"Before I go, please take this... it is worth a discovery." "Oh and also please tell Sue that I loved her..." *vanishes into wherever he's gonna be in*
@@spaghettiyeti7097 People who travelled across the western USA digging dinosaur fossils looking for cash (and sometimes glory). It has a very "dinos are worth MILLIONS!" tone.
@@IceSpoon That does make sense. But those ranchers are just doing what they can to keep their business and homes going. Besides, for two of the groups, the bones are found in their land, right? I thought the law states that the fossils belong to whoever owns the land they were found in
Yes. Maybe instead of making monster movies out of real dinosaurs, filmmakers can take these amazing stories of discovery, court battles and drama and make a movie that paleontologists and dinosaur lovers would deeply enjoy.
I'm referring to a good legal drama film that would tell the true stories of legal battles what these fossils had to go through and the people, paleontologists, lawyers, etc that were involved are good characters for such a true story film.
I believe it cost 14 million to get the fossils to where they are now, but I'll have a look. Great either way to see! Hopefully the Nanotyrannus debate can eventually be resolved.
@@HenrythePaleoGuy they mean that since the locality data wasn’t taken - its stratigraphic position, taphonomic data, description of host sediments, etc. - it will be less useful to science. It’s the stuff you mention in your video, basically. Thankfully Dr. Zanno has the site location. If Phipps didn’t collect that data I wouldn’t be surprised - time is money, and he gets his money by selling as many dinosaurs as he can. He doesn’t have the same reputational or professional pressure to get that data collected either. I appreciate that he wants to sell dinosaurs to museums first, but the fact that he auctioned it tells you a lot about where his ultimate priorities are, and it only incentivizes and legitimizes further private collection and sale, which only hurts those of us who study these animals.
@@heathenwizard There is a pressure to collect that data when selling to the fossil market. It increases the value of the fossil scientifically and commercially. I know that Dr. Zanno et. al. plans to at least publish or work on the taphonomy and stratigraphy first, so we’ll see how it all pans out then. Edit: I know locality data was taken to some degree, but I don’t know how much or what type of quality. I suspect more than they’ve been given credit for based on comments from Dr. Bakker and Pete Larson, but again, I don’t really know. I wish this information would have been more transparently shared a long time ago, but I’m sure money hungry tv programs like Discovery and multi-year legal battles make doing so rather difficult.
As for fossils excavated from private land I disagree with both the creator of this video and Thomas Carr. I skew center left in my politics, and certainly believe everything collected on public lands belongs to the public, and should end-up in an accredited institution. However, we live in a capitalist society that values property rights. As someone who dug in that area in the 1980's/1990's, the fact of property rights visa vie mineral rights was well understood, mostly because of petroleum exploitation. There also might be positive aspects of educated commercial prospectors searching private lands, as it might very well save fossils that would otherwise erode out and be destroyed. So my view is that people like Thomas Carr should get down off their high horse and begin working with and educating reputable commercial collectors. That way we can all win. Oh and there are some twists coming in the story of late Maastrichtian Tyrannosaurs of which I can say no more. So don't even ask.
@@macaarrooon that all animals hold grudge, normaly are only the smart animals, and dinosaurs have the inteligence close of a crocodile, that dont hold grudge.
Depends who you ask, I was told by a paleontologist that they are separate, he gave me some annecdotal evidence of seeing some private specimens that to him at least confirmed the difference
In reality, at this point with all the studies that paleontologists made in the previous years, and even a study from 1999, is dumb to think nanotyrannus is a valid genus, it was just a juvenile T. rex but it seems some people just want to believe what they want
Not just that, but a home in a museum and not in some private collector's home where no scientists, not to mention the general publix, will be able to see it.
it is but just like with the case of feathers on t rex thing some people just want every single detail to accept the change and until then they still do not change their opinion
I can only imagine in a parallel universe were dinosaurs didn’t went extinct and people there are just casually watching animal documentaries like it was nothing
Their extinction is what allowed mammals to radiate into different niches and for us to eventually exist. Otherwise the environmental pressures would select against our ancestors if they were still around
@@Ali-mj2gm If dinosaurs didn't went extinct in certain places such as South America or Australia, we would still evolve as contact between those two continents and the rest have been very little.
@@the90thhunter92 Dinosaurs didn't get extinct, birds are scientifically dinosaurs, and even if they weren't, dinosaurs evolved in the triassic period, when there was only one continent, so they had, right from the beginning, the opportunity to spread over all continents of today. And even if today's continents were altready split 230 million years ago and the non-avian dinosaurs wouldn't get extinct, I would doubt that dinosaurs would rest in South America and Australia for 65 million years so we could use the time to evolve seperately in Africa, sorry for being a smartass here 8)
@@Cypher77777 That is not the point, the point was that if Non-Avian dinosaurs survived in South America or Australia, we would still evolve as those continents had barely if any contact with the rest of the mainland. I know how birds are dinosaurs but that wasn't the point inherently made. The problem is, dinosaurs would do exactly that, rest in Australia or South America for 65 million years, there was zero contact between the two continents and the mainland up until the Plio-Holocene, unless landbridges magically pop up or dinosaurs somehow raft into Laurasian continents. We would still evolve as Old world mammals wouldn't even meet with dinosaurs in the first place.
What I find funny about the nano v Rex debate is that a lot of paleontologist forget that some modern species evolve to mimic others, my personal theory on that is that nano did exist, as a mimic of a baby trex, but I’ll let the actual scientists figure this out
I've live in Raleigh, and I've loved going to the NC museum of natural sciences since I was a kid. You can only imagine my excitement when I heard that this was coming.
Aside from things you know I disagree with, this is a fantastically well done and educational video Edge! Im a little curious about your criticisms of Phipps, though I appreciate the way you presented him here. Is there a reason to think he didn’t properly collect data from the site originally? I believe Larson and Bakker have both attested to the quality of Clayton and his team’s methods. I also think there are photogrammetic models of the site, but I’m not sure if those are of the jackets as they are now or as it was before the specimen blocks were excavated.
