This New Tyrannosaurus Species Was A Monster | Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- Tyrannosaurus mcraensis has been described and published, and if it's a valid species it will turn the megatheropod hierarchy on its head. A southern variant of Tyrannosaurus that was bigger than nearly every other theropod, it coexisted with huge hadrosaurs and ceratopsians every bit as menacing as those that thrived in Hell Creek millions of years later. Tyrannosaurus mcraensis would be bigger than the Giganotosaurus holotype and represents a slimmer, less derived Tyrannosaurus species from southern Laramidia.
Thumbnail Art by Sergey Krasovskiy
www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @thevividen 
Развлечения
Enough with nanotyrannus, now it's gigantotyrannus' time
But Nanotyrannus is my favorite.
Nanotyrannus still could have been real. Although still unconfirmed
What if….the T-Rex was never real and all bones associated to the species actually belonged to Nanotyrannus and some other tyrannosaurid genera, making Nanotyrannus real all along? 🤔
@@coomslayer6996 pre-2015 Brontosaurus moment. T.rex was named first, so it has priority.
Fr, how do we know that t. Rex isnt just an older nanotyrannus🔥🗣💯
@@TheFremontTroll07I see what you did there.
Mcrensis: Look, I can actually rival T Rex in Size
Giga: Shush!!! Everytime a theropod says that it becomes bigger!
T Rex: *Prepares Bertha paper.
Bad jokes aside. This is gonna be quite a year for the Tyranossaurids family
Bertha is going to be massive 👀
(this comment doesn’t represent my current opinion on T. mcraeensis’s validity, go to the very bottom to see the updates)
I’m still skeptical about this being a new species. Several tyrannosaur researchers have said the differences cited aren’t out of the range of individual variation; and apparently the anatomical differences can be found in other specimens assigned to T. rex. I feel it should be noted that only 2 Tyrannosaurus rex specimens were used in this study as a comparison, which doesn’t accurately reflect the amount of variation seen in T. rex. I’ve also heard some dispute as to the dating methods used, so overall I’m not yet convinced of T. mcraeensis’s validity.
(edit) I should clarify I am not fully opposed to the idea of this specimen representing a new species. I just find it necessary to apply a healthy amount of caution when it comes to such claims.
(edit 2) after getting the chance to read more of the paper/think this matter over, I’ve come to the conclusion that this does have a high likelihood of representing a new species of Tyrannosaurus.
I still think we need to find some more bones just to be sure.
@@rhedosaurus2251I think that goes without saying
I agree fully. T-Rex and other dinosaurs definitely had variants just as any animal does, so to think of different variants as new species is really a stretch that paleontologists commonly make
I think that as long as they can prove that this specimen lived 6 million years earlier than the other T.Rex specimens then we can hypothesize that it was most likely a different species given that it’s extremely unlikely for a species to exist without change for 8 million years. They wouldn’t even necessarily need to be anatomically distinct on the skeleton level because we actually have living genera where the different species are not diagnostic on the skeletal level (an example being the different Ara Macaw species).
@@lordcooler8160the age of the specimen has been questioned, so it may not even be as old as the paper states.
I'm skeptical about this, other reseachers have already noted that the "unique features" are well within the range of individual variation in T.rex. That said, if it is indeed from an earlier time than any of the other specimens of Tyrannosaurus that is still very interesting. It either means we are dealing with a new species of Tyrannosaurus, which isn't entirely out of the question, or that Tyrannosaurus was actually present in North American longer than we thought, and might have evolved there instead of being an invasive animal from Asia. Very interesting whatever the outcome.
I'm severely doubtful that _Tyrannosaurus rec_ or, frankly, any species could usefully describe animals that lived so far apart in time. Genus, yes. But species?
It is quite possible. The age would need to be verified first.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 I literally never said anything about Tyrannosaurus rex itself living all that time? Tyrannosaurus is a genus, rex is the species.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 Allosaurus Fragilis exists over a period of 10 million years.
@@Atlasworkinprogress No, it was preceded by A. jimmadseni and suceeded by A. lucasi. constraining A. fragillis between 150,8 to 155 MYO.
We’re only 2 weeks into 2024 and paleontology is getting interesting
Compared to the study that suggested T.imperator and T.regina this one seems more comprehensive.
AT LEAST, in this case it would make sense given its several million years older then T-Rex.
