Re: di-NO!-tyrannus

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/1/03 7:47:53 PM EST, mightyodinn@yahoo.com writes:

<< ...it's widely considered a junior subjective synonym of _Tyrannosaurus_ 
(and
 _megagracilis_ a junior subjectice synonym of _rex_). IOW, the holotype of
 _Dinotyrannus megagracilis_ (=_Albertosaurus megagracilis_) is widely
 considered a subadult _T. rex_ >>

Now that people are once again beginning to suspect that Nanotyrannus 
lancensis is not a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex, who knows? Ralph Molnar's 
original 
notion, based on his doctoral dissertation work with Tyrannosaurus rex, was 
that 
the specimen was >not< a T. rex but might be an adult "Albertosaurus" 
lancensis. In the 1995 article, I put all three species (T. rex, N. lancensis, 
and A. 
megagracilis) in different genera (also Stygivenator molnari), since nobody 
had really shown what ontogeny is like in tyrannosaurids (Russell, 1970 dealt 
with it just a bit). Then along came Carr & Williamson, and the tyrannosaurs 
imploded.