Anyone feel like starting a petition to put fossils in they're own category and to help get fossils into museums? I mean it's a bit of a stretch but fossils should be studied and available to everyone to marvel over
Well there are a lot of good points here. I can see the pros and cons. But for now I just wanna be happy that DD is finally gonna see the light of day after 65million years of darkness
Can you do an episode about why it is not ethical to study private fossils if the owner has made them fully available to be studied? It is not like museums have a history of getting things ethically...
It isn’t unethical but it presents a problem with how science works and especially paleontology. If another person is doing research, access to the fossils or identical casts is needed. This isn’t possible when it’s privately owned, because the buyers are almost always unnamed. Then there’s the problem with all the data collected during the dig, or with privately owned fossils the lack thereof. Also care for specimens, preparation and repairs done to the fossil aren’t traceable and there’s a great chance of it being a chimaera composed of multiple individuals.
Wow, thanks! You just gave me a much better understanding of the importance of a dig site. Way more data than I’d ever speculated and in the documentaries they rarely touches upon this field of work. Maybe you could make a video on this? I mean, to show that it’s not just fossilized bones that can tell us about dinosaurs: “Bones vs Stones”. Regardless, I hope to learn what ‘Paleolithic magnetic data’!
If I found a dino on my land, I would want money for it, sure. But I wouldn't sell it to just anyone- it would be a museum. And I would have other compensation, too- like free lifetime admittance, behind the scenes stuff, and maybe time alone to talk to the dino.
@@EDGEscience I would obviously prefer that they end up in a museum. I am only saying that the fossils do have a substantial monetary value, as well as a substantial research value. They are as valuable as human historical artifacts, or works of art. I just thought it was flawed to say that that paleontologists don’t see them as having substantial monetary value. They will purchase them when the institutions they work for have the resources to do so. My point is that the monetary value of an object is what one is willing to pay for it. When an institution purchases a fossil they justify giving that monetary value to a fossil.
The only problem with banning sales of fossils is these dinosaurs would have never been found and may have just eroded away being lost forever. The real problem is viewing using private fossils as unethical
I'm from Long Island and now live in NC. Apparently me and this fossil can't keep apart. :-D I'm going to have to plan a trip to the museum in the future to see this in person.
Statistically most skeletons sold actually go to museums or go to a private collector that then donates it to the museum. In full reality the collection of fossils by companies while morally dubious, might be making things better by getting fossils in a safe place where they might eventually be studied rather than stay in the ground and destroyed by nature.
From my understanding nanotyrannus is it’s own thing, from what I’m aware of, nanotyrannus had more teeth and held its head in at more slanted or downward pointing angle, and isn’t there someway they can tell the age of the animal, weren’t compys thought to baby dinosaurs once
Honestly, the U.S. should have more respect for the fossils like Mongolia so we don’t have more amazing finds like the dueling dinos or lose another specimen like Stan. It sucks that individuals have to jump through multiple legal hoops just to examine an important fossil.
Yes, because Mongolia is a shining example of how fossils can be protected... They have some of the worst fossil poaching in the world (which is not the same as legal amateur collecting). Numerous potentially significant finds are destroyed because of this. I really like Edge’s videos, but I’ll continue to be critical of their tone and approach to this issue simply because my views differ (as do numerous academics).
@@Dynotop1a. Yes, Mongolia has a horrible time at protecting their fossils, however I meant more of the U.S. having at least something so fossils such as Montana’s Dueling Dinosaurs have at least some way for scientists to at least analyze and research the fossil that doesn’t involves years of legal battles.
@@brece5452 China has or used to have a death penalty for smuggling fossils. But even that didn't stop people. Although, I'm not sure if anyone actually had their head lobbed off for smuggling a Keichosaurus or oviraptorid egg.
Why not just CT-scan the duelling dinosaurs when they have skin impressions. Last time when someone tried preparing a dinosaur with skin impression just destroyed it - see that Carnotaurus.
@@hudsondavis4330 I think it makes sense for it not to be valid since the medium sized carnivore niche in the hell creek formation was already filled by Dakotaraptor
@@lukeskywalkerjediknight2.013 should be studied by a paleontologist that has extensive knowledge on derived tyrannosaurs, not someone who has a pro or anti-Nanotyrannus bias just so happens that most tyrannosaur experts agree on it more than likely being a juvenile
@@enderman_666 Bias? You have no idea the bias Nanotyrannus deniers has towards Alioramus, here are the things Brusatte et al 2009 used to separate Alio from Tarbosaurus juveniles: Endocast, higher tooth count, nasal bumps, jugal horn, and other traits on the skull, for example, to separate it from Tarbosaurus. And Carr was a co-author on the paper. And Carr and Brusatte are pro juvenile rex. And those T.rex “experts” hasn’t seen the actual juvenile rexes. And Carr based his T.rex ontogeny on those of Gorgosaurus, and not closer relatives like Tarbosaurus. There is a specimen of a Nanotyrannus nicknamed “Zuri” which is larger than Jane and Petey. It was found with Haversian. Now what is Haversian remodeling?: Haversian remodeling does signify that the individual is either close to maturity, or is mature and even old. Nanotyrannus’ first maxillary teeth are incisoform like Gorgosaurs, T.rexes doesn’t have it. Tyrannosaurus rex’s first dentary tooth is incisoform, including Baby Bob’s. Nano doesn’t have this. Nano has a pneumatic foramen in the quadratojugal, as well as Daspletosaurus horneri. Again Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex doesn’t have this (both young and old). Right now we have three actual juvenile rexes which looks nothing like Nanotyrannus. Cassi’s isolated dentary: 11 dentary teeth. (Smallest rex, unless you count Chomper but he is so fragmentary so it could be a rex or a nano) Baby Bob: 12 or 13 dentary teeth, age 4 (could be 5). BHI-6439: 13 dentary teeth, dentary row is the same as Jane. And the arms on juveniles is not larger than adults: LACM 23845 has a few finger bones and the ulna, and is small. Tinker/Rocky has a right humerus, and a left incomplete humerus. And is small. The most complete juvenile/subadult arm is UCRC-PV1, and is small. And all of the juvenile rex specimens I have listed, have similar tooth morphology as adults just smaller.