant data on various species.  The relationships of Sciurumimus were tested again in an analysis containing all of the original data, plus additional data and corrections.  This revised analysis found Sciurumimus to be a coelurosaur.  So, feathers aren't known from megalosauroids.  Perhaps it's a typo, but it's never been suggested a megalosaurid had feathers.  It was suggested for a megalosaurOID (Sciurumimus, which turned out to be a coelurosaur) but not for a megalosaurID which is what the image implies.

Where is this image even from? It must be a few years old since the Sciurumimus thing was cleared up a while ago. It would be best if people trying to explain integument distribution in dinosaurs don't use demonstrably false graphs, especially since removing evidence for fuzz on megalosaurs hardly weakens the case anyway.

[Dinoguy2]

This is all of course assuming that the feathers on theropods and the integument on ornithischians didn't evolve independently. They might be completely unrelated. The same for the pycnofibers on pterosaurs which so far have not been linked to feathers on theropods. It may seem unlikely that this sort of integument would evolve three times independently but we really just don't know. Until we do know, lets not get on a member's case for not accepting that sauropodomorphs had feathers. It's still up in the air at this point. I am also inclined to think that feather-like structures are basal to ornithodira but I would not go so far as to say "basal sauropodomorphs almost certainly had them".

Very well said Gwangi!  I've seen people argue against feathers on animals there's no known reason to think lacked them (e.g. dromaeosaurids), but I've also seen people argue (just as strongly) their speculation is fact regarding feathers on animals we don't have enough evidence to know if they had feathers or not.  Both cases don't make pleasant reading.

There's just a few things I'd like to say.

1. It seems like we'll never see the end of Concavenator misinterpretations.  One of the images in the link in the first post says Concavenator shows evidence of feathers.  This 'evidence' rests entirely on the bumps on its ulna having been interpreted as quill knobs by the palaeontologists that described Concavenator.  Not everyone agrees with this interpretation.  Darren Naish has pointed out that the bumps would have been unusually far up and irregularly spaced for quill knobs. He also pointed out that many animals have similar structures along intermuscular lines that act as tendon attachment points among other things.  This dissent has been supported by other palaeontologists too.  So, Concavenator having feathers is conjecture.  As far as I'm aware, quill knobs are the attachment points for large feathers that are subjected to high pressure.  So, nothing like the feathers shown on that Concavenator in the Saurian image, or the short feathers on other Concavenor reconstructions, or those bizzare 'quills' found on so many Concavenator reconstructions.

2. The length of the largest Yutyrannus is said to be 9 metres, not 10.

3.
It would be so good if this inaccurate image stopped being used!  Sciurumimus was suggested to be a megalosauroid initially, but this initial study was criticised by several researchers, who noted that some of the old analysis the scientists used to plug in data from the new fossil were incomplete and missing relevant data on various species.  The relationships of Sciurumimus were tested again in an analysis containing all of the original data, plus additional data and corrections.  This revised analysis found Sciurumimus to be a coelurosaur.  So, feathers aren't known from megalosauroids.  Perhaps it's a typo, but it's never been suggested a megalosaurid had feathers.  It was suggested for a megalosaurOID (Sciurumimus, which turned out to be a coelurosaur) but not for a megalosaurID which is what the image implies.

Yes, this image is slightly out of date (pending any decent study of "compsognathid" grade relationships) but delete the label and the cladogram is still correct, since it shows Sciurumimus between tyrannosauroids and allosauroids.

[Viking Spawn]

Was that image from Wikipedia?  It seems that site has several out dated scale images for several species of dinosaurs.   

[Dinoguy2]

Was that image from Wikipedia?  It seems that site has several out dated scale images for several species of dinosaurs.   

No, this is from the Nature paper on the feathered ornithomimid specimens!

If a scale image is out of date, you should post on the Talk page for that article so somebody with the original file can correct it. Do you know any specific ones I can take a crack at?

(Also, sometimes a corrected one is submitted without deleting the old one, and images from Wiki can end up in Google searches even if they are no longer part of any actual article).

