[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> Both Tim Williams and Dr. Holtz mentioned in posts that there is some
> thought that Nanotyrannus may be a juvenile. I was under the impression
> that Bakker had done a CAT scan or some such on a nanotryannus skull and
> showed good evidence that it was an adult. I am assuming from your
> posts that this view has come under fire recently. Why and has there
> been anything published that I might be able to get ahold of?
As I have heard it, there are two main reasons for thinking
_Nanotyrannus_ is a juvenile. The first is that CAT scans are not always
terribly reliable when used on fossils. They work well on materials of
much different density, but in the case of fossils, the fossil bone and
the matrix are so close to the same density that the CAT scanner has
trouble telling them apart. This is why so many CAT scans of dinosaur
eggs end in failure, not neccesarily because the eggs do not contain
embryos, but because the CAT scanner has too much difficulty telling bone
from matrix. In the case of Nanotyrannus, this apparantly made unfused
elements with matrix in between appear fused. Secondly, the
skull elements that are visible from the outside apparantly DO show a
marked lack of fusion, as one would expect in a juvenile. As
if _Nanotyrannus_ is a juvenile of _Tyrannosaurus_, _Albertosaurus_, or
is really a new genus, I couldn't tell you.
"I merely chewed in self defense, but I never swallowed."