Talk:Nanotyrannus

Specimen Collection

The Wikipedia article states that there are only two records, both juvenile. How could scientists base a whole clade on just two samples and call it their own species??? 84.112.136.52 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A few months old, sure, but it bears explanation; two is actually more then many species of dinosaur have for a specimen count (examples: Podokesaurus and Balaur), so two is actually a semi-decent amount to base a clade on. Nanotyrannus, however, is still a very shaky genus. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Jury Still Out

People, the jury is still out on Nanotyrannus lancensis. It depends on who you talk to. For example, people who tend to lump species together, like Jack Horner, will say its a T-rex juvenile. People who tend to split species, like Bob Bakker, will say its a Nanotyrannus. The jury is still out. For example

Nanotyrannus arguments

1. The original specimen of N. lancensis had fused bones, indicating it was an adult. 2. Both Jane and the original specimen have been found in the same area, near Ekalaka, Montana, if it was a juvenile T-rex, we'd be finding them everywhere. 3. Nanotyrannus has more teeth sockets than T-rex.

T-rex arguments

1. Jane was only about half grown when she died.

Personally, it could be that it isn't Nanotyrannus lancensis, but Tyrannosaurus lancensis, and that the two would hybridize sometimes, like how red wolves and gray wolves could.

We don't know what Bakker's current opinion is--he's co-authoring a paper on whether or not Nano=T. rex. After re-studying his original skull and new material like Jane, he might have a different conclusion. In fact word on the street is that the new paper finds it to be a juvi rex, so presumably Bakker agrees with this view now (unless he was allowed to submit a dissenting opinion, like a Supreme Court justice? ;) ). Anyway, this isn't a simple case of lumping or splitting genera. It's either a juvenile or it's not. It would be very surprising if it were a juvenile and not a juvi rex, because well... where are the adults? Dinoguy2 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I read about a new baby Tarbosaurus discovered in Mongolia. Well, not a baby, but a juvenile tarbo. It had the same amount of teeth as the adults. This is a good indication that T. lancensis and T. rex are sister species, but not the same genus. Also, we should pay attention to the new juvenile Tyrannosaurus being prepped at the Los Angeles Museum, it appears to not look anything like Jane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be possible that Nanotyrannus is a separate species. The only main argument is because many scientists are speculating over developmental stages and that the teeth count could just be a quirk within the phase. This sounds similar to how Alioramus was regarded as a juvenile Tarbosaurus. However, recent discoveries have put that to rest because, not only has a second species been found to cement its validity, but there have been actual young Tarbosaurus found. And these have the same number of teeth as the adults. Using this example, it can only be assumed that Nanotyrannus really is a different species. But hey, I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.30.41 (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's a juv Rex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.11.103 (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I, myself, hope it is a separate genus. It's a cool dino because it's like T-rex's "mini-me", it possesses all the power and ferocity of T-rex, but in a smaller package. But to show that I'm not just a wishful thinker, I can point out that Nanotyrannus fossils don't show any feather impressions, which most young theropods had, indicating that the fossils belong to fully grown individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"possesses all the power and ferocity of T-rex" What studies indicate that this is true? ;) AFAIK we don't have evidence either way about how "ferocious" any extinct dinosaur was, any more than we have evidence of which one was coolest. The problem with cases like this (or even Torosaurus) is that people make up little stories about them in their heads, imagining what they were like, and then become disappointed if changing scientific views threaten those stories. It's important to remember that these are animals, not inherently different than any living today, and that our picture of them is always changing. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of theropod (or any other animal) fossils don't come with feather (or any other) impressions, even ones that "should" have them based on phylogenetic bracketing. Almost nothing in the Hell Creek Formation (including "Nanotyrannus") preserves any sort of impression (feathered or otherwise), but that doesn't mean these animals didn't have skin. It's just that the preservation there wasn't conductive to preserving such features. Also, we don't know that "most young theropods" had feathers. It's a commonly seen hypothesis, but it does not yet have any direct fossil evidence supporting it. Albertonykus (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What's really sad about this debate is the fact that most of the people involved really love science, and normally make decisions based on evidence... in this case they seem to ignore it in favor of what they want to be true, rather than what the evidence implies. I mean, if I sectioned a small diplodocid tibia from the Kimmeridgian, charted the animal's growth curve based on LAGs, and it fit perfectly in the middle of the developmental curve of grown up Apatosauruses, I'd publish it as a baby Apatosaurus. And nobody would split hairs about miniscule cranial features or tooth counts just to give it a new genus. Paleontologists and paleo fanboys alike would say, "Oh, yeah, it makes sense. The best explanation is that the tibia belonged to a baby Apatosaurus. Because of the evidence."

