Following our brief, yet inciteful discussions of the Tinker story here on the list, I posted my concerns on the website's notice-board, hoping for a response. At 11:44 this morning it arrived. This is what he said:
(Snipped) "I don't think it's a real good idea to rule out much of anything in Paleontology...well, maybe ruling out flying T.rexes would be ok, but you know what I mean...there is still a tremendous amount to be learned and much of today's 'conclusions' will be tomarrows jokes. And that's one of the neat things about this science...it is growing and evolving so fast.
Do Tinker's teeth rule out the Nano question? Well, consider this. While Tinker may have had different teeth as a baby, as a 60% adult sized juvenile he had the same teeth as Mom and Dad. Tinker is the same size as an adult Nano. Adult Nanos have totally different teeth than Tinker. This would certainly be a strong indicator that Nanos are NOT T.rexes.
Also, I read a description of the Nano skull that mentioned that the snout was sharper, more 'foxlike' and that Nano's eyes may have been set for forward on the face giving better binocular vision than a T.rex.
From what I understand of Tinker's skull remains, they are classic T.rex in shape."(Snipped)