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

[suspsy]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/public-ever-see-dueling-dinosaurs-180963676/?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Potentially one of the most exciting paleontological finds ever, and it remains locked away where no one can see it. I've always felt that $9 million was an absolutely outrageous, unreasonable asking price.

[BlueKrono]

There's a difference between "giving them away for nothing" and $9 million fricken dollars. The offer at audition of $5.5 mil would have bought him a few more cattle and paid his associates as he wanted, no doubt. I agree, I think it's a sorry example of profiteering.

[stargatedalek]

Truly outrageous, if it was a "fair price" someone would have offered it by now. I feel sorry for this poor institution that is apparently trying hard to raise money to pay for this.

Rarely will I agree with Horner word for word on something but I think he's pretty much right here, if the fossil has any value it's the identity of the ceratopsian, and probably nothing more. We already have several largely complete juvenile Tyrannosaurus.

The article itself also wasn't exactly written "from a perspective of consensus", what with the heavy handed use of "Nanotyrannus" and implying those who don't acknowledge it are a minority (and even vaguely implying they may just be denying it because they hadn't seen the fossils of it... what?). Not that I expected better from Smithsonian, at least not from Smithsonian "as a brand", they don't exactly have a stellar track record.

[Reptilia]

Didn't read through all the article, but they talk about mummified remains and possible skin impressions?

[suspsy]

They mention it in passing, but there's no way to know because no one is able to study the damn thing.

[Neosodon]

That was interesting but pretty outrageous. Selling it for 5.5 million dollars is not giving it away. With a find like that, money would be the last thing on my mind. Even if the guy only cares about money, selling it for what was offered would have still been the logical choice. It's not like its going to get any more valuable as it sits. The guy will die of old age eventually and maybe his son will inherit then sell it.

I disagree with Horner though. Two mysterious dinosaurs that could both end up as new species that are fossilized in combat is obviously going to have scientific value.You can't know the scientific value of a fossil until it's been examined. Fossils have sat in archives for years before they were used to make ground breaking discoveries. He probably said that to make Phipps think it was not valuable and sell it for a lower price - a standard bargaining tactic. Sounds like something Horner would do given his reputation.

I understand people need to make a living but to see a fossil as nothing more than money is despicable and only cheapens the fossil. Fossils are worth far more than the money people sell them for. They're irreplaceable remains of extinct species and our only connection to the distant past.

[Simon]

That was interesting but pretty outrageous. Selling it for 5.5 million dollars is not giving it away. With a find like that, money would be the last thing on my mind. Even if the guy only cares about money, selling it for what was offered would have still been the logical choice. It's not like its going to get any more valuable as it sits. The guy will die of old age eventually and maybe his son will inherit then sell it.

I disagree with Horner though. Two mysterious dinosaurs that could both end up as new species that are fossilized in combat is obviously going to have scientific value.You can't know the scientific value of a fossil until it's been examined. Fossils have sat in archives for years before they were used to make ground breaking discoveries. He probably said that to make Phipps think it was not valuable and sell it for a lower price - a standard bargaining tactic. Sounds like something Horner would do given his reputation.

I understand people need to make a living but to see a fossil as nothing more than money is despicable and only cheapens the fossil. Fossils are worth far more than the money people sell them for. They're irreplaceable remains of extinct species and our only connection to the distant past.

I agree with your points in paragraphs #1 and #2 above, disagree with your point in paragraph #3.  Its his land and if he wants to try to sell something he found on it, that's his business. There is no moral judgment to be attached to his choosing to exercise that right.  If he overprices the fossil, it won't sell and that too, is his business, and his alone.

[Simon]

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! 

[BlueKrono]

I think it's fair to make a moral judgment on it. He doesn't care, and probably will never hear it anyway. But it's understandable to be disappointed. He may die of old age someday, but others of us will too, and to not let it be studied until decades pass and the right circumstances arise is kind of a travesty.

[ZoPteryx]

I disagree with Horner though. Two mysterious dinosaurs that could both end up as new species that are fossilized in combat is obviously going to have scientific value.You can't know the scientific value of a fossil until it's been examined. Fossils have sat in archives for years before they were used to make ground breaking discoveries. He probably said that to make Phipps think it was not valuable and sell it for a lower price - a standard bargaining tactic. Sounds like something Horner would do given his reputation.

I agree.  While we might not be able to learn as much as we could've, had the specimen been professionally and scientifically excavated, it still seems these guys did a pretty good job documenting the find and its location, that's more than we can say for many specimens sitting in museums dug up by actual paleontologists in the earlier 20th century!  There's still much anatomical, biological, and phylogenic information that can be gleaned, even if we lose out on a few "big picture of Hell Creek" data points.

Didn't read through all the article, but they talk about mummified remains and possible skin impressions?

