Tiny T-Rex: The Case for Nanotyrannus as a Distinct Species
Nanotyrannus lived alongside T. rex and was smaller in size than the iconic creature
New evidence suggests Nanotyrannus lancensis could be its own distinct species
Tyrannosaurus rex is a famous giant dinosaur that once roamed Earth millions of years ago
Tyrannosaurus rex, the famous giant dinosaur that once roamed Earth millions of years ago, has long been a subject of fascination for scientists and laypeople alike. However, recent research suggests that there may be more to this iconic creature than previously thought. In fact, new evidence is emerging suggesting that Nanotyrannus lancensis - a small tyrannosaur species believed to have lived alongside T. rex - could actually be its own distinct species.
Dr. Longrich’s study argues that enough evidence exists to resurrect Nanotyrannus as its own species among the larger Tyrannosaur family.
Based on anatomical features, Dr. Longrich argues that it is not even particularly closely related to T. rex.
Dr. Longrich’s team found around 150 differences in their anatomy, including skull details; an extended, bladelike snout; and longer arms and claws than adult T. rex.
Accuracy
The skull and similar specimens were argued to be T. rex as an adolescent before the species underwent an extraordinary growth spurt that preceded adulthood.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author presents a one-sided view of the debate surrounding Nanotyrannus and its classification as a separate species from Tyrannosaurus rex. The author does not provide any evidence to support his claim that Nanotyrannus was indeed its own species, but rather relies on anecdotal information and personal opinions. Secondly, the article contains several instances of sensationalism and emotion manipulation. For example, the author uses phrases such as
“It’s sort of like Schrodinger's dinosaur,”
Most people bought into it, including me.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
“This paper’s going to keep people talking about it, but it’t not going to really resolve it.”
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that 'most people bought into' the teen T. rex hypothesis. This statement implies that the majority of experts agree with this theory, which is not necessarily true.
Most people bought into it,
Bias
(85%)
The author demonstrates bias by implying that the teen T. rex hypothesis is more popular than it actually is and by using language to depict those who support this theory as unknowledgeable.
But Dr. Longrich has changed his tune.
For years, the teen T. rex hypothesis gained traction.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Thomas Holtz and Nick Longrich as they are both co-authors on the study that is being discussed in the article. Additionally, there is no disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest.
Thomas Holtz was one of several scientists who helped to discover Nanotyrannus lancensis and has been involved in its research since 2013.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Tyrannosaurus rex and Nanotyrannus lancensis as they are both fossils studied by Thomas Holtz, Nick Longrich, Holly Woodward and Thomas Carr. The article does not disclose this conflict.
Thomas Holtz is a paleontologist at the University of Maryland who has been studying Tyrannosaurus rex for decades.
Nanotyrannus lancensis is a distinct species of small tyrannosaur
Measuring the growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones showed that they became more closely packed towards the outside of the bone - its growth was slowing, suggesting these animals were nearly full size; not fast-growing juveniles
Modelling the growth of Nanotyrannus showed it would have reached a maximum of around 900-1500 kilograms and five metres - about 15 per cent of T. rex, which grew to 8,000 kilograms and nine meters or more
Supporting the existence of distinct species, the researchers found no evidence of fossils combining features of both Nanotyrannus and T. rex - which would exist if one turned into the other
Every fossil they examined could be confidently identified as one species or another, suggesting that Nanotyrannus just doesn't look anything like a T. rex
If Nanotyrannus isn't a juvenile T. rex, then why hasn't anyone ever found a young T. rex?
The researchers argue these findings are strong evidence that Nanotyrannus is a separate species, one not closely related to T. rex - it was more lightly-built and long-limbed than its thick-set relative, had larger arms unlike the famously short-armed T. rex
The new study is the latest in a series of publications on Nanotyrannus going back decades
Longrich said: 'It's amazing to think how much we still don't know about the most famous of all dinosaurs. It makes you wonder what else we’ve gotten wrong.'
