Ah yes, having to use some of your resources to support the livelihood of a living person that someone else grew inside of their body because of you. How awful.
I don’t think it was meant to be a joke.
Sexual dimorphism to this extreme usually happens with females being larger than males, such as with angler fish or mantises. Which could be possible, as medullary bone evidence is hard to find, but this is almost never seen on this scale with vertebrates. Similar analogs such as Eagles also don’t have THAT big of a discrepancy.
Most large animals with large sex based size differences such as with Lions or elephants usually also only get around 2x bigger than their female counterparts. This would entail a difference more than several times.
It would be highly unlikely for animals on the scale of T-Rex to adopt this for a variety of reasons. The hazards involved are definitely one of them. Death by snu snu would be highly probable.
>angler fish or mantises
Mantises don’t have sexual dimorphism as extreme as in this photo. A more fitting comparison would be Eurycantha calcarata.
As for anglerfish, most of them are hardly sexually dimorphic at all. Only a few deep-sea species such as Himantolophids have extreme dimorphism.
Otherwise, I agree.
I didn't say it was 1:1, just that they're just the more extreme examples I can think of off the top of my head. I'll be sure to take more time next time lol
Uhm. Angler fish exhibit such extreme sexual dimorphism they didn’t know males even existed for a time. They attach (fuse) to the females for life.
https://www.livescience.com/49330-animal-sex-anglerfish.html#
Edit: it was early, I see you differentiated between them. But I’ll leave the article for any who are curious.
Moas are indeed a good example of females being a good bit larger than males, in a more directly applicable species than Mammals.
That being said, my main point was mainly 1)There isn’t evidence of the Nano and Rex size differences being based off sex and 2)Even accounting for the various large and small scale size differences, nothing suggests a difference as drastic as Nano vs Rex.
Female moas were about 2x that of males. Many raptors are the same. Lion and Elephant males are also about the same. This seems to be a pretty general upper limit for a lot of land vertebrates, especially megafauna.
The difference between a Rex and Nano is like 4x, and that’s being generous to the Nano.
I wasn't joking in the slightest; sex with an animal the size of an elephant is already a risky proposition, but adding in a massive size difference makes accidents even more hazardous.
Not to be that guy, but you're comparing insect behavior, completely different animal family down to a cell, to dinosaurs?
Finding and fighting for a mate is dangerous. The sex itself isn't, otherwise the likelihood of bearing offspring would drop drastically and lead to extinction. Nature favors it crazily - have you wondered why genital tissue is the one that regenerates the fastest? Yeah.
Fair point, but sexual dimorphism to this extreme? In a vertebrate animal? Either way it goes, it’s gonna have some trouble. How do you figure a male T-rex will mount a female that big? How do you figure a female won’t be torn in half or thrown around like a ragdoll with a male that big?
Of course this example is unrealistically extreme, but there are examples where one partner (usually males) is very noticably smaller than another. Aren't pteras speculated to have females far smaller than males? Something like 1/3rd of the size. It's speculative and those aren't even dinosaurs, but close enough.
This kind of sexual dimorphism has like, no evidence to have occurred in Dinosaurs or any remotely related reptile. And Nanotyrannus was just a juvenile Tyrannosaurus.
Nanotyrannus is based on a non-diagnostic skull so a new name will be needed for the Bloody Mary specimen if it turns out to be a dryptosaurid like many suspect. Wish they would hurry up and describe that specimen. Hope it is a dryptosaur, North America's megaraptor equivalents need more attention.
Let's use the cliche, but applicable, maximum "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Out of all possibilities to explain this difference (onteogeny, species difference, etc), why would you judge sexual dimorphism to be the best explanation when it does require a 10x size difference between sexes. It does happen in nature, but it is rare, and till now, we have not had any solid evidence for significant sexual dimorphism among dinosaurs, which further weakens the claim.
It is overwhelmingly agreed that the easiest explanation for this difference is that it reflects the animals ontogeny when it matures. Which matches what we know for other tyrannosaurids (like Gorgosaurus), although to a less extreme degree.
NGL I didn't even realize OP was suggesting nano is a full grown *T. rex*, I thought they meant nano's "distinct" traits like relative forelimb length were dimorphic and thus displayed across age class.
Wdym not as extreme. Biggest female saltie reached 14 feet, while the biggest male could probably double that and weigh 10x as much. That's pretty damn extreme. Even in modern dinosaurs, birds, like ostriches, males can grow a bit heavier and much taller than females. I doubt nanotyrannus is a female t.rex(or even a valid genus at all), but it's possible females grew much smaller than males in Tyrannosaurs. But probably not to the extent of nanotyrannus. Hell, it could be the other way around, with females being larger than males
I doubt that problem is significant since elephants and giraffes have pretty big size differences between sex and mate/live their entire life on the ground
I’d assume the nanotyrannus would have been the males for this theory since real life sexual dimorphism to such an extreme are set up that way, would the female lie down for intercourse? Would clutch sizes also increased to get the high ratio of male offspring while still guaranteeing female offspring you would want with that kind of setup?
