I look at said papers and saying they just rehashed old points is very misleading. Just because the specimens have been juveniles is a very weak reason to consider them nomen dubium.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
(1/4) I got 300 characters so I'll do my best to condense. The nomen dubium is my own opinion. Given all the debates & baggage around the name NanoT, even if its shown to be distinct, I vote nuking it from orbit and starting clean with a new name with less history....
(3/4) The old arguments are the slew of morphology cases and the ecology one. The new paper doesn't add anything new to either; in fact it omits/ignores new data (ie Carr's onto work and Schroeder's and Holtz's ecology papers). My annotations on the figs are big 🚨...
(4/4) Right now, the data does not support NanoT. I would need a histologically old specimen with autapomorphies that are not onto variable to accept its validity. What evidence has convinced you otherwise?
Oh, nevermind and the calm down part, I saw the 4 replies and thought you snapped or something. Either way you can't "nuke" the Nanotyrannus name. That's not how taxonomy works. If proven valid first name gets priority.
There are ways around it; not easy or straightforward but the ICZN could be petitioned. I not a hill I'd die on. First names can be overruled (see: Manospondylus).
And if you don't agree with a scientific consensus part of me would question if you're doing science or clinging to a belief.
My questions would be:
1-what part(s) of the consensus do you reject?
2-why do you reject them?
3-what do you feel is mis-accounted for in the consensus?
4-what evidence would you need to be shown to accept the consensus as it currently is?
I'm not 100 percent sure how to answer the third question, but I'll give it my best. The people in favor of the juvenile rex theory are being way to one sided about it, instead of respecting the other sides evidence they act like this debate is settled, which is really isn't.
2- Nanotyrannus looks nothing like tyrannosaurus and ontogeny is a weak explanation because other juveniles of other genera in the family resemble their adults much closer. Some museums like the BHI have fragmentary juvenile Tyrannosaurus on display next to nanotyrannus material.
I was about to say, I haven't even explained my reasons for defending Nanotyrannus.
1- I reject the consensus that Nanotyrannus is invalid and reject the idea of it being a part of Tyrannosaurus' ontogeny.
Comments
And if you don't agree with a scientific consensus part of me would question if you're doing science or clinging to a belief.
1-what part(s) of the consensus do you reject?
2-why do you reject them?
3-what do you feel is mis-accounted for in the consensus?
4-what evidence would you need to be shown to accept the consensus as it currently is?
1- I reject the consensus that Nanotyrannus is invalid and reject the idea of it being a part of Tyrannosaurus' ontogeny.