But when it comes to Nano/Tyranno debate, people throw reason out the window, and I don't know why. Nano bones have been sectioned. T. rex bones have been sectioned. Nano fits perfectly in the middle of T. rex developmental progress, which is what you would expect if it was a juvenile. It isn't just Carr's 1999 paper, either. Erickson's histology papers, Horner and Padian's 2004 paper... lots of others. but so many people ignore the evidence because they want Nano to be real, and it's bad science.

On a personal note, this kind of thing makes me feel like paleontology is becoming more of a marketing game than the science it should be. "Let's sell an opinion about an ancient animal so we can get attention," is not the same as, "Let's understand how these animals lived and died so we can have a better view of our place in history." If the latter were happening, no one would care if the Nano name turned nomen dubium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.76.106 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur, however had, science should base on facts, and so far the facts that "Nanotyrannus" exists in the way as proposed simply makes no sense. It is as if whenever someone finds just one fossil, he can make wild theories without any substantial proof. The argument in favour of juvenile dinosaurs is more convincing because dinosaurs grow bigger as they get larger, yet you don't see baby dinosaurs in a museum. 84.112.136.52 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jurassic Fight Club

Removed the statement in the article that they "dismissed" the debate over the validity of the genus as it is factually incorrect. Anyone who has actually watched the program will know that they discussed the Nanotyrannus controversy at length, presenting the evidence on both sides of the issue.

Actually, I've seen the program, and they covered the controversy... and then did dismiss the debate. There's 10 minutes of a battle between juvenile T. rex and something which may also be a juvenile T. rex, but which is exclusively referred to as Nanotyrannus during the fight. Which is why, time and time again, we get random editors here removing the possible synonymy parts of this article, claiming it's its own "species". Talking about the debate is good. But then you can't ignore what you've just said to present the speculative battle. "Who would win in a juvenile T. rex vs. Nannotyrannus battle?" is a pointless question if you're trying to inform your viewers that they may in fact be the same thing. But it wasn't about informing the viewer. It was all leading up to a fight between two genera. And the possible synonymy is just an inconvenient obstacle if you want to present a "battle of the species" type thing, which is what JFC is. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture usage of BMRP 2002.4.1 on the Nanotyrannus article

Users are constantly putting on pictures of Jane the dinosaur on this page. Yet when I went to the Burpee Museum the scientists said they have disproved that Jane was a Nanotyrannus. I have also done studies of my own on Jane and turns out, according to Greg Erickson, that the tyrannosaur growth lines produced by him should record Jane at around 600/700 kilograms.

According to this Tyrannosaur growth line chart made by Greg Erickson, Jane should weigh around 600/700 kilograms because she/he died at around eleven years old

Also Nanotyrannus was fifteen feet long not twenty-one. So should images be put on the article except Jane? I'm guessing people that have nothing to do with dinosaurs accidentally stroll across the page getting all confused because one specimen of a dinosaur on two dinosaur genera name articles.

Please respond.

"Yet when I went to the Burpee Museum the scientists said they have disproved that Jane was a Nanotyrannus." This is still slightly controversial, though it seems like there are far more Wikipedia users who want Nanotyrannus to be real than scientists who think it is. However, if Nanotyrannus is real (hint: it's almost certainly not), then Jane is an example of one, so as long as this article exists, Jane images should be ok here. If Jane isn't a Nanotyrannus, nothing is, as it's almost identical to the holotype skull.MMartyniuk (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I was kind of curious, what does "lancensis" in Nanotyrannus mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it means "From Lance" if my knowledge of Latin is correct.--65.96.242.22 (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.cmnh.org/site/AtTheMuseum/OnExhibit/PermanentExhibits/Jane.aspx. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. J. Spencer (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New Information about the Braincase of CMNH 7541

Larry Witmer has recently published a new paper on the braincase of Nanotyrannus lancensis and I think it should be added to the article.

