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.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
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.
Oh, I missed the 4th one. To be frank, there is nothing anyone can say or do to bring me to the side of the consensus. Or at least till bother the Denver museum teen rex and Montana dueling specimens are described.
And that is a fair wait. If those two were to come back both as histologically mature and possessing unique autapomorphies, then we have a major reassessment on our hands. But only then; for now there is a mountain of onto evidence that doesn't falsify the null hypothesis of "same species".
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.