And that it does look like a fucky blended T-rex with all its cousins. Time will tell if it does end up Trex fanfiction.
@@kyokyodisaster4842 I’ve heard some doubts about the reliability of the dating methods, so it might not even be as old as the paper states
@@jurassicswine Good point, if it is just about the same age AS Trex, well, we just have a southern rex.
I was thinking that T. mcraeensis was an ancestor to T. rex but I'm happy that we've got another species of Tyrannosaurus because it would've been monotypic without it (or T. bataar/zhuchengensis) and a lot of extinct dinosaur genera are described as monotypic, which is inconsistent compared to the amounts of species in genera today. Let's hope that Tarbosaurus and Zhuchengtyrannus are Tyrannosaurus species too to keep this up
As you said we don't know the proportions; it could be a tank like rex or a more slender but still bulky predator like Tarbosaurus so I don't know if we should even try and estimate T.mcraeensis' size.
I'm hoping they find more of this animal so we can get a better idea of its anatomy.
Correct. It just never made sense how paleontologists try to make such wild estimates and assumptions based on very small fragmentary fossils. I mean given how fragmentary the fossils are, the bones could have belonged to a whole different genus of tyrannosaurid instead of being another Tyrannosaurus species
dang rex is bullying other "species"
We don’t even have the rest of the body to scale it off of, so I don’t believe there’s enough information for an accurate estimate yet.
Still at that jaw size, if it indeed proves a new species, is more than likely in the too 10
Discoveries like this are why I still publish Prehistoric Magazine to keep telling the stories that have yet to be told. Thx for the video. Mike
I'm very happy with this channel on all the best updates! Thanks, Vividen!!!
Plot twist: it's an Albertasaurine that lived alongside T.Rex's ancestors. Jk. I believe there was concern with the predicted age. I hope they can confirm this. That would solidify this being a new species.
@qbgrindddddo you know what jk means bro?
If this is how we start the first 11 days of 2024, I can't imagine what may come in the future
great information, the year is coming loaded for paleontology
I honestly believe this is a new species simply because of its age. It's 7 million years older than Tyrannosaurus Rex proper and yes, individual differences aside, that fact alone makes it something different. Could it just be a really big Daspletosaurus? Maybe but more than likely not. We just need more specimens.
i wani it to be a different species honestly
@@ahtesam2000 it honestly probably is a new species. The tooth design though similar is very different. That alone makes it different than Tyrannosaurus Rex. Anyone who says otherwise probably calls tarbosaurus just an Asian Tyrannosaurus Rex.
that has not been conclusively proven - dating method needs to be independently verified - hopefully, by two separate teams
@@Scion-cy6wj the process is already being done and it's being done by more than 2 teams in fact. At least that's what I've heard but until I see the reports, it holds no water. Frankly, it makes sense for a different species of Tyrannosaurus to inhabit the areas Alamosaurus existed in. One that potentially was designed for hinting them.
Thanks for all you do to keep the prehistoric past alive. Another great video. Mike from Prehistoric Magazine
I really love how you can make this so easy to understand for someone like me who might not be an expert when it comes to paleontology, just makes me appreciate the channel so much
Very cool, thanks for using my art!
The meta just became a bit more dangerous.
Will this new Tyrannosaurus species affect the “T.rex originated from Asia” hypothesis ?
Now they come from southern North America
Daspletosaurus being Tyrannosaurus' ancestor is much more likely.
@jacksonntp617
If that was the case, then why are Tarbosaurus and Zhuchengtyrannus found to be more closely related to Tyrannosaurus than Daspletosaurus?
@@BigAl2-u7e he said Tyrannosaurus (genus), not species - whether Daspleto is an ancestor or side-cousin is another ongoing debate
If you found the common ancestor of modern panthers 7 million years ago, would you call it ‘Panthera leo’ or would you give it a new species name?
You’d give it a new species name, obviously
You would name it...
...Vegeta.
or VeCheetah.
@@surgeonsergio6839 My favorite animal as a kid and my favorite animal as a teenager.
@@surgeonsergio6839panthera vegeta.
Actually not even the entire Panthera genus is 7 million years old. Mammals have faster molecular clocks than non-avian (and even some avian, like sea eagles) dinos.
We don't know that this specimen is the common ancestor of tyrannosaurs though.
I subbed like literally seconds before this was uploaded
This was for you, then!
