|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Nov 12, 2011 19:49:20 GMT
Oh right, i see your point Matt... However, if i remember well, not only Bakker and Larson defend the validity of Nano-T, also Witmer, after analyzing the skull of the holotype, said that this possibility cannot be totally ruled out. Bear in mind, i'm not saying that i "believe" in Nanotyrannus, if they'll definitely find out Jane & co. are just young Rexes, well, fine; i'm actually more inclined to think that maybe a medium-sized tyrannosaurid could have easily lived along with the King (an albertosaurid? A driptosaurid?), nothing wrong with it, afterall in basically all the ecosystems (both prehistoric and modern) there is more than just one predator hanging around... The problem is: this "ghost taxon" really corresponds to the critter known as "Nanotyrannus Lancensis"? Now that's something I hadn't thought of. Nanotyrannus being a dryptosaurid is a very interesting possibility. We already know they lived in Appalachia shortly earlier, and we know the barrier between Appalachia and Laramidia was disappearing in Lancian times. But, again, it would take some extraordinary evidence to demonstrate this (like an adult specimen clearly different from T. rex). |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 13, 2011 20:43:25 GMT
It struck me - even before reading Brian's article - that the tyrannosaur was in the classic 'death pose', and that there was no indication that the two were locked in combat (quite unlike the original 'Fighting Dinosaurs'). Nevertheless, the fossils are extraordinary. Take some of their wilder claims with a pinch of salt, but even if the animals are a juvenile T. rex and a Triceratops species, it's still a very significant find. |
|
emasu
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by emasu on Nov 15, 2011 17:23:36 GMT
In my novice opinion (I've been collecting fossils with my family since I was 3, 25 years now, and for the past 14 years worked for a fossil preparation facility) there is minimal evidence to support the claim that Nanotyrannus is a juvenile T. rex, and what evidence there is is mutably outweighed by evidence supporting a separate genus. The length of the fore-arms and neck, tooth placement, and when compared to specimens of juvenile T. rex the difference is astounding. There is a juvenile T. rex dentary in a private collection that I was lucky enough to be able to handle a cast of. When comparing this piece against JANE you can see that the dentary is more than twice the width than that of a nanotyrannus, and guess what only thirteen tooth sockets! These differences can also be observed in the teeth alone: two teeth of nearly identical height and depth, but a rex tooth is almost always twice the width. Where is the evidence that supports a juvenile rex that can be seen and compared to growth of modern animals or other extinct taxon that we have more information on growth. Remember, hypotheses without proof are still hypothetical.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Nov 15, 2011 18:02:15 GMT
Well, since adult T. rex teeth number and size are quite variable between specimens and juveniles are expected to have different proportions to adult theropods (generally, longer arms, between other things), Nano being another genus still doesnt hold water, and remains almost as hypothetical as it being a juvenile rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 17, 2011 1:42:44 GMT
Very cool!
|
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Nov 19, 2011 3:59:30 GMT
Incredible find! Everything about it! Makes me sad that there won't be a chance to actually have it studied and name that ceratopsian if it is a new genus. This should not have a dollar amount attached to it and I think it should go right to the paleontological community for examination.
|
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Nov 21, 2011 14:56:57 GMT
In my novice opinion (I've been collecting fossils with my family since I was 3, 25 years now, and for the past 14 years worked for a fossil preparation facility) there is minimal evidence to support the claim that Nanotyrannus is a juvenile T. rex, and what evidence there is is mutably outweighed by evidence supporting a separate genus. The length of the fore-arms and neck, tooth placement, and when compared to specimens of juvenile T. rex the difference is astounding. There is a juvenile T. rex dentary in a private collection that I was lucky enough to be able to handle a cast of. When comparing this piece against JANE you can see that the dentary is more than twice the width than that of a nanotyrannus, and guess what only thirteen tooth sockets! These differences can also be observed in the teeth alone: two teeth of nearly identical height and depth, but a rex tooth is almost always twice the width. Where is the evidence that supports a juvenile rex that can be seen and compared to growth of modern animals or other extinct taxon that we have more information on growth. Remember, hypotheses without proof are still hypothetical. Could be a juvenile closer to adulthood. Also teeth count is inconsistent in adult Tyrannosaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by illiteratescholar on Feb 4, 2012 21:34:15 GMT
The argument that they weren't fighting is actually very weak. I'm not saying it's 100%, but there's more evidence supporting they killed each other. The Nano teeth were found embedded in the ceratopsian. Chances are these aren't from scavenging. 1. The skeleton is very complete and articulated. Scavengers aren't gonna be so nice when they tear flesh from the bones to leave everything in tacked. If it had been scavenged, it would have been done by very small dinosaurs that couldn't do enough damage to the overall position of when they died. 2. Tyrannosaurs uses the premaxillary teeth to scrape off flesh from bones. The teeth embedded don't appear to be the delicate scraping used during eating and was likely as attack. This is from the pdf file on the official site. "One was found during preparation of the main body block. This tooth is positioned between the lateral and dorsal spines of one of the posterior dorsal vertebrae. Because this tooth was implanted deeply in what would have been muscle tissue, very near the preserved skin, it certainly appears that this was a tooth lost during a death struggle. The second tooth was found during the separation of the skull and neck block from the main body block. This tooth is very near the base of the neck and appears to have been implanted deeply within the muscle tissue." 3. Death pose is the result of burial as suggested. Just cause something was killed by whatever doesn't mean its muscles won't contract when submerged. The original raptor/proto fight was literally an instantaneous process. They died during the fight. With this one, they killed each other and may have been exposed for a day or 2, allowing for whatever process that causes this to take shape. 4. The skull was broken. If it wasn't from a fight, then what broke it? It's possible it was broken during fossilization. There were several other broken bones to suggest it was from a fight. But again, even if they were broken during fossilization, the other 3 points still stands. As for Nanotyrannus being a valid genus is up for debate, but after seeing this video, I'm starting to be convinced it might be its own genus. For one thing, it's too long yet too thin to fit in the tyrannosaur growth stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Pachyrhinosaurus on Feb 5, 2012 0:32:23 GMT