"The Cleveland tyrannosaur skull (Nanotyrannus or Tyrannosaurus): new findings based on ct scanning, with special reference to the braincase". Lawrence M. Witmer & Ryan C. Ridgely, Kirtlandia 37: 61-81.

Abstract - The Cleveland Museum of Natural History’s skull of a small tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur (CMNH 7541) collected from the Hell Creek Formation has sparked controversy, with competing hypotheses suggesting that it represents a separate taxon of dwarf tyrannosaurid (Nanotyrannus lancensis), a juvenile specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex (the only other acknowledged Hell Creek tyrannosaurid), or a compromise position (a juvenile Nanotyrannus). Beyond this controversy, CMNH 7541 holds importance because of the anatomical information that such a well preserved skull can provide, and it is in this context that we have sought to probe the structure of the braincase region (e.g., pneumatic sinuses, cranial nerve foramina), as well as other regions of the skull. We subjected the skull to computed x-ray tomography (CT scanning), followed by computer analysis and 3D visualization. The braincase and a number of other bones (e.g., vomer, quadrate, quadratojugal, palatine, mandible) were digitally "extracted" from the CT datasets. Although the new findings strongly confirm the long-held view that CMNH 7541 pertains to a tyrannosaurid, the mosaic of characters it presents makes finer taxonomic assignment difficult. For example, some characters support affinities with T. rex, yet other characters argue for a much more basal position. The key question that awaits resolution is whether the differences observed can be attributed to juvenility, and such resolution will require information from new, as yet unpublished specimens. Nevertheless, some of the differences seen in CMNH 7541 (e.g., the pattern of pneumatic foramina in the basicranium) are highly divergent and are harder to attribute to ontogeny. Among other findings, we report here thin, laminar structures within the main nasal airway that are interpretable as being respiratory turbinates, which have potential implications for metabolic physiology.

It apparently claims that some traits seen in the holotype skull cannot be attributed to ontogeny. Taylor Reints (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure this is about Nanotyrannus?

It bothers me that this entire article focuses almost exclusively on the debate of the validity of Nanotyrannus. They might as well rename it something like "Tyrannosaurus/Nanotyrannus debate". There isn't so much as a sentence describing the appearance, probable behaviour, and fossil location of the animal. This page needs some serious cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that everything for Nanotyrannus would be identical to T. rex. If the appearance, fossil location, etc. were different, there wouldn't be a debate arguing that they're the same thing. Even if the two are different species, they differ only in a minor hole in the skull and maybe tooth count, which is discussed already (note that both sides of the debate agree Nanotyrannus specimens are all juvenile, so an adult Nanotyrannus would be similar to an adult T. rex). A lot of editors aren't too keen on investing a lot of resources in an article that will, in all likelihood, end up merged with Tyrannosaurus anyway if it's going to contain identical/redundant information. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

New Evidence may prove Validity

An articulated skeleton of an Albertosaurus sized Tyrannosaur was discovered. it is most certainly not T. rex as its fingers are longer and it has more teeth and it appears to be attacking a possible new species of Chasmosaurus, here it is http://www.duelingdinos.com/media/dls/MT_DUELING_DINOSAURS.pdf --50.195.51.9 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not much we can do here until an actual study is published, but here are some nice videos:[1][2][3][4] Whoops, already seems to be generating (non-taxonomic) controversy:[5] I think we can be pretty sure several years will pass before anything is published, especially due to that annoying commercial issue. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

apparently it is already classified under Nanotyrannus. that probably means nothing when it comes to Nanotyrannus becoming distinct.--65.96.242.22 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Until a study is published, it isn't formally classified as anything, I'm afraid. FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to note that Tarbosaurus, a close relative of Tyrannosaurus has the same amount of teeth throughout it's life. I Wonder why no one has mentioned that?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No one has mentioned that because it might not matter... Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus both experienced changing tooth counts through ontogeny. Babies started out with a few teeth, but as they grew into juveniles, their teeth became more xiphodont and they gained tooth positions. When they reached adulthood, their teeth got fat and bullet-shaped, and there wasn't enough room for all those pearly whites...kind of like when your wisdom teeth come in, and your mouth isn't big enough for them. So, they lost tooth positions until they had roughly the same number as when they were babies. We know that all known Nano specimens are juveniles (of something). If T. rex had a similar ontogenetic profile to Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus, Nano specimens would fit nicely in the juvenile-state of his developmental process, losing tooth positions as he reached adulthood. So the best conclusion we can make with the evidence is that Nanotyrannus is actually juvenile T. rex.