If it was more slender build, it would be interesting if there was some sauropod it lived with to fill in that “giga” sauropod hunter niche.
Even if it isn’t a new species, that fact that it lived way before Rex and can crack the top 5, makes it all the more interesting
Interesting to imagine intermittent species exchange between Asia and North America over hundreds of millions of years both in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic
I’m much more open to the possibility of this being valid, compared to other proposed Tyrannosaur(us) species in the past.
Assuming the dating is accurate, then the much earlier time and different location would already be good grounds for designating a new species. Coupled with what seems to be valid differences in each bone, I would say that T. mcraeensis is much more plausible than anything else
People keep saying it is individual variation vs new species but in paleontology they are not mutually exclusive. Species change over time so some individuals will always be intermediate or "primitive" and "advanced" version of any given species and that is NOT the same thing as individual variation.
Most species in paleontology comprise very distinct forms within them and these differences are taxonomic not individual. It's just that if two species are not very obviously distinguishable, then they are usually lumped.
For example what is known as "Velociraptor mongoliensis" is at least distinct 3 species, but probably more. Albertosaurus is probably 2, an earlier and later form.
If the imperator/regina thing didn't hold up, I doubt this will either. Multiple attempts have been made now to break T. rex up, but the seasoned experts have been quick to point out the confirmation biases of these conclusions. Also, we've barely had time to digest the Nanotyrannus thing.
This paper is much better supported than that Imperator/Regina stuff but we'll see what happens
Was re-watching this and saw my friends artwork at 5:05, that was certainly a touch surprising, anyways remember to credit!
We need more material to truly prove its a different species. Its fun to speculate on very limited material but given its older and in a different part of the continent then maybe it's a different species. I just wish that papers would publish properly once atleast 50% of a specimen is complete to accurately deduct whether its a new species or not.
Interesting. When I think theropods couldn’t be cooler, something like this happens. I’m skeptical for now, but this is still cool.
Latino Trex has entered the chat.
I call shenanigans. Hall Lake Formation's time strata traces from 66 to as early as 80 Ma. Stemming from other examples, certain type species of dinosaurian genera were collected from both upper and lower stages of respective periods, e.g., _Camarasaurus_ and _Allosaurus._ With those factors in mind we should be careful with how we recategorize this specimen--especially because it holds no strong evidence that supports it is a new species of _Tyrannosaurus._
Well Camarasaurus did in fact consist of multiple successive species throughout the upper and lower Morrison formation.
@@lordcooler8160 Three out of four, yes this somewhat true. But one species in particular (C. grandis) had lived and coexisted with two other species that evolved from it. Now, two points might be true with the New Mexico Tyrannosaurus in, yes, it as well being an older ancestor of Tyrannosaurus rex but to the vast exposure of individual variation stemming from type species. It's more likely to another variation of Tyrannosaurus rex.
New study re-estimating its size, cutting it by 20% in 3...2...1...
T. rex is the biggest of course
Eh, I'm not entirely convinced. Granted, because of some previous "New species of Tyrannosaurus" stuff being pulled I'm naturally skeptical to this sort of thing again but, I'd chalk up all the differences to variation in the individual. We do have to keep in mind that these creatures were animals, not genetically modified monsters, thus some may have different skeletal characteristics than others just like any other animal. Now, if we found another specimen with the same features around the same location then, that's obviously a different story.
T. rex was not a “monster” but this animal is pure power and muscle mass(powerhouse)!
@@rodrigopinto6676 Yes, thank you for reiterating my point.
I personally think it’s an entirely new genus, kind of like how Tarbosaurus is an entirely different animal from Tyrannosaurus. If this is the case, I propose the genus name “Invictatyrannus”
Good name!
Thomas Carr would like to disagree on the Tarbosaurus thing. He genuinely believes it's nothing but Asian species of Tyrannosaurus.
Yeah sadly tarbosaurus is on different genus than T-Rex
On the question of Tyrannosaurus hunting Alamosaurus, I don't think there would be a need to adapt new anatomical traits or exapt existing ones to hunt big sauropods. But I could be wrong on that.
Yes T. rex hunting alamosaurus
Alamosaurus sanjuanensis is comparable in size to Argentinosaurus.
@@rodrigopinto6676 Most of the sauropod-hunting theropods would've generally targeted juveniles or subadults.