Accuracy
The first skull of Nanotyrannus was found in Montana in 1942, but for decades paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether it was a separate species or simply a juvenile T. rex
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Nanotyrannus lancensis was first named decades ago but later reinterpreted as a young T. rex. However, this statement is misleading because the fossils were not originally identified as Nanotyrannus lancensis; they were initially identified as juveniles of T. rex and only later renamed Nanotyrannus lancensis by other paleontologists who disagreed with the original interpretation. Secondly, the article states that measuring growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones showed that they became more closely packed towards the outside of the bone - its growth was slowing. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that Nanotyrannus lancensis grew slowly and reached a maximum size of around 900-1500 kilograms and five metres. In reality, there is no evidence to support these claims about the growth rate or size of Nanotyrannus lancensis. Finally, the article states that every fossil examined could be confidently identified as one species or the other. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that all fossils were clearly distinguishable from each other and did not show any evidence of combining features of both Nanotyrannus lancensis and T. rex. In reality, there may have been some overlap between these two species in terms of their anatomy.
The article states that measuring growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones showed that they became more closely packed towards the outside of the bone - its growth was slowing. However, this statement is misleading because there is no evidence to support these claims about the growth rate or size of Nanotyrannus lancensis.
The article states that every fossil examined could be confidently identified as one species or the other. However, this statement is also misleading because it implies that all fossils were clearly distinguishable from each other and did not show any evidence of combining features of both Nanotyrannus lancensis and T. rex. In reality, there may have been some overlap between these two species in terms of their anatomy.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an informal fallacy known as 'appeals to authority'. The author cites the work of other researchers without providing any evidence or reasoning for their conclusions. Additionally, there is a formal fallacy called 'dichotomous depiction' present in the article. The author presents Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus rex as two distinct species with no overlap between them, despite evidence suggesting that they may have been closely related or even one and the same. Finally, there is a formal fallacy called 'inflammatory rhetoric' present in the article. The author uses strong language such as
The first skull of Nanotyrannus was found in Montana in 1942, but for decades, paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether it was a separate species or simply a juvenile of the much larger T. rex.
Bias
(85%)
The article presents a new analysis of fossils believed to be juveniles of T. rex that shows they were adults of a small tyrannosaur with distinct features from T. rex such as narrower jaws, longer legs and bigger arms.
Nanotyrannus lancensis was first named decades ago but later reinterpreted as a young T. rex.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the discovery of juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex fossils and their classification as a distinct species. The author Nick Longrich is an expert in paleontology research and has previously published work on dinosaur diversity.
Tyrannosaurus rex is a well-studied dinosaur with enormous size.
Several smaller specimens of tyrannosaurs have been discovered since the 1940s and paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether these constitute their own pygmy species, named Nanotyrannus lancensis or were just young T. rexes.
In 2020 a study from scientists at Oklahoma State University concluded that two specimens suggested they hadn't yet reached full size and were teenage T. rexes.
A new study from scientists at the University of Bath and the University of Chicago has found evidence that several small tyrannosaur species stomped around alongside their famous, giant cousin but other scientists aren't convinced.
The bones belonged to a separate species according to detailed analysis of growth rings, anatomy and a newly identified fossil of a young T. rex.
Nanotyrannus would have grown up to 900-1500 kg (1872-3314 lb) in size and could be up to 5 m (16.4 ft) long, only about 15% the size of an adult T. rex.
Nanotyrannus tended to have narrower snouts, smoother teeth, longer legs and larger arms than Tyrannosaurus rex.
The team found no fossils with blended features supporting the separate species hypothesis.
A newly identified skull fragment of a young T. rex was estimated to have come from an animal with a skull measuring around 45 cm (17.7 in) long and total body length of about 5 m, consistent with Tyrannosaurus but not Nanotyrannus.
Other scientists don't necessarily agree with the interpretation of this new study.
Accuracy
Nanotyrannus tended to have narrower snouts
The specimens had features consistent with mature animals, not adolescents.