(Serrations are going around the tip, and is the classic oval shape.) Nano teeth is laterally compressed teeth with pointed tip. If nano is a juvenile rex, then alioramus is a juvenile Tarbosaurus. They can’t accept one being valid, and be bias towards the other being invalid. Could they be the same species? Maybe, as Phil Currie said, it could be Tyrannosaurus lancensis. And why is it ok for Alioramus and Tarbosaurus to coexist, but nano and rex can’t? And I did read the growth histology paper, and Carr’s ontogeny sequence. And Carr is scared of losing this debate, as well as others. Holtz is trying to deny that UCRC-PV1 is a T.rex when it has been published by Horner and Sereno because it can disprove his idea that juveniles had large arms because they didn’t have the bone crushing bite as adults. And Carr has actually seen BHI-6439 one time, and later a guy asked what his opinion on the specimen was. He claims that he hasn’t seen it… And you have to remember, we didn’t know what juvenile rexes looked like when Carr published his paper back in 1999. So just because he is an “expert” doesn’t mean that he is always right, his minions agrees with everything he says. And you can’t disagree with him because he will block you (me and a few others has been blocked by Carr for stating our opinion.) So is Nanotyrannus a different genus? Maybe. Phil Currie doesn’t believe that Nanotyrannus is a valid genus, but a species of Tyrannosaurus rex, Aka Tyrannosaurus lancensis. So what is it? Tyrannosaurus lancensis, or Nanotyrannus lancensis?
Absolutely amazing news! Whilst this is purely speculative if Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus turn out to be the same animal we as scientists should not rule out the possibility of a second species of Tyrannosaur living along side Tyrannosaurus that would be quite unscientific of course we cannot prove that another Tyrannosaur did exist without A time travel and B finding a specimen of one and that's of course if one even existed.
@@miguelpedraentomology6080 I never said it wasn't I was simply saying that we can still not 100% rule out the possibility that another Tyrannosaur did live along side Tyrannosaurus and perhaps we just haven't found it yet. Also whilst I believe nanotyrannus probably is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus it has never actually been proven to be a juvenile Tyrannosaurus something the dueling dinosaurs specimen featured in this video may finally conclude.
If anything, Nanotyrannus ending up as a juvenile Tyrannosaurus should prove the opposite - that there were no tyrannosaurid mesopredators coexisting with the rex. Think about it, juvenile and adolescent T. rex would've filled those niches all too well. Closest thing we get is perhaps Dakotaraptor.
Fossils definitely belong in their own catagory! Even if they're purely one mineral, their worth in academia is existent regardless of their mineral make-up. Even rare minerals are more common than many of these fossils. You just can't put a price tag on that.
Don’t put a price tag on fossils then there won’t be many fossils showing up. It’s long and grueling work to excavate, transport and prep them. Nobody will waste time doing that for free much less take a loss on the fuel, equipment and resources required
@@joshuabrown2923 there's literally groups of unpaid enthusiasts helping excavate fossils already. They don't even get to keep anything! They're just enthusiasts helping the experts.
It’s more about the ethics of the trade; finding and selling fossils isn’t necessarily wrong, however a lot of specimens end up in private hands where they can never be studied by ethical means, merely hoarded as status pieces. The wish isn’t necessarily for the fossil to have never been found, but for laws to be formed in favor of science, so that we can at least get fossils to labs and museums before they’re sold to whoever can shell out the most money. It’s unfortunate, because a museum purchasing a fossil would benefit not just the scientists involved but the seller/founder of the fossil if done correctly!
as much as people want to beleive that nanotyrannus is real, you have to understand that every specimen of tyrannosaurus is different and not an exact clone of one another, so some might have more teeth, others have less or different molds of face, we see this with adult tyrannosaurs, and if nannotyrannus was real which is up for debate then why are we not finding more numbers of them? and where are the baby tyrannosaurs?? or the baby nano?
@@lukeskywalkerjediknight2.013 hmmm prob cuz they are the same animal, genetic variation happens to different indeviduals some may have more teeth or some may have more pronounced eyebrows, big example of this is pachyrhinosaurus. ik they are not related but there are huge differences between specimens. same can be said for tyrannosaurus.
@@paleo1825 But wouldn’t it be wierd for juveniles (Baby Bob and the Kansas specimen) to have robust teeth like adults? And then change to thin and then back to robust?
A paper about the Kansas specimen: A NEW JUVENILE TYRANNOSAURUS REX FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION OF EASTERN MONTANA PROVIDES INSIGHTS INTO CRANIAL AND DENTAL ONTOGENY BURNHAM, David A., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States of America; ATKINS- WELTMAN, Kyle L., Lawrence, KS, United States of America; JEVNIKAR, Evan M., Biodiversity Institute, Lawrence, KS, United States of America While Tyrannosaurus rex is perhaps the icon of large, non-avian theropods, very little is known about their early life history. Those few specimens that are known suggest that the morphology, and thus ecological niche, of T. rex changed quite dramatically with age. Here, we report on a new specimen of a young individual of T. rex collected in Garfield County, Montana.The new T. rex now residesin the collectionsat the University of Kansas as KUVP 156375. The cranial material comprises both maxillae with much of the dentition intact, a partial premaxilla,jugal,postorbital,vomer,and an ectopterygoid. Postcranial el ements include a cervical and a dorsal vertebra,ribs, chevrons,metatarsals I, IV, and V, two complete pedal phalanges and the distal condyle of a third, pedal I ungula, and tips of two other unguals. Skeletal measurements and surface bone texture indicate KUVP 156375 is a juvenile and it is nearly the same size as another juvenile tyrannosaur, BMRP 2002.4.1. A striking feature of the new specimen is the maxilla which only contains 12 alveoli. This count is congruent with known adult Tyrannosaurus rex, such as FMNH PR 2081, but contrasts the higher tooth count of 15-16 maxillary teeth described in BMRP 2002.4.1. Moreover, the first maxillary tooth of KUVP 156375 is morphologically distinct from that of BMRP 2002.4.1. To better visualize the tooth morphology of these juvenile T. rex, measurements and denticle densities were plotted using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) statistical software. Preliminary results demonstrate teeth of young T. rex plot outside of the adult morphology but share minute details such as denticle shape. We suggest this pattern is due to their smaller size and during ontogeny expect they would become stouter and larger while the denticle density decreases.