Great video! One little nitpick though, AMNH 5027 is not the holotype of T. rex, the holotype is the one at the Carnegie Museum.
Its catalogue number is CM 9380. It was formerly labelled as Amnh 973
Nitpick invalid
We should call him T-mac for short. Like T-rex and T-mac
Babe wake up, new megatheropod just dropped
Amazing video Vividen, your way of presenting and explaning the evidence to us is amazing and effective. I personally remain skeptical about this topic of debate, the evidence provided by the authors of the paper is mostly convincing but the when I really begin to think about it....well.... it relly depends. I have no problem when it comes to people beliving that Tyrannosaurus Mcraeensis is valid just that I think we should pay attention to what we think and say since anything can change in a few years. I can understand what the authors are trying to say but I have heard that people in the Paleo-community are saying that the method the authors used to determine when Tyrannosaurus Mcraeensis lived is not the best method, I personally don't find any problems with it, so far, but I still need to look deeper in to the topic to really get the REALLY BIG picture. Lastly, I do personally think that it plausible that a large Tyrannosaurid around the same size as Tyrannosaurus Rex, could have lived in southern-Laramidia around 73 to 69 Million Years Ago (These are just broad estimates since it may vary depending on who you ask) But, the only problem is that, Tyrannosaurus Mcraeensis dosen't necessarily explain the Fossils found around New Mexico and Texas that date back around 68 To 66 Million Years Ago but just provides and demonstrates evidence to support the fact that Tyrannosaurids from North America first originated in the South Laramidia. In conclusion I am just trying to share my personal opinions on this hot topic of debate, and I'm also sorry if im being very specific and wordy on this topic but that is just the way I am, I probably missed something or made a mistake but I am trying to share my personal thoughts and opinions on this, but only time will tell if Tyrannosaurus Mcraeensis will remain valid.
Vividen, what are your personal opinions on "Ivan" (I could not find a Specimen number, I could only find its code name) the Tyrannosaurus rex, I'm trrying to figure out if "Ivan" is a Tyrannosaurus rex because I have noted some small characteristics that I don't usually see in Tyrannosaurus rex but I think it migth just be Indivual variation, but we will have to keep investigating.
More tyrannosaurus species the better.
Wow, a real giant, underlying the dominance of Tyrannosaurs in Upper Cretaceous North America
I am not entirely certain to be honest, but there comes in the ever present question of paleontology.
Are we just using T rex as bin for all related large tyrannosaurids from cretaceous north america or was it really just one very successful species?
I would say that given the layers where it was discovered it is very well possible to be close relative. Not too unlike tigers and lions, which from skeletal remains alone could be easily argued to be just individual variation.
It could also be that T. mcraeensis is a subspecies of T. rex, but that is very hard to tell from just fossils.
@@fabricreative1930 Well the issue in that is the time period. You can't have a subspecies appear 5-7 million years eariler than the species in question.
Secondly subspecies is almost always a cop out answer that usually isn't supported in modern animals by genetics. We tend to be quite careful with subspecies label these days because phenotypic variation is the more likely culprit.
@@troo_6656 Oh, I didn't know that about subspecies.
Time will tell with every new discovery
If this is actually a new species I wouldn’t be surprised if it is actually bigger than the T-Rex considering it only has 1 specimen yet is already nearly as big as the tyrant lizard king
That doesn’t mean very much. For example let’s say humans go extinct and some future species finds one skeleton. However this skeleton just so happens to be of Shaq. They could then assume humans were generally seven feet tall just because they found one outlier. Likewise if the only remains they found were of Danny Devito then they would assume we were around four feet tall. Getting only one specimen doesn’t really tell us much about the species overall size. The reason Rex has the crown is primarily because we have a large number of massive specimens.
@@thedukeofchutney468 true but our lack of specimens also leaves potential, the chances of our first specimen being even in the top 1000 of those things of all time is quite small, if it is an average one then there’s some potential for them to match or slightly exceed the size of the T. rex, if its a large one it might actually not be any bigger than the one we got however if its a small specimen then its possible we just found the largest carnivorous land animal of all time and just don’t know it yet
@@joeygamingnl2724it’s way too early to make such claims. All we have is a partial dentary, which as the video states is not the best bone to use for scaling; and there’s zero post-cranial material to go off of.
@@jurassicswine im aware but it’s still cool that it could potentially be such an absolute titan
@@joeygamingnl2724it is cool to imagine, but at the same time there’s no evidence pointing either way at the moment.
