|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 1, 2014 11:07:39 GMT
We all love and know Nanotyrannus, he was made famous by the horribly innacurate jurassic fight club. But is it really its own genus? It could be a its own genus but it also could be a Baby T. rex. What do you think it is?
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 2, 2014 15:26:05 GMT
I am convinced by it being an immature Tyrannosaurus rex specimen, it is pretty similar to BMRP 2002.4.1 ("Jane").
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 2, 2014 19:50:41 GMT
I am convinced by it being an immature Tyrannosaurus rex specimen, it is pretty similar to BMRP 2002.4.1 ("Jane"). the thing is BMRP 2002.4.1(JANE) is a supposed nanotyrannus
|
|
|
Post by Allosaurus on Feb 14, 2014 21:34:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 14, 2014 21:38:04 GMT
It seems that Nanotyrannus likely was its own species.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 21:40:38 GMT
I really hope Nanotyrannus is an actual genus. I will look for more information and bring it to this thread if I find anything of sufficient relevance.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 14, 2014 23:20:00 GMT
I would like it to be its own genus too but I go with the accurate, both are very possible imo.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 23:21:13 GMT
Yes, it is called a plausible situation.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Jun 14, 2014 15:57:32 GMT
We have no clear evidence to suggest Nanotyrannus could be an actual genus, even more given the irrefutable fact that dinosaur specimens vary by a considerable amount, yet when in the same species, examples being the many Tyrannosaurus rex specimens that vary in morphology substantially.
|
|