This is why the only sane solution is to treat any major fossil find as a national treasure, protected by the government, and not a commodity to be bought and sold.
I was afraid we'd never see the day
Now the world can see this fossil.
Hey! It’s the RickRaptor! Love your channel :)
"T rex was absolutely 100% a scavenger.."
Oh hey rick, I was hoping you would review dinosaur revolution one day
Instantly thought of your video when this popped up in my subscriptions
We lost Stan, but he gave us the Dueling Dinosaurs
A soul for a soul
"Before I go, please take this... it is worth a discovery."
"Oh and also please tell Sue that I loved her..."
*vanishes into wherever he's gonna be in*
One sacrifice for twos rise... but was the value lost worth it?
@@alexandracorrea803 We shall see.
Wait, where's Stan?
The irony of this happening right after Dino Hunters.
Yep this is certainly a middle finger to that show XD
@@Trike71171 what was bas about that show? Just interested
@@spaghettiyeti7097 People who travelled across the western USA digging dinosaur fossils looking for cash (and sometimes glory). It has a very "dinos are worth MILLIONS!" tone.
@@IceSpoon ah I understand
@@IceSpoon That does make sense. But those ranchers are just doing what they can to keep their business and homes going. Besides, for two of the groups, the bones are found in their land, right? I thought the law states that the fossils belong to whoever owns the land they were found in
This story of the dueling dinosaurs and the drama is so good it would make a good film.
Much like Sue
Yes. Maybe instead of making monster movies out of real dinosaurs, filmmakers can take these amazing stories of discovery, court battles and drama and make a movie that paleontologists and dinosaur lovers would deeply enjoy.
Seriously, I could see a sort of morbid comedy made of this
I'm referring to a good legal drama film that would tell the true stories of legal battles what these fossils had to go through and the people, paleontologists, lawyers, etc that were involved are good characters for such a true story film.
Easily one of the best news to come out of 2020
Nah. The Tail is still 2020's highlight. You can't beat The Tail.
Ya it really has been one of those years hasn’t it
@@IceSpoon
I said one of the best 😉
Give me Anything beside f..... Polificwits!
I believe it cost 14 million to get the fossils to where they are now, but I'll have a look. Great either way to see! Hopefully the Nanotyrannus debate can eventually be resolved.
Can you explain more?
@@HenrythePaleoGuy they mean that since the locality data wasn’t taken - its stratigraphic position, taphonomic data, description of host sediments, etc. - it will be less useful to science. It’s the stuff you mention in your video, basically. Thankfully Dr. Zanno has the site location.
If Phipps didn’t collect that data I wouldn’t be surprised - time is money, and he gets his money by selling as many dinosaurs as he can. He doesn’t have the same reputational or professional pressure to get that data collected either. I appreciate that he wants to sell dinosaurs to museums first, but the fact that he auctioned it tells you a lot about where his ultimate priorities are, and it only incentivizes and legitimizes further private collection and sale, which only hurts those of us who study these animals.
@@heathenwizard
There is a pressure to collect that data when selling to the fossil market.
It increases the value of the fossil scientifically and commercially.
I know that Dr. Zanno et. al. plans to at least publish or work on the taphonomy and stratigraphy first, so we’ll see how it all pans out then.
Edit: I know locality data was taken to some degree, but I don’t know how much or what type of quality.
I suspect more than they’ve been given credit for based on comments from Dr. Bakker and Pete Larson, but again, I don’t really know.
I wish this information would have been more transparently shared a long time ago, but I’m sure money hungry tv programs like Discovery and multi-year legal battles make doing so rather difficult.
As for fossils excavated from private land I disagree with both the creator of this video and Thomas Carr. I skew center left in my politics, and certainly believe everything collected on public lands belongs to the public, and should end-up in an accredited institution. However, we live in a capitalist society that values property rights. As someone who dug in that area in the 1980's/1990's, the fact of property rights visa vie mineral rights was well understood, mostly because of petroleum exploitation. There also might be positive aspects of educated commercial prospectors searching private lands, as it might very well save fossils that would otherwise erode out and be destroyed. So my view is that people like Thomas Carr should get down off their high horse and begin working with and educating reputable commercial collectors. That way we can all win.
Oh and there are some twists coming in the story of late Maastrichtian Tyrannosaurs of which I can say no more. So don't even ask.
When science "trades" Stan for the DD: A soul for a soul
A sad but true analogy...
@@nachotrystan apt words comrade, apt words indeed...
More a soul for two soul
but what was the cost?
Technically we won out though bc we got 2
Finally!
Now let’s wait for the results that this amazing specimen has to offer
Idk who holds a grudge longer, humans or the two dinosaurs.
no.... just a myth
humans is the one who holds most grudge
@@miguelpedraentomology6080 what is a myth
@@macaarrooon that all animals hold grudge, normaly are only the smart animals, and dinosaurs have the inteligence close of a crocodile, that dont hold grudge.