And if it is an example of that Nanotyrannus would with full certainty be the male because one of our T. rex fossils is one of the very few fossils we have irrefutable evidence of it being female. Because it was carrying eggs when it died
There is actually. Medullary bone tissues were found on a tyrannosaurus some time ago and it's a tissue that is only found in female birds preparing to lay eggs. And she was definitely a fully grown individual.
As another comment stated, medullary bones also form upon injury and Tyrannosaurus rex injured themselves quite a lot.
Edit: so that means it could have just been an injured male and until there's further evidence, we dont know the sex of that specimen
I love these kinds of questions because it's not a dumb one. It's a clever proposal, even though it's unlikely. Keep questioning everything and we'll get more interesting conversations like these
Because Rex displays massive ontogenetic niche partitioning.
Aka the animal would live differently specialize/eat different prey depending on its size. an adolescent Tyrannosaur would be nearly double the speed of an adult and be the ones hunting Pachy's, Ovi's, Omni's etc etc. (Hence why theres no "medium" sized predator in hells creek, the Tyrannosaurus Rex fills the Small, medium and large predator category on its own)
Not likely. What is more like is ontological differences
Seems like that would make sex quite hazardous.
Donkey
[удалено]
Ah yes, having to use some of your resources to support the livelihood of a living person that someone else grew inside of their body because of you. How awful.
[удалено]
I don’t think it was meant to be a joke. Sexual dimorphism to this extreme usually happens with females being larger than males, such as with angler fish or mantises. Which could be possible, as medullary bone evidence is hard to find, but this is almost never seen on this scale with vertebrates. Similar analogs such as Eagles also don’t have THAT big of a discrepancy. Most large animals with large sex based size differences such as with Lions or elephants usually also only get around 2x bigger than their female counterparts. This would entail a difference more than several times. It would be highly unlikely for animals on the scale of T-Rex to adopt this for a variety of reasons. The hazards involved are definitely one of them. Death by snu snu would be highly probable.
>angler fish or mantises Mantises don’t have sexual dimorphism as extreme as in this photo. A more fitting comparison would be Eurycantha calcarata. As for anglerfish, most of them are hardly sexually dimorphic at all. Only a few deep-sea species such as Himantolophids have extreme dimorphism. Otherwise, I agree.
I didn't say it was 1:1, just that they're just the more extreme examples I can think of off the top of my head. I'll be sure to take more time next time lol
Uhm. Angler fish exhibit such extreme sexual dimorphism they didn’t know males even existed for a time. They attach (fuse) to the females for life. https://www.livescience.com/49330-animal-sex-anglerfish.html# Edit: it was early, I see you differentiated between them. But I’ll leave the article for any who are curious.
What about moas? They were pretty big with rather notable reverse sexual dimorphism.
Moas are indeed a good example of females being a good bit larger than males, in a more directly applicable species than Mammals. That being said, my main point was mainly 1)There isn’t evidence of the Nano and Rex size differences being based off sex and 2)Even accounting for the various large and small scale size differences, nothing suggests a difference as drastic as Nano vs Rex. Female moas were about 2x that of males. Many raptors are the same. Lion and Elephant males are also about the same. This seems to be a pretty general upper limit for a lot of land vertebrates, especially megafauna. The difference between a Rex and Nano is like 4x, and that’s being generous to the Nano.
No shit it was a joke, and a tired and outdated one. Since when was "it's obviously a joke" an excuse for a shitty joke? Just take the L and learn.
I wasn't joking in the slightest; sex with an animal the size of an elephant is already a risky proposition, but adding in a massive size difference makes accidents even more hazardous.
Not to be that guy, but you're comparing insect behavior, completely different animal family down to a cell, to dinosaurs? Finding and fighting for a mate is dangerous. The sex itself isn't, otherwise the likelihood of bearing offspring would drop drastically and lead to extinction. Nature favors it crazily - have you wondered why genital tissue is the one that regenerates the fastest? Yeah.
Fair point, but sexual dimorphism to this extreme? In a vertebrate animal? Either way it goes, it’s gonna have some trouble. How do you figure a male T-rex will mount a female that big? How do you figure a female won’t be torn in half or thrown around like a ragdoll with a male that big?
Of course this example is unrealistically extreme, but there are examples where one partner (usually males) is very noticably smaller than another. Aren't pteras speculated to have females far smaller than males? Something like 1/3rd of the size. It's speculative and those aren't even dinosaurs, but close enough.
This kind of sexual dimorphism has like, no evidence to have occurred in Dinosaurs or any remotely related reptile. And Nanotyrannus was just a juvenile Tyrannosaurus.
The closest thing would be crocodilian like some male saltwater crocodile individuals are twice the length of the females.
Even better would be birds with big size differences like Accipiters.
Nanotyrannus is a valid genus now
Nanotyrannus is based on a non-diagnostic skull so a new name will be needed for the Bloody Mary specimen if it turns out to be a dryptosaurid like many suspect. Wish they would hurry up and describe that specimen. Hope it is a dryptosaur, North America's megaraptor equivalents need more attention.
