[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Chicago Tribune article about Jane the juvenile T. rex exhibit at the Burpee Museum



tholtz@geol.umd.edu writes:

I hope that National Geographic will print a retraction on its
fanciful
"packs of nanos" quotations in its May 2005 issue.  Some other people
should also be eating crow(osaur) with this announcement.

< To be fair, a number of paleontologists (including Phil Currie, Bob Bakker, and
Jorn Hurum) still regard Nanotyrannus as a valid
species distinct from Tyrannosaurus rex.>


Despite possible dissenting opinion (and the Burpee would have more to gain if its specimen did turn out to be a Nanotyrannus), the museum says it's a juvenile T. rex:
______
http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050628/NEWS0107/50627013/1004
Then, one day, Henderson received an unexpected visit from Dr. Greg Erickson, a paleobiologist from Florida State University. Erickson had discovered a way to count growth rings inside of dinosaur bones to tell how old they were when they died. Henderson supplied him with a piece of Jane?s shinbone and, within a few months, Erickson had determined that, at the time of death, Jane was 11 years old?and still growing.


In the end, all the evidence pointed to the same conclusion: Rather than being an adult Nanotyrannus, Jane is a juvenile T. rex. So what does this mean for Nanotyrannus?

?Nanotyrannus is no more, basically.? Says Henderson. ?When we first laid eyes on Jane, we thought for sure we had a Nanotyrannus. But a closer examination has changed our minds. That?s the way science works. You have to go with what the bones tell you. Jane told us she?s a young Tyrannosaurus rex. And that?s just fine with us.?
______


Mary