@@miguelpedraentomology6080 ok, but you clearly didn't get the joke
I literally just finished a news video about this. And now this pops up. Such a coincidence.
This is exactly the synopsis i was hoping to find to understand the story this far on the Dueling Dinosaurs, great work. Thanks!
I see the title of the video: -Wait, so Nannotyrannus is still a thing?
Depends who you ask, I was told by a paleontologist that they are separate, he gave me some annecdotal evidence of seeing some private specimens that to him at least confirmed the difference
In reality, at this point with all the studies that paleontologists made in the previous years, and even a study from 1999, is dumb to think nanotyrannus is a valid genus, it was just a juvenile T. rex but it seems some people just want to believe what they want
@@Fede_99 Nanotyrannus being a juvenile Rex would make sense if it weren’t for other actual juvenile rexes.
Finally, they found a home!
Not just that, but a home in a museum and not in some private collector's home where no scientists, not to mention the general publix, will be able to see it.
I’m so glad that these amazing fossils finally have a place!
Just not at the right home…..
I live about 10 minutes from that museum. Hell I’ve volunteered here multiple times. I’m so happy about this
I remember ranting about this with my mom on a long car ride home about how it’s been kept from the scientific community... I’m honestly happy now.
Glad we can finally see and study this fossil of Triceratops vs. a Juvenile T. rex
Nanotyrannus? Isn’t that just a juvenile T. rex?
it is but just like with the case of feathers on t rex thing some people just want every single detail to accept the change and until then they still do not change their opinion
nope
Maybe maybe not. This specimen might answer that
If it is a valid genus, it should be like the only albertosaurine-mimic in the ecosystem.
yes , just a jvenile tyranosaurus
I can only imagine in a parallel universe were dinosaurs didn’t went extinct and people there are just casually watching animal documentaries like it was nothing
Just that if dinsaurs didn't went extinct, we wouldn't ever exist
Their extinction is what allowed mammals to radiate into different niches and for us to eventually exist. Otherwise the environmental pressures would select against our ancestors if they were still around
@@Ali-mj2gm If dinosaurs didn't went extinct in certain places such as South America or Australia, we would still evolve as contact between those two continents and the rest have been very little.
@@the90thhunter92 Dinosaurs didn't get extinct, birds are scientifically dinosaurs, and even if they weren't, dinosaurs evolved in the triassic period, when there was only one continent, so they had, right from the beginning, the opportunity to spread over all continents of today. And even if today's continents were altready split 230 million years ago and the non-avian dinosaurs wouldn't get extinct, I would doubt that dinosaurs would rest in South America and Australia for 65 million years so we could use the time to evolve seperately in Africa, sorry for being a smartass here 8)
@@Cypher77777 That is not the point, the point was that if Non-Avian dinosaurs survived in South America or Australia, we would still evolve as those continents had barely if any contact with the rest of the mainland. I know how birds are dinosaurs but that wasn't the point inherently made.
The problem is, dinosaurs would do exactly that, rest in Australia or South America for 65 million years, there was zero contact between the two continents and the mainland up until the Plio-Holocene, unless landbridges magically pop up or dinosaurs somehow raft into Laurasian continents. We would still evolve as Old world mammals wouldn't even meet with dinosaurs in the first place.
What I find funny about the nano v Rex debate is that a lot of paleontologist forget that some modern species evolve to mimic others, my personal theory on that is that nano did exist, as a mimic of a baby trex, but I’ll let the actual scientists figure this out
I really hope Stan will get a proper home like this time capsule!
yeah, Like that's ever gonna happen.......
Probably shoved in some rich dude’s garage.
Probably in some rich guys attic or basement
@@AquaticFlapper125 it's going to a museum in Dubai.
I’ve been waiting for you to make a video on this topic and I’m, honestly super happy it’s finally out.
1:32 *eventually t rex stopped thinking*
@King_CRIMSON Jr. Oh hello there Diavolo's stand King Crimson
I've live in Raleigh, and I've loved going to the NC museum of natural sciences since I was a kid. You can only imagine my excitement when I heard that this was coming.
As a private collector of fossils, YOU DO NOT BUY A COMPLETE SCIENTIFICALLY IMPORTANT SKELETON OF ANY ANIMAL!!!!
Aside from things you know I disagree with, this is a fantastically well done and educational video Edge!
Im a little curious about your criticisms of Phipps, though I appreciate the way you presented him here. Is there a reason to think he didn’t properly collect data from the site originally? I believe Larson and Bakker have both attested to the quality of Clayton and his team’s methods.
I also think there are photogrammetic models of the site, but I’m not sure if those are of the jackets as they are now or as it was before the specimen blocks were excavated.
1:40 *Leonardo DiCaprio pointing to TV
lol
Who would have thought such a epic duel Would become of millions of year old dueling dinosaurs it's kind of poetic isn't it?
Omg.... This is coming to my state! It's *amazing*. Guess I'm going to have to go see it when it comes here.
Absolutely beautiful news! Maybe after a few months the paleontologists would be able to reclaim the sold Tyrannosaurus Skeleton Stan?
I hope so. That would be great for all of us.
ye but I doubt it
I wish
No way paleontologists would want to pay 30 million dollars to get Stan back.
@@muhammadrifqi7308 *Ooof!*
Fundraiser maybe
Anyone feel like starting a petition to put fossils in they're own category and to help get fossils into museums? I mean it's a bit of a stretch but fossils should be studied and available to everyone to marvel over
There's no such thing as Nanotyrannus! It's a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex.
Well there are a lot of good points here. I can see the pros and cons. But for now I just wanna be happy that DD is finally gonna see the light of day after 65million years of darkness
Can you do an episode about why it is not ethical to study private fossils if the owner has made them fully available to be studied? It is not like museums have a history of getting things ethically...
