Talk:Nanotyrannus

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.

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)