Thread: The existence of nanotyrannus

Hello everybody next discussion is on nanotyrannus and if it existed here's my theory I believe nanotyrannus is real and here's why if you look at the teeth and skull their different than T. rex in that nano has tearing teeth for biting limbs and it's longer legs are built for endurance where trex is clearly on ambusher and really why would a baby T. Rex kill another. One of kinds so that's my theory what's yours !?

It is advisable to read this:
Nanotyrannus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello everybody I have just watched a documentary dinosaurs decoded . This film supported a new theory that dinosaurs looked different as they grew they think nanotyrannus is a teenaged T. rex my idea is similar but different . I think nanotyrnnus is a missing link between early tyrannosaurs and T. Rex type later ones I think both mine and the documentrys (I know my spelling is shit) anyway I believe both are ideasCould be correct what's your opinion?

This is the second thread on the same topic that you've opened...

Moderator Comment: Two threads merged. Burning Virus, do not start new threads on the same topic. (Thanks to Paleoichnium for pointing this out.)

Ok but what does everybody think of my idea and it's evidence

Originally Posted by Burning virus

if you look at the teeth and skull their different than T. rex in that nano has tearing teeth for biting limbs and it's longer legs are built for endurance where trex is clearly on ambusher

1. The tooth shape of both T.Rex and Nano are the same. Only the number of teeth differ.
2. What makes you think the tearing teeth could not be used on torsos?
3. How have you determined leg length on the basis of skull morphology?
4. On what basis do you assert T.Rex is "clearly an ambusher"?

I think nanotyrnnus is a missing link between early tyrannosaurs and T. Rex type later ones

Do their geologic ages support this hypothesis.

Nano has different teeth then T. Rex look at the size look at thane nanosecond teeth were tearing not bone crushing. AlsoT. Rex was either a ambusher or a scavenger because it thick legs were not built for running .The teeth differ in number due to according to dinosaurs decided dinosaurs did not lose teeth with age nano also appeared slightly before T. rex

Originally Posted by Burning virus

Nano has different teeth then T. Rex look at the size look at thane nanosecond teeth were tearing not bone crushing. AlsoT. Rex was either a ambusher or a scavenger because it thick legs were not built for running .The teeth differ in number due to according to dinosaurs decided dinosaurs did not lose teeth with age nano also appeared slightly before T. rex

Please provide evidence, presented in appropriate research papers, that justify these claims.

Ok first off look at recent theory's now say that T. Rex was a scavenger for my point on the legs just look at a picture same for tooth shape same number of teeth please refer to dinosaurs decoded

Not even plush slippers and ninjutsu training could allow a t.rex to sneak up on prey.

How about it bing a scavenger?

Originally Posted by Burning virus

Ok first off look at recent theory's now say that T. Rex was a scavenger for my point on the legs just look at a picture same for tooth shape same number of teeth please refer to dinosaurs decoded

It is my duty (as you are relatively new here) to inform you that evidence does not refer to YouTube videos or documentaries.
We are keen on checking actual research papers, as published in science journals (as noted by member John Galt).
I have already given a link to the Wikipedia article about this topic and it cites several scientific papers, so feel free to (re-)read it.

If you do not provide evidence, you are basically asserting things.

Ok this just an idea an idea that has to be further studied I was just offering my 2 cents

Originally Posted by Burning virus

Ok this just an idea an idea that has to be further studied I was just offering my 2 cents

I was aware of that, as you stated that it was your theory (in the vernacular sense of the word).

Then how can I get rescan papers for a new theory!?

Originally Posted by Burning virus

Then how can I get rescan papers for a new theory!?

I have not understood what you have stated. Feel free to rephrase it.

How can I get / make research papers when A it's a new theory and B i.m 13 .!?

Originally Posted by Burning virus

How can I get / make research papers when A it's a new theory and B i.m 13 .!?

You do not have to write research papers, you have to provide them to support your position.
Papers can be accessed via multiple databases (such as Google Scholar), although some papers might be protected by a subscription/payment.

Before you can provide relevant papers, you have to read and understand them. As such, you must at least have a basic understanding of paleontology and the scientific method. You can easily pick up some (non-)technical books about paleontology and read scientific websites. Documentaries will not suffice, although I am certain that they can spark interest.

You have offered reasons (post #8) for why you think T. rex and the Nanotyrannus genus are not the same.
But you have not linked to anything and as such, other members cannot check if your idea is valid.

Does this help?

I have trouble with links

Originally Posted by Burning virus

I have trouble with links

You can copy-paste URLs in the Quick Reply box.
You can also opt for hyperlinks (via the Link button, next to the Smiley emoticon).

Burning Virus, now that I know your age and therefore your likely experience level in discussing scientific topics, let me be a bit more specific on what information I was looking for from you.