Can u make a video/many videos on taxonomy/taxonomic ranks (regarding dinos, pterosaurs etc.)?
I’m still skeptical about this being a new species lets hope it goes well like last time
Bro is underrated
Not even a day has passed since he was described lol
@@tyrannycall9754 what do you mean
Well, it cannot be said that it is undervalued just like that, this animal has just been described.@@GS-Atlas
I'm hopeful that it is a new genus, but will not be surprised if it isnt
Finally covering the mcraenis rex 🦖
I petition we nickname this Tyrannosaurus "Mc T"
Oooh, i just realized, there is a big big possiblity that t.macraensis could have possibly coexisted with the giant crocodilian deinosuchus!
I think Carr might be the one living in his own fan fiction world
AGREED! Thank you! He needs to stop trying to monopolize Tyrannosaurus studies.
Man, if there's one thing I love to hear about, it's that dinosaurs got bigger than we initially thought.
I'm excited, but I'm going to hold my credulity for juuuuust a little bit on this one until we see more fossils.
Still, it's pretty cool to see the information gathered to the point where we have a pretty good idea of who was who and who sprung from whom.
Thanks to all of the people who work on this kind of science so that lazy bastards like myself can sit and learn it at leisure...and do the one thing that i imagine irks scientists the most...learn just enough about it to know of it.
It looks quite friendly
Imagine being on a list of the largest terrestrial predators and you come in first AND third!
It’s just a matter of time until we find another Tyrannosaur fossil that completely up-ends our fragile understanding of these mysterious creatures. I swear by the end of this year the maximum weight estimate for T. Rex will be 20,000+ kgs
like a lot of other people, i am also skeptical of T. mcraensis' validity. New Tyrannosaurus species have been proposed before, and those claims have been debunked over and over. After all, different T. rex individuals are different from one another and the methods used and other things about the study are...questionable to say the least
It is definitely more convincing than the "T. imperator" + "T. regina"- debacle, that much is for sure, though that isn’t saying much.
At first sight the paper looks quite thorough in distinguishing the two species, but there is ample room for further testing of this new taxonomic hypothesis, especially in regard to whether it holds up when compared with a wider variety of _T. rex_ specimens, for example via morphometric analysis of the various skull bones that are proposed as distinguishing the two. If we end up seeing a morphological and morphometric continuum between the two, or various specimens from completely different localities and stratigraphies plotting closer to _T. mcraeensis_ than _T. rex,_ that could weaken the case for it being a unique species significantly.
Trex being 9-11.74 tones sounds a little crazy if u ask me, so I think ether mcreansous is a different species or the weight is off (it’s prolly that the weight is off)
fuckin love this channel. gonna be a paleontologist when im retired
I just found that Sue lower jaw is so similar to mcraensis lower jaw the tooth's placement/alignment is so similar to mcraensis... lower jaw might have a bump but it don't look like a bump like the mcraensis mcraensis...
Gotta love Dino’s
Yes, I think it's convincing. How could it not be?
If I had a nickel for every time there was a debate about whether something was T. rex or a different species, I would have three nickels, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened thrice.
4:
- Tarbo (valid)
- Nano (invalid)
- Regina and Imperator (invalid)
- Mcrensis (valid, so far)
Long live the King 👑!!!!
I had heard about that species back in the 2023 but nothing well analysed or established glad to live in times that a Tyrannosaurus rex like species has been indetify 😊
a new scary sauros ! yaaayyyy ! ^____^
I never understood why giganot are big dinosaurs. It sounds more like a jab at a small size "You think you're big? You're giga... not!"
The jaw clearly has a different structure whether that means an abnormality in growth such as like we see with 7 foot tall humans not the norm range, but also not impossible or it could be a secondary species either way new tyrannosaur just dropped
I have a feeling that this specimen represents an above average individual if it was in fact a different species because it is larger than the average Rex as of now.
It would be time fora specific AI which is capable of correctly estimating the anatomical variations within a species so we could say at 90%+ chance if a new fossil is within or outside of the boundaries and individual variations of a species or not.
I mean, I’m pretty much agree with Dr. Thomas carr it’s probably gonna be fanfiction. It’s going to be like Greg Paul
Carr, not 'car'
@@7777Scion I know
I'm not entirely sure, yet. Could just be that T.rex occurred earlier than we thought. Though, it makes me wonder if it is indeed another species of Tyrannosaurus, could the Regina and Imperator species names not be used anymore. Those names weren't valid, but Tyrant Lizard Queen is so damn cool.
