[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?
_Nanotyrannus lancensis_ has come under fire from all quarters ever
since Bakker and friends described it back in '88. The skull (the
only skull known so far, from the Hell Creek Formation) is pretty
squashed and heavily restored with plaster, which is why a CAT scan
was employed to ascertain the degree of fusion of the cranial
elements (i.e. its ontogenetic development).
I picked up second-hand accounts of a talk at the last SVP meeting
which threw another bucket of cold water over _Nanotyrannus_. It
apparently showed that there is nothing precluding the skull from
being a juvenile _T. rex._
Proponents of _Nanotyrannus_ claim that there is certain other
evidence that can be used to distinguish this skull from _T. rex._ -
including tooth count (?maxilla, I can't remember) and, as you say,
results of the CAT scan.
Nothing has been published so far that I'm aware of. Personally, I
have doubts concerning the validity of _Nanotyrannus_, but I wouldn't
take my word for it.
> Joe Daniel