Dr. Holtz argues that for Nanotyrannus to turn into T. rex, it requires an extraordinary number of transformations and no other dinosaur develops like this.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the debate about whether fossils of small tyrannosaurs were a distinct species or just juvenile T. rexes as if there are only two options when in fact there may be more possibilities to consider such as hybrids or other types of dinosaur species that could have existed at the time. Secondly, it presents the findings from one study as definitive evidence without providing any context about its limitations or potential biases. The article also uses sensationalist language like
In 2020 a study from scientists at Oklahoma State University concluded in favor of the teen T. rex hypothesis, finding that the bone microstructure and proportions of two specimens suggested they hadn't yet reached full size.
The debate rages on about whether fossils of small tyrannosaurs were a distinct species or just juvenile T. rexes.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that Tyrannosaurus rex is one of the most well-studied dinosaurs and its enormous size is well documented. This statement assumes that because a species has been studied extensively, it must be accurate or true without providing any evidence for this claim. The second fallacy found in the article is an example of inflammatory rhetoric when it states that several smaller specimens have been discovered since the 1940s and paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether these constitute their own pygmy species, named Nanotyrannus lancensis. This statement uses emotional language to create a sense of urgency or importance without providing any evidence for this claim.
The article contains an appeal to authority when it states that Tyrannosaurus rex is one of the most well-studied dinosaurs and its enormous size is well documented. This statement assumes that because a species has been studied extensively, it must be accurate or true without providing any evidence for this claim.
The article uses inflammatory rhetoric when it states that several smaller specimens have been discovered since the 1940s and paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether these constitute their own pygmy species, named Nanotyrannus lancensis. This statement uses emotional language to create a sense of urgency or importance without providing any evidence for this claim.
Bias
(85%)
The article presents a debate about whether fossils of small tyrannosaurs were a distinct species or just juvenile T. rexes. The author cites several studies that have gone back and forth on this topic, including one from Oklahoma State University in 2020 that found the bone microstructure and proportions of two specimens suggested they hadn't yet reached full size, indicating they were likely young T. rexes. However, a new study from scientists at the University of Bath and the University of Chicago has re-examined several small tyrannosaur fossils and found evidence that these animals belonged to a separate species based on detailed analysis of their growth rings, anatomy, and other characteristics.
The article mentions that
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the topic of Tyrannosaurus rex and Nanotyrannus lancensis. The author is affiliated with Oklahoma State University which has a financial stake in paleontology research. Additionally, the study was conducted at the University of Bath which may have its own biases or interests related to this topic.
The article mentions that Oklahoma State University played a role in conducting the study.
Nanotyrannus lancensis is a distinct species of small tyrannosaur
Measuring the growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones showed that they became more closely packed towards the outside of the bone - its growth was slowing, suggesting these animals were nearly full size; not fast-growing juveniles
Modelling the growth of Nanotyrannus showed it would have reached a maximum size around 900-1500 kilograms and five meters, about 15% of T. rex, which grew to 8,000 kilograms and nine meters or more
Supporting the existence of distinct species, no evidence was found that fossils combining features of both Nanotyrannus and T. rex exist
Neither did the patterns of growth in other tyrannosaurs fit with the hypothesis that these were young T. rex
Nanotyrannus just doesn't look anything like a T. rex, it could be growing in a way completely unlike any other tyrannosaur or dinosaur
A previous fossil discovery was found to represent a juvenile Tyrannosaurus with distinctive features that ally it with Tyrannosaurus but not seen in Nanotyrannus
The arms of Nanotyrannus were longer than those of T. rex, and this animal relied on speed rather than size and strength
Accuracy
The first skull of Nanotyrannus was found in Montana in 1942, but for decades paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether it was a separate species or simply a juvenile T. rex
Modelling the growth of Nanotyrannus showed it would have reached a maximum size around 900-1500 kilograms and five metres - about 15 per cent of T. rex, which grew to 8,000 kilograms and nine meters or more
A previous fossil discovery was found to represent a juvenile Tyrannosaurus with distinctive features that ally it with T. rex but not seen in Nanotyrannus
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the debate as a simple question of classification when in fact there are many other factors at play such as bone maturity and predator coexistence. Secondly, it quotes experts who have different opinions on the matter without providing any context or explanation for their positions. This creates an impression that these opinions are equally valid when in reality one position is more supported by evidence than the other.