Yep, and then later talk about cleaning the specimen down to the outlines of the bones!  Sure hope they saved the impressions!!! 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I disagree with Horner though. Two mysterious dinosaurs that could both end up as new species that are fossilized in combat is obviously going to have scientific value.You can't know the scientific value of a fossil until it's been examined. Fossils have sat in archives for years before they were used to make ground breaking discoveries. He probably said that to make Phipps think it was not valuable and sell it for a lower price - a standard bargaining tactic. Sounds like something Horner would do given his reputation.

I agree.  While we might not be able to learn as much as we could've, had the specimen been professionally and scientifically excavated, it still seems these guys did a pretty good job documenting the find and its location, that's more than we can say for many specimens sitting in museums dug up by actual paleontologists in the earlier 20th century!  There's still much anatomical, biological, and phylogenic information that can be gleaned, even if we lose out on a few "big picture of Hell Creek" data points.

Didn't read through all the article, but they talk about mummified remains and possible skin impressions?

Yep, and then later talk about cleaning the specimen down to the outlines of the bones!  Sure hope they saved the impressions!!! 

This....so much of this. I remember reading about marsh and cope actually finding the others dig sites only to discover they had been dynamited to prevent the other from recovering anything of value. I also remember reading something regarding some of the people who accompanied Roy Chapman Andrews on his expeditions...they used a term for a fossil or bone he himself recovered....he was notorious for using a pickaxe to chop it out of the ground , and the fossils he recovered were often referred as having been RCA'd.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I do hope we get to see this go to a good museum. The scientific study of this fossil is is way more important than this guy's greed. I'm not one to judge  other people's financial situations, but I'd say he can live with "only" $5 million for it.

[stargatedalek]

Its his land and if he wants to try to sell something he found on it, that's his business. There is no moral judgment to be attached to his choosing to exercise that right.  If he overprices the fossil, it won't sell and that too, is his business, and his alone.

As someone who lives in a place where archaeologically significant finds have to be turned over to an institution under the law, I think it's entirely fair to pass moral judgement on him for hoarding it until he gets more money. Putting it up for auction is one thing, but if he actually believes it's so important it's wrong to hold it for a set price, let alone 9 million dollars.

[Sim]

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).

I've seen others in the palaeontology community say Bakker is a notorious splitter...  I don't find that surprising, due to some of the new genera he had a role in naming, like Dracorex for example.  Nanotyrannus is one of the genera named by Bakker too, so that might relate to his support for it.

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! 

Has it been said somewhere the ceratopsian was fully grown?  I haven't seen that said anywhere.  I think this ceratopsian could be a juvenile Torosaurus.

[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?

[Simon]

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 ..

[Neosodon]

I've always thought it is odd that T. rex's environment had so little predatory diversity. But if you think about it, what could possibly compete with a T. Rex. A pack of Tyrannosaurus's would require allot of food and I don't think they would be willing to share. Unless there is something to set Nanotyranus apart from juvenile T. rex's I fail to see it's legitimacy. But this fossil may hold the truth to settling the debate. All we can do is wait.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I've always thought it is odd that T. rex's environment had so little predatory diversity. But if you think about it, what could possibly compete with a T. Rex. A pack of Tyrannosaurus's would require allot of food and I don't think they would be willing to share. Unless there is something to set Nanotyranus apart from juvenile T. rex's I fail to see it's legitimacy. But this fossil may hold the truth to settling the debate. All we can do is wait.

There's a baby T. rex (baby Bob) which has a tooth count of 12 in each dentary (whereas nanotyrannus has 16). From what I understand it's more rex-like than nanotyrannus-like but I haven't seen any other points in particular. I don't even think there's even a paper on it yet.

[alexeratops]

I've always thought it is odd that T. rex's environment had so little predatory diversity. But if you think about it, what could possibly compete with a T. Rex. A pack of Tyrannosaurus's would require allot of food and I don't think they would be willing to share. Unless there is something to set Nanotyranus apart from juvenile T. rex's I fail to see it's legitimacy. But this fossil may hold the truth to settling the debate. All we can do is wait.

I feel like Nanotyrannus/juvie Rex, Quetzalcoatlus, Dakotaraptor, and fully grown T. rex is enough diversity, considering the fact that herbivores always outnumber carnivores.

[HD-man]

There's a difference between "giving them away for nothing" and $9 million fricken dollars. The offer at audition of $5.5 mil would have bought him a few more cattle and paid his associates as he wanted, no doubt. I agree, I think it's a sorry example of profiteering.

This. It's not like natural history museums just have $9 mil lying around, especially given how underfunded science in general is. You'd think he'd be more understanding of that.

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?

BTW, I really like Mayer's illustration. It reminds me of Ruth's Album of Dinosaurs work ( https://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/search/label/Rod%20Ruth ).