My Opinion

In my opinion, both of the Nanotyrannus lancensis specimens are juveniles. However, differences in the skull structure and number of teeth indicate that N. lancensis represents a separate species from Tyrannosaurus rex. Personally, I don't think the differences are enough to warrant a separate genus, but they certainly are enough to warrant classification as a separate species within the same genus. I would therefore keep it as a separate species, but lump it into the genus Tyrannosaurus as Tyrannosaurus lancensis. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, then you you would have to publish a scientific paper about this, opinions aren't worth much. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to share my opinion, that's all. By the way, two closely related species that are about the same size living together in the same habitat is not really that far-fetched. As a modern example, tigers and leopards co-exist together nowadays in Asia, and, as someone else mentioned earlier, so do grey wolves and red wolves in North America. So, the idea actually does make a whole lot of sense to me. SuperHero2111 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's saying the idea doesn't make sense, the objection is just that the evidence is not currently robust enough as presented in the scientific literature to support such a scenario. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I know that there isn't evidence for it. I am just speculating, and I just wanted to share my speculations on here. That's all. SuperHero2111 (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FORUM#OR (see #3 and 4). MMartyniuk (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that rule. I can say whatever I want on talk pages. SuperHero2111 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but if you go too far into personal speculation, those comments will be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I also think that Wikipedia has way too many rules, and that they're way too strict. Whatever happened to the free encyclopedia? SuperHero2111 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is free, as long a you follow the rules, which are made to secure accuracy. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You do realize the severe irony of what you just said, right? I also agree that Wikipedia needs rules to verify accuracy. However, I think there are many rules which I completely disagree with. Some of the rules are hypocritical. For example, the policy is that administrators are not superior to regular Wikipedians. However, that is not true at all. Admins can edit protected articles, they have more privileges, and they often abuse those privileges to deny other users their rights. And whenever they do abuse their privileges, pretty much nothing is ever done to punish them. Also, I completely disagree that "notability" has any importance. So what if the subject is not notable? As long as the information is accurate, it should stay. I'm kind of getting fed-up with Wikipedia. In fact, I'm even starting to think about leaving and starting my own wiki, with my own damn rules! SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Only sourced information stays. That's how it is, take it or leave it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS#Righting_Great_Wrongs FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying at all. I'm not trying to push a viewpoint or anything. I just think that some of Wikipedia's rules and policies are dumb. That's it. SuperHero2111 (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Should we semi-protect the article for the moment?

I'm noticing a edit war is forming between IP 42.82.195.75 and Paleocemoski over the date the Cretaceous ended and want to say that, as current concensus is the Cretaceous ended 66 mya in the scientific circle (which here holds precedence over popular culture), that I may ask that the article possibly be semi-protected to end this before it starts. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, IP 42.82.195.75 isn't the only one who changing it (also IP 42.82.201.30, IP 36.39.157.109 and IP 42.82.194.247). Maybe semi-protecting can be a solution but I'm not sure. Paleocemoski (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

moved

Guys, what do you think about this work? This is recently written by some amateur paleontologist, which is response to Larson's 2013 work "The case for Nanotyrannus"..

http://figshare.com/articles/Evidence_points_out_that_Nanotyrannus_is_juvenile_Tyrannosaurus_rex/1313017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannosaur88 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please put your comments in chronological order, not at the top of the page above the contents.

Thoughts on including more in-depth information?

I feel as though this page isn't as in-depth as it could be. Including a for and against tab that has characteristics that are unique to Nanotyrannus, as well as information explaining how these characters may be due to environmental factors, growth etc., are worthwhile. I understand that the opinions on Wikipedia are supposed to be neutral, but for such a controversial taxon, especially right now with the Woodward et al., 2020 paper, providing both sides of the argument may be beneficial to the palaeo-community, especially when that paper brings very little new evidence forward in regards to the validity of Nanotyrannus.

It's definitely worth thinking over at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDinosaurHeretic (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No. There is no reason to. The controversy around this taxon is no greater in the published literature than Amphicoelias being Diplodocus, it is simply individuals online who blow it out of proportion. It will almost certainly simply be cut later anyways when Carr's paper comes out and ends this however it concludes. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)