Thread 16836018

I'm sorry but I still don't believe it's real.
It took thirty years for a Tyrannosaurus to reach full size. You're telling me it had to compete with Tyrannosaurus clones its entire life and STILL reached full size?
What niche did Nanotyrannus fill that subadult Tyrannosaurus did not?
Do they really want to imagine a narrative for themselves off of a few bone fragments?

>>16836018 (OP)
>off of a few bone fragments
You mean some of the most complete tyrannosaur specimens in existence?
Also picrel

>>16836024
This is conclusively an entirely different genus because...?

>>16836027
>700 kg individual has longer arms than a 7000 kg individual
Do you think their arms shrink as they grew?

>>16836018 (OP)
if you read the paper you'd know that Nanotyrannus isn't even recovered in Tyrannosauridae in any of their reconstructions
You would have, at the bare minimum, an easier time arguing that Tarbo and every single albertosaur are actually T. rex than you would Nano

>>16836035
A different Tyrannosaurus species maybe. Or subspecies (which there obviously must’ve been many over the eons).
A different genus? … why?
All I can see is scientists trying to garner a bit of publicity.
As far as I’m aware the arms grew about to their adult length fairly early, and then widened out into being more robust with age.
It’s important to remember what a genus actually is. Panthera and all its diversity is a single genus, and a closely interrelated one at that. Ursus similarly.

>>16836039
Good for them?
I could also come up with any taxonomy I want for extinct animals.

>>16836044
My point is: There's nothing in common besides location and generic tyrannosaur traits. There is no reason to assume a relation besides location and generic tyrannosaur traits. The entire claim was based solely on the notion that two tyrannosaurs in the same space is apparently an inconceivable notion

>>16836042
>A different genus? … why?
Why not? It’s not even that similar to T. rex to begin with
>It’s important to remember what a genus actually is. Panthera and all its diversity is a single genus, and a closely interrelated one at that. Ursus similarly
Drawing those comparisons to other random genera doesn’t really mean anything. Black rhinos and white rhinos are in different genera. Scrub pythons and carpet pythons are in different genera. Surface level similarities don’t mean much at all

>>16836042
>As far as I’m aware the arms grew about to their adult length fairly early, and then widened out into being more robust with age
But they wouldn’t just be reaching adult length and then stop, they would need to actually shrink. Not to mention the proportions of each bone in the arm are completely different. Look at the difference in the fingers

>>16836018 (OP)
its over son
the nanochuds were right
accept defeat

>>16836018 (OP)
That's because it isn't. Paleontologists have been trying to split off juvenile dinosaurs as their own personal career meal ticket for decades. They know full well they're lying. They don't care.

>>16836044
It's worse than that. Pretty much in 100% of modern taxonomic "studies" they just input cherrypicked statistics into a computer program and it shits out these cladograms. None of them agree and they just go with the one they feel looks the least shitty. There isn't even a human making the decision making.

>>16836692
The feathers tell you everything you need to know about this image.

1: It's propaganda.
2: Its author knows its lies.
3: Its author is using contrarianism to get attention, knowing that other contrarians will bandwagon with it to signal boost

Glowniggetry is such a tired practice. Baby Boomers are so fucking uncool.

>>16836018 (OP)
Is sidekick, not child. Sorry.
Comic better this way. Trust us.

>>16837241
If it's lies, you should be able to easily refute them instead of diverting to some trivial detail that personally triggers you.

>>16837292
I just did.

>>16837322
So the number of teeth is wrong? Where can I read about that?

Since no one's answered yet, I reiterate my question: what sort of niche partitioning existed between Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus?
Just give a good educated guess. Nanotyrannus has almost identical morphology (and in my honest view, it falls within the plausible range of a Tyrannosaurus subadult; the full amount of caudal vertebrae of Tyrannosaurus isn't even known, therefore it's hardly a way to differentiate these specimens by genera).

>>16836024
Why couldn't this Tyrannosaurus specimen have had unusually long fingers?

>>16836179
>they would need to actually shrink
Why would you assume that all Tyrannosaurus individuals had identical limb and digit length like they were spawned in a video game?