Talk:Tyrannosaurus

Nanotyrannus valid again?
Nick Longrich has recently published a paper: https://osf.io/preprints/paleorxiv/nc6tk/?fbclid=IwAR2anhEa67Jo93tggq0bXzmY-E9n2c9cXQ0R11-o244kzcMaenaDlZ3_yrU detailing why Nanotyrannus may, in fact, be a separate genus from Tyrannosaurus after all, and how several specimens conventionally believed to be juvenile Tyrannosaurus are actually Nanotyrannus. Moreover, he points out that many of Nanotyrannus’s features are not similar to those of Tyrannosaurids at all, but group closer to more basal tyrannosaurs.

Does this mean Nanotyrannus is finally established as a separate genus, and ought to be referred to as such on Wikipedia? 135.135.227.26 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a paper, this is a preprint. Their conclusions have not received scientific scrutiny yet. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And when do you suppose that might happen? 135.135.227.26 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When/if a journal accepts it. Bear in mind a single paper is by no means an end to the ongoing debate, and it's unlikely to not be contested. Also, it's well-known that juveniles of derived taxa often have similarities with more basal relatives, not sure how this should be news. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly because I personally talked to Longrich about it, and mentioned several of the commonly-cited reasons why Nanotyrannus is considered invalid, and his reasoning for considering it a valid genus regardless seems solid to me. For example, the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs specimen is a subadult, but its arms are larger than those of adults. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a similar paper by Larson (2013), "The case for Nanotyrannus", but that apparently didn't change the consensus. So also in this case, we have to wait until we see some consensus in the scientific literature before moving it back to its own page. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The paper has now been published. We have to keep in mind that the consensus has never been based on good data. Nanotyrannus shares no autapomorphies with Tyrannosaurus so there is no strict proof the two are identical. But there is no cogent proof that they are not identical either, so most see it as more parsimonious to assume that there is only a single species. The text presently too much suggests that Nanotyrannus unproblematically fits the morphology expected for a juvenile in a tyrannosaurid growth series.--MWAK (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We also need to be aware that this is certainly not a settled argument and will continue for years to come. Representatives from the other camp have already criticized the paper, so we can be sure there will be published rebuttals. As usual, there will be no slam dunk case closed before more specimens are found and described. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since this source is a preprint and is not peer-reviewed, it does not actually meet the qualifications for use as a reliable or reputable source on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether editors here on Wikipedia believe Longrich & Saitta's conclusions are correct, and regardless of whether the scientific community eventually reaches a consensus that agrees with the conclusions of this preprint, those conclusions were not peer-reviewed by professional paleontologists previous to the publication of the preprint. This source should not be used in a Wikipedia entry, and if it is, the section discussing this preprint should address concerns with its reliability and cite public rebuttals from other scientists in the field to provide full context instead of presenting the preprint's conclusions as scientific fact. To quote the guidelines on use of preprints (here PREPRINTS ), "Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv, bioRxiv, or Zenodo are not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged..." Geckologist (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As you could see two comments above yours (also three sections below this one, and the main page itself), the paper is no longer in the preprint stage and has been published. No one is considering adding the prerprint as a source. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I had not seen that the source was updated, my apologies. The journal in which it was published is less than a year old and one of the authors is on the editorial board so I still have reservations about whether it meets standards, but at least it is published in a journal now. Geckologist (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

New Cladogram?
There is a new cladogram in the same study that described T. Mcraeensis. Should we use it in the article or should we take precautions due to it still being in press. IndoBoy Official (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way, we could get one more recent than 2013 as the current one. FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say that a better approach would be using multiple sources from the cladograms, as both the 2013 and 2024 ones are from papers with Currie as a coauthor, and those tend to find a topology not found by other workers (namely, non-Tyrannosaurid Alioramins, and Teratophoneins closer to Tyrannosaurins than Daspletosaurins; most other workers tend to find Alioramins, Teratophoneins and Daspletosaurins as successive outgroups within Tyrannosaurinae). Eriorguez (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024
The image titled "Holotype of Nanotyrannus lancensis, now interpreted as a juvenile Tyrannosaurus" is not of the holotype, but a cast of the holotype. The caption also implies that this specimen has been definitively interpreted as a juvenile despite ongoing debate. The debate is discussed in the main article text. I would suggest that the image caption be changed to "Cast of CMNH 7541, the holotype of Nanotyrannus lancensis, sometimes interpreted as a juvenile Tyrannosaurus." Geckologist (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

pre-print cite?
" In a subsequent paper awaiting publication, Paul maintained ... " ref 84 -- I thought the agreement above was not to use pre-prints? 2603:6080:21F0:6000:7DFA:6CB7:3E68:895D (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)