[Viking Spawn]

Thank you for the info Dinoguy2.   The next time I surf Wiki, I will send you a PM with the link(s) as I encounter them.   

[Loxodon]

So, Saurian released their Tyrannosaur growth chart:



Several people have expressed disbelief that young tyrannosaurs actually looked like that, but we really do have fossil skulls showing us that young Tyrannosaurus rex had very different proportions from the adults. Also, don't you dare mention Nanotyrannus.

[CityRaptor]

Ofcourse there was disbelief. Reality is unrealistic, after all.

[darylj]

I'm starting to see t-rex packs... with one large, slower alpha... (like a male lion) wiht a load of smaller and younger 'hunters'

[Gwangi]

I'm starting to see t-rex packs... with one large, slower alpha... (like a male lion) wiht a load of smaller and younger 'hunters'

I'm starting to see niche partitioning among different age classes of the same species. Perhaps an indication of little or no parental care.

[Simon]

*snip*. Also, don't you dare mention Nanotyrannus.

Why not?  Anyone doing an even cursory examination of the "Dueling Dinosaurs" Nanotyrannus fossil - one of the most perfectly preserved theropods ever found - can plainly see that the arms on that specimen are larger than an adult TRex's arms.  So, it does not appear to be a TRex, but just as clearly it is a tyrannosaurid.

So, to me, it appears to be a new species - Nanotyrannus.  You can easily find the youtube video of Bob Bakker examining the fossil and draw your own conclusions.

[Balaur]

Size of the arm doesn't mean it's a distinct species. It's possible allometry in Manospondylus is different. Maybe the arms are larger as subadults because they had a purpose, while as adults they stop growing because the arms became less useless. My thinking is that the large arms may have been used to grab prey and restrain it. Adult Manospondylus have huge heads, but small arms, while subadult Manospondylus have smaller heads and larger arms. So the features that Bob Bakker points out as being distinct may not be so at all. And while the closely related Tarbosaurus does not have this does not mean Manospondylus doesn't. Even closely related genera can differ greatly.

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.

[Simon]

Size of the arm doesn't mean it's a distinct species. It's possible allometry in Manospondylus is different. Maybe the arms are larger as subadults because they had a purpose, while as adults they stop growing because the arms became less useless. My thinking is that the large arms may have been used to grab prey and restrain it. Adult Manospondylus have huge heads, but small arms, while subadult Manospondylus have smaller heads and larger arms. So the features that Bob Bakker points out as being distinct may not be so at all. And while the closely related Tarbosaurus does not have this does not mean Manospondylus doesn't. Even closely related genera can differ greatly.

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.

I am duly impressed by your knowledge of the obscure, even educated by it.  However, until the name of Tyrannosaurus is officially changed in paleontology, I would suggest using the commonly accepted name to avoid causing confusion. [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]

Until a careful study proves otherwise, I will continue to be of the opinion that based on the "eyeball test", the "Dueling Dinos" theropod appears to be a different species that Tyrannosaurus Rex.

[Loxodon]

*snip*. Also, don't you dare mention Nanotyrannus.

Why not?  Anyone doing an even cursory examination of the "Dueling Dinosaurs" Nanotyrannus fossil - one of the most perfectly preserved theropods ever found - can plainly see that the arms on that specimen are larger than an adult TRex's arms.  So, it does not appear to be a TRex, but just as clearly it is a tyrannosaurid.

So, to me, it appears to be a new species - Nanotyrannus.  You can easily find the youtube video of Bob Bakker examining the fossil and draw your own conclusions.

http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2015/10/top-predator-wannabe-just-another-t-rex?&utm_source=sciencenow&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=trex-392_2015-10-19

http://tetzoo.com/podcast/2015/7/22/episode-45-extinction-time

"Nannotyrannus" is just a name slapped onto any juvenile Tyrannosaurus that we find. It is literally like taking every single young mammoth we discover and insisting that they are proof of a separate dwarf species. It has been demonstrably demonstrated that the animal is immature, every single trait proposed in support of it falls flat, and there really is literally no reason to think it is it's own thing.

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.

Matt Martyniuk would be proud.