It isn’t unethical but it presents a problem with how science works and especially paleontology. If another person is doing research, access to the fossils or identical casts is needed. This isn’t possible when it’s privately owned, because the buyers are almost always unnamed. Then there’s the problem with all the data collected during the dig, or with privately owned fossils the lack thereof. Also care for specimens, preparation and repairs done to the fossil aren’t traceable and there’s a great chance of it being a chimaera composed of multiple individuals.
Wow, thanks! You just gave me a much better understanding of the importance of a dig site. Way more data than I’d ever speculated and in the documentaries they rarely touches upon this field of work.
Maybe you could make a video on this? I mean, to show that it’s not just fossilized bones that can tell us about dinosaurs: “Bones vs Stones”. Regardless, I hope to learn what ‘Paleolithic magnetic data’!
If I found a dino on my land, I would want money for it, sure. But I wouldn't sell it to just anyone- it would be a museum. And I would have other compensation, too- like free lifetime admittance, behind the scenes stuff, and maybe time alone to talk to the dino.
I got to meet them parts of them a few weeks ago, I've never been more proud of my state
If there is a demand, there is a price. Digs cost money, a lot of people want fossils.
Your point? You’re just pointing out reality. My point is that THAT is unethical.
@@EDGEscience I would obviously prefer that they end up in a museum. I am only saying that the fossils do have a substantial monetary value, as well as a substantial research value. They are as valuable as human historical artifacts, or works of art. I just thought it was flawed to say that that paleontologists don’t see them as having substantial monetary value. They will purchase them when the institutions they work for have the resources to do so. My point is that the monetary value of an object is what one is willing to pay for it. When an institution purchases a fossil they justify giving that monetary value to a fossil.
@@EDGEscience would not be as much of an issue if museums weren’t so chronically underfunded in a lot of instances.
I live 10 minutes from the museum. This is going to be awesome following in person
That's so crazy. I visited that museum last year. This is so exciting!!
Awesome! The battling dinosaurs can finally get their peace in their new home!
Stan is forever gone and lost to greed but he gaveway to the Montana dueling dinosaurs to finally be seen in public eye
Stan is going to a Museum in Dubai actually.
As a North Carolinian, I must say-
YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS
I'm a law student that loves dinosaurs so the "boring law and order stuff" was actually pretty cool to me haha
The only problem with banning sales of fossils is these dinosaurs would have never been found and may have just eroded away being lost forever.
The real problem is viewing using private fossils as unethical
R.I.P. Stan the Tyrannosaur Specimen.
This looks really impressive between the Triceratops and Nanotyrannus in Hell Creek in the Late Cretaceous.
Finally! It’s time for these bois to shine in the spotlight
We brought them, home boys...
importance of recording site details cannot be OVERSTATED.
I'm from Long Island and now live in NC. Apparently me and this fossil can't keep apart. :-D I'm going to have to plan a trip to the museum in the future to see this in person.
I don't think a nanotyrannus (or juvi rex) can take down a fuckin triceratops, but the battle was interrupted by something that we will never know
5:08 My goodness, I never thought about any of that.
Long awaited win for science.
Really good to see this. Will be interesting to see the papers as they start coming out
I guess I'm torn here. I want people to dig and send them to museums but there's greed in sending them to private collectors.
Statistically most skeletons sold actually go to museums or go to a private collector that then donates it to the museum.
In full reality the collection of fossils by companies while morally dubious, might be making things better by getting fossils in a safe place where they might eventually be studied rather than stay in the ground and destroyed by nature.
From my understanding nanotyrannus is it’s own thing, from what I’m aware of, nanotyrannus had more teeth and held its head in at more slanted or downward pointing angle, and isn’t there someway they can tell the age of the animal, weren’t compys thought to baby dinosaurs once
I literally squealed when I saw the title of this vid
Best news to happen in a LONG time
We lost Stan but gained a Triceratops and a loli T. rex
A Nanotyrannus and an unknown ceratopsid....
Luke Skywalker Jedi Knight 0.2 Right “Nanotyrannus” 😉
@@dinkleberg684 Something wrong about it?
Well, the good news is Stan is in Abu Dhabi at their new Museum of Natural History, so not all hope is lost ?
Capitalist greed? Calm down with the dog whistles
Considering them minerals was stupid, they should be considered historical artifacts, same as human remains, pottery, tools, ruins, etc.
I’m glad that we can finally instead what’s going on in this fossil.
When you wanna eat your last meal but the fucking world says die:
Honestly, the U.S. should have more respect for the fossils like Mongolia so we don’t have more amazing finds like the dueling dinos or lose another specimen like Stan. It sucks that individuals have to jump through multiple legal hoops just to examine an important fossil.
Yes, because Mongolia is a shining example of how fossils can be protected...
They have some of the worst fossil poaching in the world (which is not the same as legal amateur collecting). Numerous potentially significant finds are destroyed because of this.
I really like Edge’s videos, but I’ll continue to be critical of their tone and approach to this issue simply because my views differ (as do numerous academics).
@@Dynotop1a. Yes, Mongolia has a horrible time at protecting their fossils, however I meant more of the U.S. having at least something so fossils such as Montana’s Dueling Dinosaurs have at least some way for scientists to at least analyze and research the fossil that doesn’t involves years of legal battles.
@@brece5452 China has or used to have a death penalty for smuggling fossils. But even that didn't stop people. Although, I'm not sure if anyone actually had their head lobbed off for smuggling a Keichosaurus or oviraptorid egg.
Why not just CT-scan the duelling dinosaurs when they have skin impressions. Last time when someone tried preparing a dinosaur with skin impression just destroyed it - see that Carnotaurus.
Wow I just saw this story recommended for me on Google search
This is a great day for palaeontology
Not to be rude but Clayton fibs looks like a Pixar villan
Yes
Isn’t Nanotyrannus an invalid genus?
