The suspicion now is that some specimens are juvenile tyrannosaurs while others are specimens of Dryptosaurus. Either way Nanotyrannus as a name is probably invalid unless the Dryptosaur remains are determined to be the same genus as the Nanotyrannus type, which seems unlikely as that type was designated as non-diagnostic.
Maybe but on a tangent here but what are the odds that Megaraptors were derived Eutyrannosauria since some people think that Megaraptora fall into Coelurosauria?
>Eutyrannosauria
Probably not, though the current prevailing view is they fall within Tyrannosauroidea as a whole and, thus, are a sister taxa to Eutyrannosauria.
*Dryptosaurus* is such a historically important animal that its a shame its mostly forgotten. The similarity between it and Megaraptors fascinates me. Its either convergent evolution with Dryptosaurs evolving in isolation in eastern North America and Megaraptors in South America/ Australia (something worth studying in and of itself) *or* the two groups are actually a single clade that spread out from a common source.
If the latter then due to the laws of priority Megaraptoridae would become Dryptosauridae. Of course maybe T. rex was born looking like a *Megaraptor* and grew into its arms as it aged. Either way things are about to get interesting in Tyrannosaur taxonomy.
Just to be clear as it's almost midnight for me here and it's been a long day.
You speaking like end of the Maastrachian before the asteroid hit or have a missed a memo that there was a land bridge the entire time?
Before Impact. Laramidia already started to.become bigger and bigger. And some papers sugest land brigdge through interior sea has reaperd like before.
One slight clarification, there is a hypothesis that Nanotyrannus was a basal tyrannosauroid similar to Dryptosaurus, but not Dryptosaurus itself however.
I first heard about it with this abstract [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363046827_Nanotyrannus_is_Dryptosaurus_An_Abstract), with more info on his [blog](https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2021/08/evidence-of-subadult-nanotyrannus.html). More links are available on the blog post that are more recent.
It gets better. The paper sugest thst within nanotyrannus speciments hide yet another species.
Also there are no such small or smaller juvenile T-rex specimet. Its part of the whole problem with acknowledge of seperation of those speciec.
No. A few tyrannosaur researchers just made single sentence tweets expressing doubts about the paper. Through the Internet game of telephone combined with Reddit’s almost unhealthy hatred of Nanotyrannus, this now gets reported as “debunked”.
Maybe nanotyrannus isn’t valid but some tweets aren’t proof. For now no one can definitively say either way if nanotyrannus is valid or not without further fossil finds, or at least some specimens in private collections becoming available to study.
"Jan 2 2024"
Pretty old news. Scientific responses to that paper are probably getting peer reviewed as we speak.
**[That's Homer Simpson levels of slow](https://youtu.be/mA35An0mMOY?si=LD4q2xvClA37ZjyK)**. I suggest seeing a doctor, preferably a paleontologist.
Why would you post the first result on google? Did you read the paper? Probably not. The guy who wrote it is kind of POS and the paper got rightfully clowned on by everyone in the know, especially other Paleontologists.
Besides that you can make your own assumptions from your own research, just for the love of god don't use autogenerated google results.
Not much besides being invalidated multiple times. And, just that this paper has been debunked from the Mesozoic and back. The people behind it clearly had a misunderstanding of the concept of Tyrannosaurus growth rates. Sorry to burst your bubble
Now, hold your horses there, buddy...
Could it be smth else like a similar species to tyrannosaurus?
Maybe, but it could also just be a juvenile of that species. Right now though, we have no clue.
The suspicion now is that some specimens are juvenile tyrannosaurs while others are specimens of Dryptosaurus. Either way Nanotyrannus as a name is probably invalid unless the Dryptosaur remains are determined to be the same genus as the Nanotyrannus type, which seems unlikely as that type was designated as non-diagnostic.
>Dryptosaurus Hang on a second, that implies Appalachian dinosaurs were in Laramidia right? Also, why does Dryptosaurus look like a megaraptorian?
>Also, why does Dryptosaurus look like a megaraptorian? Convergent evolution. Similar sized theropods, likely filled similar ecological niches.
Maybe but on a tangent here but what are the odds that Megaraptors were derived Eutyrannosauria since some people think that Megaraptora fall into Coelurosauria?
>Eutyrannosauria Probably not, though the current prevailing view is they fall within Tyrannosauroidea as a whole and, thus, are a sister taxa to Eutyrannosauria.
Have you read [Novas *et al.* (2016)](https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.504755837630821) arguing for a basal coelurosaur position?