It's not, as far as I'm aware the latest evidence for Nanotyrannus was already debunked in a paper that was released way back in January.
Its not.
Uhhh that would be quite hard unless nanotyrannuss is the male but still a bit hard but not as hard if it was female
Let's use the cliche, but applicable, maximum "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Out of all possibilities to explain this difference (onteogeny, species difference, etc), why would you judge sexual dimorphism to be the best explanation when it does require a 10x size difference between sexes. It does happen in nature, but it is rare, and till now, we have not had any solid evidence for significant sexual dimorphism among dinosaurs, which further weakens the claim. It is overwhelmingly agreed that the easiest explanation for this difference is that it reflects the animals ontogeny when it matures. Which matches what we know for other tyrannosaurids (like Gorgosaurus), although to a less extreme degree.
NGL I didn't even realize OP was suggesting nano is a full grown *T. rex*, I thought they meant nano's "distinct" traits like relative forelimb length were dimorphic and thus displayed across age class.
He really took "fuck it we sexual dimorphism/display" to the absolute extreme
Unless we're talking about anglers, such sexual dimorphism is unheard of among vertebrates.
[удалено]
Not like that. Males/females can differ in size but not to such extreme. Not among more derived vertebrates at least.
Crocodiles like gharials and salties have much bigger males compared to females Edit: why are you guys booing me? I'm right
Still not as extreme, even at saltwater crocodiles.
Wdym not as extreme. Biggest female saltie reached 14 feet, while the biggest male could probably double that and weigh 10x as much. That's pretty damn extreme. Even in modern dinosaurs, birds, like ostriches, males can grow a bit heavier and much taller than females. I doubt nanotyrannus is a female t.rex(or even a valid genus at all), but it's possible females grew much smaller than males in Tyrannosaurs. But probably not to the extent of nanotyrannus. Hell, it could be the other way around, with females being larger than males
Still not as much as difference between average 8 ton adult rex and 680 kg juvenile like Jane.
Agreed
Another problem here would be that crocodiles mate in water, where wight stress is lessened
I doubt that problem is significant since elephants and giraffes have pretty big size differences between sex and mate/live their entire life on the ground
Size differences in tetrapods as a result of sexual dimorphism are nowhere that extreme.
I’d assume the nanotyrannus would have been the males for this theory since real life sexual dimorphism to such an extreme are set up that way, would the female lie down for intercourse? Would clutch sizes also increased to get the high ratio of male offspring while still guaranteeing female offspring you would want with that kind of setup?
There are trex specimens confirmed to be female and they are normal (correct me if im wrong)
Those have been called into question due to medullary bone forming in response to injury, and Tyrannosaurus injured themselves quite a lot
No
Nah. No evidence for that for sure.
That is a lot of sexual dimorphism for a terrestrial vertebrate
And if it is an example of that Nanotyrannus would with full certainty be the male because one of our T. rex fossils is one of the very few fossils we have irrefutable evidence of it being female. Because it was carrying eggs when it died
Wasn't there discovered a pregnant female-rex... Which I don't think was the size of Nanotyrannus??
Yes. It was called B-rex.
No, there is still no l crystal clear evidence for sex of Tryannosaurs yet. My thoughts came from Jane being 'mature' claim.
Ok... Still, its some r/okbuddypaleo material
There is actually. Medullary bone tissues were found on a tyrannosaurus some time ago and it's a tissue that is only found in female birds preparing to lay eggs. And she was definitely a fully grown individual.
As another comment stated, medullary bones also form upon injury and Tyrannosaurus rex injured themselves quite a lot. Edit: so that means it could have just been an injured male and until there's further evidence, we dont know the sex of that specimen
Highly unlikely, I don't know of any sexual dimorphism case in archosaurs that is the equivalent of one sex being 8 times heavier than the other
Giant moa, Pteranodontids, and some crocodilians come close but still not that extreme.
holy moly… this man is a genius
Pretty ure we have at least some idea of Tyrannosaurus sex already based on like, pubic bone width or something, but don't quote me on that
I love these kinds of questions because it's not a dumb one. It's a clever proposal, even though it's unlikely. Keep questioning everything and we'll get more interesting conversations like these
It wasn't.
No,we do have a confirmed specimen of a female rex already, B. rex
You ever tried putting a hot dog in a keyhole?
That or it'd be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway
Bruh no It's an interesting thought but sex would be 100%fatal lmao
Specimen “Bob rex” is confirmed to be female (bone tissue found in female birds) and she is pretty large.
“Tryannosaurus”
[удалено]
Hatchling, juvenile, adolescent, sub-adult, adult. Should stay like that.
why are animals named different Apon ages? like chickens are called chicks. pullets and hens, so? also I just wanna call a baby tyrannosaurus a chick
Because Rex displays massive ontogenetic niche partitioning. Aka the animal would live differently specialize/eat different prey depending on its size. an adolescent Tyrannosaur would be nearly double the speed of an adult and be the ones hunting Pachy's, Ovi's, Omni's etc etc. (Hence why theres no "medium" sized predator in hells creek, the Tyrannosaurus Rex fills the Small, medium and large predator category on its own)