Did the tyrannosaurid have feathers? This would end that debate as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by illiteratescholar on Feb 5, 2012 3:11:26 GMT
Did the tyrannosaurid have feathers? This would end that debate as well. Nah, there's no debate about them having feathers. So far, we only know that tyrannosauroidea having feathers, but no tyrannosauridae have been found with any feathers. |
|
|
|
Post by Pachyrhinosaurus on Feb 5, 2012 18:37:24 GMT
I was also wondering about the ceratopsid, has it been given a name yet. Is there an news on the fossil? The last I heard was that It was for sale. Sorry if I'm asking too many questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 5, 2012 23:15:37 GMT
I was also wondering about the ceratopsid, has it been given a name yet. Is there an news on the fossil? The last I heard was that It was for sale. Sorry if I'm asking too many questions. It is still for sale, last I heard. And because of that, there probably won't be a proper name attached to the ceratopsian unless/until it is purchased by an institute with public collections. And given the cost of the specimen, I don't see that happening. So it will end up in some rich person's collection, and no one will see or hear of it again. Or, it will stay with the BHI, but because their collections are not open for research, it will go un-researched. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 19, 2012 20:48:29 GMT
I was also wondering about the ceratopsid, has it been given a name yet. Is there an news on the fossil? The last I heard was that It was for sale. Sorry if I'm asking too many questions. It is still for sale, last I heard. And because of that, there probably won't be a proper name attached to the ceratopsian unless/until it is purchased by an institute with public collections. And given the cost of the specimen, I don't see that happening. So it will end up in some rich person's collection, and no one will see or hear of it again. Or, it will stay with the BHI, but because their collections are not open for research, it will go un-researched. Compare to the case of this dino: pinkubentobox.com/nagi/images/dinowiki/chirostenotes_skeleton_01.jpgIt was put up for sale in the 1990s. Eventually bought by the Carnegie museum. It will finally be described and named soon, probably this year. So, even if it IS bought by a museum, don't expect a name or even clear answers about the specimen for around 20 years.  DO expect a totally sensationalized, borderline pseudoscience TV show making over the top wild claims about it on the history channel or something before it's even out of the rocks. Alternately, expect Bakker to name these as two new species (Voldemortops and Megananotyrannoraptor?) in the caption to a book, and they remain nomina nuda forever. |
|
|
|
Post by krentz on Feb 20, 2012 1:08:32 GMT
"DO expect a totally sensationalized, borderline pseudoscience TV show making over the top wild claims about it on the history channel or something before it's even out of the rocks. " Awesome. I could use the work!  DK |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauroid on Feb 21, 2012 2:00:36 GMT
Sadly, you are wrong--there are plenty of rich people (although this amount is pretty extreme) that would pay big bucks for a 'trophy' like this, and sharing is not part of that equation. Charlie Sheen has his mosasaur. Leonardo DiCaprio and Nicolas Cage fought it out for a Tyrannosaurus (I don't know if either one got it, but someone did). And those were 'cheap'. There are truly rich people in other parts of the world that might not blink at this amount, but Peter is being picky about who gets it. And even a 'however' statement about the curating of the fossil wouldn't be acceptable for many publications. Maybe a National Geographic article or something, but those don't count. It's really sickening that the rich "elite" get to do things like that, I use the term elite very loosely as most are just low-life with a mountain of cash it seems. Anyways excellent find, and exciting regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 21, 2012 2:45:39 GMT
Sadly, you are wrong--there are plenty of rich people (although this amount is pretty extreme) that would pay big bucks for a 'trophy' like this, and sharing is not part of that equation. Charlie Sheen has his mosasaur. Leonardo DiCaprio and Nicolas Cage fought it out for a Tyrannosaurus (I don't know if either one got it, but someone did). And those were 'cheap'. There are truly rich people in other parts of the world that might not blink at this amount, but Peter is being picky about who gets it. And even a 'however' statement about the curating of the fossil wouldn't be acceptable for many publications. Maybe a National Geographic article or something, but those don't count. It's really sickening that the rich "elite" get to do things like that, I use the term elite very loosely as most are just low-life with a mountain of cash it seems. Anyways excellent find, and exciting regardless. And the alternative is to have thousands of fossils erode into dust because there won't be any incentive to look for them (save for the university teams which can't possibly cover them all)...as far as rich "low-lifes" go, they earned their money by working harder than most of us ever will - and they can spend it however they choose. I have no problem with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 22, 2012 2:56:19 GMT
If I was loaded with money enough to buy the fossil I would and then let it be studied. Its not doing anyone any good sitting in someone's mansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 24, 2012 0:14:48 GMT
It's really sickening that the rich "elite" get to do things like that, I use the term elite very loosely as most are just low-life with a mountain of cash it seems. Anyways excellent find, and exciting regardless. And the alternative is to have thousands of fossils erode into dust because there won't be any incentive to look for them (save for the university teams which can't possibly cover them all)...as far as rich "low-lifes" go, they earned their money by working harder than most of us ever will - and they can spend it however they choose. I have no problem with that. If a fossil ends up in a private collection, most scientists won't publish on them even if they could, so they may as well have eroded to dust anyway. Unless the owner bequeaths the collection to a museum in their will, they're lost to science one way or the other. And even that doesn't always work out--look what happened to the Maxberg Archaeopteryx. Owner hid it under his bed for thirty years. He dies, people look under his bed, it's not there. Adios important specimen. |
|