*Dryptosaurus* is such a historically important animal that its a shame its mostly forgotten. The similarity between it and Megaraptors fascinates me. Its either convergent evolution with Dryptosaurs evolving in isolation in eastern North America and Megaraptors in South America/ Australia (something worth studying in and of itself) *or* the two groups are actually a single clade that spread out from a common source. If the latter then due to the laws of priority Megaraptoridae would become Dryptosauridae. Of course maybe T. rex was born looking like a *Megaraptor* and grew into its arms as it aged. Either way things are about to get interesting in Tyrannosaur taxonomy.
*Dryptosaurus*, don’t stand too close
See also Noasaurus, Baryonyx and Neovenator
In the end Laramida and Appalachia were probably connected.
Just to be clear as it's almost midnight for me here and it's been a long day. You speaking like end of the Maastrachian before the asteroid hit or have a missed a memo that there was a land bridge the entire time?
Before Impact. Laramidia already started to.become bigger and bigger. And some papers sugest land brigdge through interior sea has reaperd like before.
One slight clarification, there is a hypothesis that Nanotyrannus was a basal tyrannosauroid similar to Dryptosaurus, but not Dryptosaurus itself however.
I haven't seen this. Is it a Paleontology twitter thing? Any big names suggesting this?
I first heard about it with this abstract [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363046827_Nanotyrannus_is_Dryptosaurus_An_Abstract), with more info on his [blog](https://psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2021/08/evidence-of-subadult-nanotyrannus.html). More links are available on the blog post that are more recent.
I'm looking now. Thank you.
It gets better. The paper sugest thst within nanotyrannus speciments hide yet another species. Also there are no such small or smaller juvenile T-rex specimet. Its part of the whole problem with acknowledge of seperation of those speciec.
Who’s gonna tell him
wasn't this debunked?
It was.
It was questioned, not debunked.
Yeah it’s still up for debate but not at all debunked.
"was"
No. A few tyrannosaur researchers just made single sentence tweets expressing doubts about the paper. Through the Internet game of telephone combined with Reddit’s almost unhealthy hatred of Nanotyrannus, this now gets reported as “debunked”. Maybe nanotyrannus isn’t valid but some tweets aren’t proof. For now no one can definitively say either way if nanotyrannus is valid or not without further fossil finds, or at least some specimens in private collections becoming available to study.
It was brought back up and is now in debate. Gotta place a hold on "debunked'
How do we tell him?
**_Jurassic Fightclub Theme Intensifies_**
"Jan 2 2024" Pretty old news. Scientific responses to that paper are probably getting peer reviewed as we speak. **[That's Homer Simpson levels of slow](https://youtu.be/mA35An0mMOY?si=LD4q2xvClA37ZjyK)**. I suggest seeing a doctor, preferably a paleontologist.
Woah woah hold your edmontosaurs buddy, wasn’t it debunked already?
Dafuq?
Wheres the research? I need evidence for this
https://blog.everythingdinosaur.com/blog/\_archives/2024/01/03/nanotyrannus-is-a-valid-taxon.html
Reposting the same debunked bullshit. Probably gonna post it again next month.
Oh god, not this again
It being suggested, does not mean it is. Until further studies come out, I would not hold my breath that this is true.
Nah I still don't think so, juvi rexes is all they were
I'm gonna kill myself, can we trust put this genus out of its misery like we did with troodon
Who's gonna tell him?
That being said, possible Nanotyrannus mod for Path of Titans?
Wasn’t this stuff already debunked like, years ago?
Woah...
It’s deja vu all over again lol, the Nanotyrannus question just doesn’t want to die
There was another study?
Hell yeah
NO NO NO I'M GETTING JURASSIC FIGHT CLUB FLASHBACKS
WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Wowowow there mind i see the paper?
Why would you post the first result on google? Did you read the paper? Probably not. The guy who wrote it is kind of POS and the paper got rightfully clowned on by everyone in the know, especially other Paleontologists. Besides that you can make your own assumptions from your own research, just for the love of god don't use autogenerated google results.
#SHIT
whats wrong with nano
Not much besides being invalidated multiple times. And, just that this paper has been debunked from the Mesozoic and back. The people behind it clearly had a misunderstanding of the concept of Tyrannosaurus growth rates. Sorry to burst your bubble
WE NANOTYRANNWON! LETS TRICELEBRATE!
You Velostiraptor!
"Jan 2 2024"
i refuse to believe trex was the only big carnivore around
Nanotyrannus is thought to be about the height of a person also... that's... that's how niche partitioning works...