You stated, for example, that Nano and T.Rex have different teeth. Now the link provided by Cogito Ergo Sum states that the teeth of the two are similar and the only difference is in the number of teeth. You have stated this is not the case. For me to accept this I need evidence to support the claim. Looking at a couple of pictures is not sufficient. I would wish to see research papers in which the scientists present their detailed measurements of the the teeth so that a proper comparison can be made. This comparison might also include details on tooth structure.

Now, I suspect you do not have this information already and it could be difficult to track down. That makes your idea unsupported. Now it is good to have such ideas. They are the basis of progress in science, but you need to convert it from an unsupported idea into a supported one. That means, somehow, first finding the data that support your claim that the teeth are different. If you are unable to find this then the idea needs to be set aside. And if you find that the teeth are, in fact, very similar, then you need to abandon your idea.

One place you could try looking for relevant papers would be Google Scholar.

I have looked at pictures of both teeth .I find that due to slightly different serrations and angles as wells as muscle thicknesses varying and tyrannosaurus having a bulkier skull I have come to the conclusion that they are different although extremely closely related species

Have you scaled up the jaw muscle ratios from the juvenile specimens of Nanotyrannus to compare to the known adult specimens Tyranosaurus?

Yes I have and when I studied the scale I found that nano was indeed a young dinosaur but a young new species( it was a young nanotyrannus.

What were your rations for the jaw muscle mass of each species?

Dd not look at the jaws I'll check now.

Ok from what I can tell about nanotyrannus's jaws was that they took the raptor like approach meaning it's jaw were fore grabbing and tearing Tyrannosaurs's jaw was for crushing so completely different jaw structure . Nano's jaw were much more narrow.

Wait, you just claimed in your post 25 to have done a ratio comparison of the jaw muscles for the two species. Did you actually do one?

Also have you take the morphological changes that are known to occur in both Dinosauria and Aves species into account?

Not on paper I'm good at head mathe and I was making a comparison and yes toke the morphogly change into account . That's part I'm saying nano shares just as many most likely more traits with birds than T. rex

What are your specific ratios? And what specific traits do you feel are more avian? (Keeping in mind Nanotyrannus is firmly placed in Tyrannosauridae)

Well when I studied nano bone structure they were hollowed more so then T. rex 's were . Also the legs with their thinner muscle tissue and structure it more closely resembled how terror birds would run I also looked at similarities between nano and terror bird that was there way of killing they didn't crush they came from behind and struck like a utahraptor (or nanotyrannus)

All aspects that one would expect to see in a juvenile.

Which phorusrhids did you compare to, as there's a very large range of diversity in the group.

you again are asserting that the killing methodology is known for the species. What scientific paper are you basing that on?

Yes it was a juvenile but I suspect the adult would look only slightly bulkier . I am basing my ideas for it's killing methodology on it's skull structure and appearance several documentry's it's lighter build suggests it's more closely related to gorgosaurus

The technical paleontology literature disagrees with that assessment though, and places it either close to Tyrannosaurus or as juveniles of the species

I see what you mean ok then forget what I said about gorgasaurus It's closer to Tyrannosaurs but still somewhat related to gorgo

But I think that evidence shows that terror birds used genes drone both tyrannosaurus and nanotyrannus

Say what now?

That terror birds have traits from both species

If by that you mean traits that are ancestral to the bird clade, maybe. Remember birds evolved from a different group of theropods then the line that ended at Tyrannosaurus

Yes that's true.. But I the birds still get some traits from nanotyrannus

I also noticed although T Rex had a bigger skull it had a smaller brain cavity (which means a smaller brain ) . This could be due to nano having to compete more for prey than tyrannosaurus and thus had to become more intelligent thus leading to high intelligence birds T Rex was smart too I just don't think it's as smart as nano

Thats not actually how genetics works and the point still stands that Tyrannosurids are a different line from the line leading to aves

Oh I misread that that was dromisaure right ? Still tyrannosaurus and nano are closely related to raptors so I would think aves would get at least one of either t Rex's or nano's traits

Define closely related? And genetically why should they get some traits?

Well they relation with the smaller eotyrannus nanotyrannus must have been the last raptor like tyrannosaur due to their longer legs and tearing teeth .I just think although they broke off I would suspect birds would get a trait from .It' how about it's behavior of killing the young of its competition terror birds with thought to that modern birds like hawks seagulls and crows do it a lot and about the way that terror birds. Ran seemed more like nano ran than raptors's

Lots of speculation, and attribution of traits for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence at all of your assertions regarding behavior.

Yes but I think we are going off track here we are supposed to find out if nano is it's own species I believe we got off track.

have you had a chance to read the papers linked in the References section of the Wiki article yet?

Yes I have nice to see you again everybody's not understanding is it not the Instinct of a plant to turn the Sun's rays into energy and for some bacteria and viruses to react to cells and infect them it's how they live how is no one understanding that!?

Oh sorry wrong thread