Its fairly unlikely just one species spanning 7 millions years, if stratigraphy is correct that would be decisive to the new proposed species.
Not having any additional info, i'd assume this is probably a chronospecies of T-rex, so a direct ancestor.
The specimen was alone. It could be that its characteristic were due to endocrine problems or some other developmental and physiological problems. Or the fragments could have been from animals not related to each other. I'll wait on future news about this to give an opinion.
Considering we have grizzly bears, polar bears, brown bears and they are all apex predators it would not seem strange that several big tyrannosaurs occupied the world at the same time.
"The latest in tyrannosaurus fanfiction." OOF that's harsh
In my opinion, it depends on whether or not the dating of 73mya is accurate, or it isn't. If it's accurate, then I'd say the species is valid. If we find out the dating is off, and the specimen is from later (70-68mya), I'd question the validity.
The differences probably are comparable the Allosaurus Fragilis and Allosaurus Jimmadseni
I personally think it's another species of Tyrannosaurus, especially with how much older it is like damn. We don't have that much material to go off of, but I'm gonna be honest some of the "individual variation" arguments aren't entirely great? Would we consider Neanderthals humans? Kind of feels like something similar but even more extreme in this case because the time gap between Trex and Mc T are very different and live in a different location in North America
It didn't compete with T rex as it lived 73mya
As a History Ph.D. Candidate, What journal or database do you find your sources from?
While I can understand why scientists are hesitant to nail this theory down, the different features in every bone and the bones being significantly older than t-rex is hard to ignore. It's just too bad that all we find of some animals is a handful of bone fragments. Like with Spinosaurus, people just aren't satisfied with waiting for new evidence, they want to make guesses and then fight over it...
I dont know if its possible can you do a video about the most likley size a rex could get?
I have a question was that comment on Instagram or discord because I really want to have a chat with my legend Thomas Haltz
More evidence if other rex specialists have seen it before it would be nice to have another specimen to study
I’m sure that this Rex could’ve been the early version of Tyrannnosaurus
I have a video idea, how much would Dinosaurs weigh if they were as dense as mammals??? ☝️
I’ve seen it been typed as Tyrannosaurus Mcraensis and Tyrannosaurus Mcraeensis. Anyone know which one is right
I noticed that too, I think the right one is Mcraensis
Edit: nevermind, they use mcraeensis in the paper
I'm open to the idea of this being a new species, but we've been here before. Let's find some more evidence before we make anything concrete.
So, assuming this species stays valid. Is this then what we're theorizing/positing evolved directly into T. rex?
No, it's probably more like an Uncle to T. rex because it has some derived characteristics the rex didn't have according to the paper.
I only find in the Internet that Giganotosaurus size is 8 Tons and the T rex size is 9,1 tons.Have you a source that says T rex is 10,5-11,7 Tons or from the 10,2 Giga?
Big boi
I prefer Godzilla over transformers..
@@Sirdilophosaurusthethird2.0 get the sh!₹ outta dude
So basically the big version of Nonnotyrannus? 🤔
I disagree with the usage of images of tyrannosaurus where is teeth are showing - they had lips!
It sure has lips, but not fully lipped.
It is no match for Microraptor.
My source: trust me
Isn't mapusaurus bigger than giganotosaurus and spinosaurus?
No
@@thuikippl5034 it was though for ages when did that change
@@starbirds2464 was it? Idk man but this has been known for a while I think, Mapusaurus is later than Giganotosaurus but it is smaller
@@thuikippl5034 it’s like the same size only marginally different and I imagine they grew bigger considering they faced bigger prey
@@starbirds2464 probably about the same length but they weighed less
They missed the opportunity to bring back Manospondolas Gigas as a name and I have never been more saddend
How when there is zero overlap between Manospondylus (vertebral fragments) and T. mcraeensis (jaw and skull bones)?
if T mac does turn out to be a new species, can it compete against rex for the title of dino king?
Im not convinced yet at all
There are any number of factors that could account for these variations, I doubt it's a new species.
Me trying to convince Vividen to make a video that is not about a giant carnivore (impossible).
One day my Borson's Mastodon script will get off the ground haha