Not anymore.
yes
it is an invalid genus
It’s still an argument, but I’m hoping further study on the dueling dinos will put the matter to bed
Still Heavily debated
@@hudsondavis4330 I think it makes sense for it not to be valid since the medium sized carnivore niche in the hell creek formation was already filled by Dakotaraptor
Wait I thought it was juvenile Rex ? So I'm confused were juvi rexs mistaken for Nanotyrannus or what ?
Finally, some good news for 2020
If you visit Raleigh’s new exhibit than you should come some time in September for the reveal
Yay! No more Nanotyrannus!
I'm with Robert Bakker on this. And that's coming from someone who use to be pretty anti Nanotyrannus.
Some of the evidence is pretty convincing
@@spaghettiyeti7097 I'm glad I ran into some who can respect my view of it!
@@The_PokeSaurus 👍🏻
I never thought I'd live to see the day..
why were grimlock and slag fighting in the 1st. place??! 😁
on a serious note, excellent find. 🤙🏾
So we can finally solve the mystery of Nanotyrannus?!?!😃😁
Hopefully, but it has to be studied by paleontologists who isn’t convinced that Nano is a juvi Rex.
@@lukeskywalkerjediknight2.013 should be studied by a paleontologist that has extensive knowledge on derived tyrannosaurs, not someone who has a pro or anti-Nanotyrannus bias
just so happens that most tyrannosaur experts agree on it more than likely being a juvenile
@@enderman_666 Bias? You have no idea the bias Nanotyrannus deniers has towards Alioramus, here are the things Brusatte et al 2009 used to separate Alio from Tarbosaurus juveniles: Endocast, higher tooth count, nasal bumps, jugal horn, and other traits on the skull, for example, to separate it from Tarbosaurus. And Carr was a co-author on the paper. And Carr and Brusatte are pro juvenile rex. And those T.rex “experts” hasn’t seen the actual juvenile rexes. And Carr based his T.rex ontogeny on those of Gorgosaurus, and not closer relatives like Tarbosaurus.
There is a specimen of a Nanotyrannus nicknamed “Zuri” which is larger than Jane and Petey.
It was found with Haversian. Now what is Haversian remodeling?: Haversian remodeling does signify that the individual is either close to maturity, or is mature and even old. Nanotyrannus’ first maxillary teeth are incisoform like Gorgosaurs, T.rexes doesn’t have it.
Tyrannosaurus rex’s first dentary tooth is incisoform, including Baby Bob’s. Nano doesn’t have this. Nano has a pneumatic foramen in the quadratojugal, as well as Daspletosaurus horneri. Again Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex doesn’t have this (both young and old).
Right now we have three actual juvenile rexes which looks nothing like Nanotyrannus.
Cassi’s isolated dentary: 11 dentary teeth. (Smallest rex, unless you count Chomper but he is so fragmentary so it could be a rex or a nano)
Baby Bob: 12 or 13 dentary teeth, age 4 (could be 5).
BHI-6439: 13 dentary teeth, dentary row is the same as Jane.
And the arms on juveniles is not larger than adults:
LACM 23845 has a few finger bones and the ulna, and is small.
Tinker/Rocky has a right humerus, and a left incomplete humerus. And is small.
The most complete juvenile/subadult arm is UCRC-PV1, and is small.
And all of the juvenile rex specimens I have listed, have similar tooth morphology as adults just smaller.(Serrations are going around the tip, and is the classic oval shape.) Nano teeth is laterally compressed teeth with pointed tip.
If nano is a juvenile rex, then alioramus is a juvenile Tarbosaurus. They can’t accept one being valid, and be bias towards the other being invalid.
Could they be the same species? Maybe, as Phil Currie said, it could be Tyrannosaurus lancensis.
And why is it ok for Alioramus and Tarbosaurus to coexist, but nano and rex can’t? And I did read the growth histology paper, and Carr’s ontogeny sequence. And Carr is scared of losing this debate, as well as others. Holtz is trying to deny that UCRC-PV1 is a T.rex when it has been published by Horner and Sereno because it can disprove his idea that juveniles had large arms because they didn’t have the bone crushing bite as adults.
And Carr has actually seen BHI-6439 one time, and later a guy asked what his opinion on the specimen was. He claims that he hasn’t seen it…
And you have to remember, we didn’t know what juvenile rexes looked like when Carr published his paper back in 1999.
So just because he is an “expert” doesn’t mean that he is always right, his minions agrees with everything he says.
And you can’t disagree with him because he will block you (me and a few others has been blocked by Carr for stating our opinion.)
So is Nanotyrannus a different genus? Maybe. Phil Currie doesn’t believe that Nanotyrannus is a valid genus, but a species of Tyrannosaurus rex,
Aka Tyrannosaurus lancensis. So what is it? Tyrannosaurus lancensis, or Nanotyrannus lancensis?
Has there been any news on this since this video was released?
Absolutely amazing news! Whilst this is purely speculative if Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus turn out to be the same animal we as scientists should not rule out the possibility of a second species of Tyrannosaur living along side Tyrannosaurus that would be quite unscientific of course we cannot prove that another Tyrannosaur did exist without A time travel and B finding a specimen of one and that's of course if one even existed.
no, "nanotyrannus" is literaly an juvenile trex in every way, literaly th last part of tyrannosaurus growth , baby to adolescent
@@miguelpedraentomology6080 I never said it wasn't I was simply saying that we can still not 100% rule out the possibility that another Tyrannosaur did live along side Tyrannosaurus and perhaps we just haven't found it yet. Also whilst I believe nanotyrannus probably is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus it has never actually been proven to be a juvenile Tyrannosaurus something the dueling dinosaurs specimen featured in this video may finally conclude.
yeah, i missunderstood, sorry
@@miguelpedraentomology6080 That's fine don't worry about it.