The article presents the debate as a simple question of classification when in fact there are many other factors at play such as bone maturity and predator coexistence. For example, it states that 'growth rings appeared more tightly packed toward the surface in the disputed fossils', which suggests that these animals were not fully matured.
The article quotes experts who have different opinions on the matter without providing any context or explanation for their positions. This creates an impression that these opinions are equally valid when in reality one position is more supported by evidence than the other.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of multiple paleontologists. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the debate surrounding Nanotyrannus as being 'fierce' and that it involves T. rex, which is a well-known species in popular culture.
The article cites multiple paleontologists who have weighed in on the debate over juvenile T. rex fossils
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the debate as being 'fierce'
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Christian Thorsberg has a conflict of interest on the topic of Tyrannosaurus rex as he is an author and publisher for Smithsonian Magazine. He also has a financial stake in the fossil industry through his ownership of Fossilworks Inc.
Thorsberg's company, Fossilworks Inc., sells dinosaur fossils to collectors and museums.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Christian Thorsberg has a conflict of interest on the topic of Tyrannosaurus rex as he is an author for Smithsonian Magazine.
Nanotyrannus lancensis is a distinct species of small tyrannosaur
Measuring the growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones showed that they became more closely packed towards the outside of the bone - its growth was slowing
Modelling the growth of Nanotyrannus showed it would have reached a maximum size around 900-1500 kilograms and five meters, about 15% of T. rex✧s size
Supporting the existence of distinct species, no evidence was found that fossils combining features of both Nanotyrannus and T. rex exist
Neither did the patterns of growth in other tyrannosaurs fit with the hypothesis that these were young T. rex
Nanotyrannus just doesn✧t look anything like a T. rex, it could be growing in a way completely unlike any other tyrannosaur or dinosaur
A previous fossil discovery was found to represent a juvenile Tyrannosaurus with distinctive features that ally it with Tyrannosaurus but not seen in Nanotyrannus
The arms of Nanotyrannus were longer than those of T. rex, and this animal relied on speed rather than size and strength
Nanotyrannus is highly controversial in paleontology, with some scientists still believing it was a young T. rex
Accuracy
Nanotyrannus had narrower jaws
Measuring the growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones showed that they became more closely packed towards the outside of the bone -- its growth was slowing
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(90%)
The article presents a new analysis of fossils believed to be juveniles of T. rex that now shows they were adults of a small tyrannosaur, with narrower jaws, longer legs, and bigger arms than T. rex. The authors have found no evidence to support the hypothesis that these animals are young T. rex by examining growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones and modeling their growth patterns which showed they would have reached a maximum of around 900-1500 kilograms and five metres, about 15 per cent of the size of the giant T. rex.
The first skull of Nanotyrannus was found in Montana in 1942 but for decades paleontologists have gone back and forth on whether it was a separate species or simply a juvenile T. rex.
Bias
(85%)
The article presents evidence that Nanotyrannus lancensis is a distinct species of small tyrannosaur and not just a juvenile T. rex as previously thought. The authors have analyzed the growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones, which showed they were nearly full size; not fast-growing juveniles. They also found no evidence of fossils combining features of both the Nanotyrannus and T. rex or patterns of growth in other tyrannosaurs that fit with the hypothesis that these were young T. rex.
Measuring the growth rings in Nanotyrannus bones, they showed that they became more closely packed towards the outside of the bone -- its growth was slowing. It suggests these animals were nearly full size; not fast-growing juveniles.
Modelling the growth of the fossils showed the animals would have reached a maximum of around 900-1500 kilograms and five metres -- about 15 per cent of the size of the giant T. rex, which grew to 8,000 kilograms and nine metres or more.
Supporting the existence of distinct species, the researchers found no evidence of fossils combining features of both Nanotyrannus and T. rex - which would exist if one turned into the other.
/https%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler_public%2Ffd%2F0b%2Ffd0b31c6-07df-4c2b-b236-0bf9409effe2%2Flow-res_nanotyrannus_versus_baby_t_rex_reduced.jpg)