If anything, Nanotyrannus ending up as a juvenile Tyrannosaurus should prove the opposite - that there were no tyrannosaurid mesopredators coexisting with the rex. Think about it, juvenile and adolescent T. rex would've filled those niches all too well. Closest thing we get is perhaps Dakotaraptor.
you didn't put links in
Fossils definitely belong in their own catagory! Even if they're purely one mineral, their worth in academia is existent regardless of their mineral make-up. Even rare minerals are more common than many of these fossils. You just can't put a price tag on that.
Don’t put a price tag on fossils then there won’t be many fossils showing up. It’s long and grueling work to excavate, transport and prep them. Nobody will waste time doing that for free much less take a loss on the fuel, equipment and resources required
@@joshuabrown2923 there's literally groups of unpaid enthusiasts helping excavate fossils already. They don't even get to keep anything! They're just enthusiasts helping the experts.
Can’t you tell what the fossil layer a fossil is by the rock around the fossils themselves?
whats wrong with people finding and selling fossils? would you rather never have found the fossil at all?
It’s more about the ethics of the trade; finding and selling fossils isn’t necessarily wrong, however a lot of specimens end up in private hands where they can never be studied by ethical means, merely hoarded as status pieces. The wish isn’t necessarily for the fossil to have never been found, but for laws to be formed in favor of science, so that we can at least get fossils to labs and museums before they’re sold to whoever can shell out the most money. It’s unfortunate, because a museum purchasing a fossil would benefit not just the scientists involved but the seller/founder of the fossil if done correctly!
They’re the big brothers of the raptor and proto!
Nano is not a raptor its a type of tyranosaur
@@chadgorosaurus4898 I know that it’s not supposed to be accurate I just thought that the fossils were similar and that’s cool
@@GooberThe4th ik
@@chadgorosaurus4898 eh, if it's a thing to begin with, it's at least a tyrannoraptoran
I get it. Good one.
wtf are you gonna do with a complete Trex skeleton anyway??
Ride it.
@@misatokitty76 haha!
I honestly hope nanotyrannus is a valid species, it'd be so awesome if it was true that hell creek had 2 tyrants one small one giant
I am excited
6:08 Just don't dig in Area 51 for Aliens👽:D
Nanotyrannus is a baby trex
It was a mistake to put it there.
wait isn't nano like not valid anymore?
it's still valid
@@lukeskywalkerjediknight2125 no
yes , its invalid
I thought nanotyrannus was disproven as a real dinosaur
By that awful paper?
Nanotyrannus isn't a real thing, guys
It is
So is nanotyrannus a real specie or is it just a young trex?
It’s a real species
as much as people want to beleive that nanotyrannus is real, you have to understand that every specimen of tyrannosaurus is different and not an exact clone of one another, so some might have more teeth, others have less or different molds of face, we see this with adult tyrannosaurs, and if nannotyrannus was real which is up for debate then why are we not finding more numbers of them? and where are the baby tyrannosaurs?? or the baby nano?
Yes but the problem about Nano and Rex specimens is that true juvi rexes have many similarities
@@lukeskywalkerjediknight2.013 hmmm prob cuz they are the same animal, genetic variation happens to different indeviduals some may have more teeth or some may have more pronounced eyebrows, big example of this is pachyrhinosaurus. ik they are not related but there are huge differences between specimens. same can be said for tyrannosaurus.
@@paleo1825 But wouldn’t it be wierd for juveniles (Baby Bob and the Kansas specimen) to have robust teeth like adults? And then change to thin and then back to robust?
A paper about the Kansas specimen:
A NEW JUVENILE TYRANNOSAURUS REX FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION OF EASTERN MONTANA PROVIDES INSIGHTS INTO CRANIAL AND DENTAL ONTOGENY
BURNHAM, David A., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, United States of America; ATKINS- WELTMAN, Kyle L., Lawrence, KS, United States of America; JEVNIKAR, Evan M., Biodiversity Institute, Lawrence, KS, United States of America
While Tyrannosaurus rex is perhaps the icon of large, non-avian theropods, very little is known about their early life history. Those few specimens that are known suggest that the morphology, and thus ecological niche, of T. rex changed quite dramatically with age. Here, we report on a new specimen of a young individual of T. rex collected in Garfield County, Montana.The new T. rex now residesin the collectionsat the University of Kansas as KUVP 156375. The cranial material comprises both maxillae with much of the dentition intact, a partial premaxilla,jugal,postorbital,vomer,and an ectopterygoid. Postcranial el ements include a cervical and a dorsal vertebra,ribs, chevrons,metatarsals I, IV, and V, two complete pedal phalanges and the distal condyle of a third, pedal I ungula, and tips of two other unguals.
Skeletal measurements and surface bone texture indicate KUVP 156375 is a juvenile and it is nearly the same size as another juvenile tyrannosaur, BMRP 2002.4.1. A striking feature of the new specimen is the maxilla which only contains 12 alveoli. This count is congruent with known adult Tyrannosaurus rex, such as FMNH PR 2081, but contrasts the higher tooth count of 15-16 maxillary teeth described in BMRP 2002.4.1. Moreover, the first maxillary tooth of KUVP 156375 is morphologically distinct from that of BMRP 2002.4.1. To better visualize the tooth morphology of these juvenile T. rex, measurements and denticle densities were plotted using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) statistical software. Preliminary results demonstrate teeth of young T. rex plot outside of the adult morphology but share minute details such as denticle shape. We suggest this pattern is due to their smaller size and during ontogeny expect they would become stouter and larger while the denticle density decreases.
@@lukeskywalkerjediknight2.013 hey its happend in humans im sure it can happen to inbred tyrannosaurs
I've got family in NC. Not sure how far away they are from the museum.
That is actually amazing
This is why the only sane solution is to treat any major fossil find as a national treasure, protected by the government, and not a commodity to be bought and sold.
"nanotyrannus"? really? credibility -10/10
$3.18 million, or $31.8 million?
13:14 - $ 31.8 , which made it far more expensive than SUE, who Larson also lost in a legal dispute. Damn the bad luck !