Two New Species of Tyrannosaurus Rex

[Jurassic Tyrant King]

Apparently some paleontologist are pretty much saying that there are possibly three species of Tyrannosaurus theropods and Tyrannosaurus emperor the oldest and from which Sue is from and the oldest of the three, and the largest of the Tyrannosaurus genus. If this theory is legit than that would explain why certain T-Rex bones look different than others, however it seems too quick to announce New Species of Tyrannosaurus Genus. Anyway we'll just have to wait and see what the paleontology Community decide before re-evaluating T-Rex again themselves.
I would love to see the top paleontologist reevaluate this Theory themselves just to be sure if there are three species of Tyrannosaurus.

Three Species:
Tyrannosaurus Emporer
Tyrannosaurus Queen
Tyrannosaurus King

T.Rex might actually have been THREE species, fossil analysis reveals

Physical differences in the thighbones of Tyrannosaurus fossil specimens warrant the creation of two new species, says a Baltimore-based paleontologist.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Source: https://youtu.be/gpjrJda2YQw

Source: https://youtu.be/4AxNJ1Lix8k


not Sure if there are two or more species of tyrannosaurus I'm just thinking possibly just one species now. Let us not forget that Tyrannosaurus Rex was the last of the Tyrant lizards and if the meteor hadn't ended the dinosaurs perhaps more species would have existed however this seems a little too quick for evolution to work from 68 to 66 million years for the species.

 

[Mjmannella]

That paper should be taken with immense grains of salt.

First is the controversy surrounding the lead author: Gregory S. Paul. Not only was this article published by an independent journal (already a red flag), but as a result it circumvented peer review. Without this crucial element, it's very difficult to support the paper's legitimacy. It's also worth noting that Paul has pushed this idea for a few decades earlier, but was consistently rejected by his peers.
Sidenote: Gregory Paul is also responsible for lumping Deinonychus into Velociraptor, which would eventually give us the JP raptors as a by-product.

Second note is that the new taxa is being determine with unsettling unclear wording. It's not a very absolute stance given the "generally" and "somewhat" terms sprinkled in the paper.

 

[Jurassic Tyrant King]

That paper should be taken with immense grains of salt.

First is the controversy surrounding the lead author: Gregory S. Paul. Not only was this article published by an independent journal (already a red flag), but as a result it circumvented peer review. Without this crucial element, it's very difficult to support the paper's legitimacy. It's also worth noting that Paul has pushed this idea for a few decades earlier, but was consistently rejected by his peers.
Sidenote: Gregory Paul is also responsible for lumping Deinonychus into Velociraptor, which would eventually give us the JP raptors as a by-product.

Second note is that the new taxa is being determine with unsettling unclear wording. It's not a very absolute stance given the "generally" and "somewhat" terms sprinkled in the paper.

It would make me feel a lot better if we could get a re-evaluation by Top Paleontologists from all over the world to decide if this paper is true or not, it does seem fishy this paper.

The closest thing and I could think of that is close to this Theory is the Giganotosaurus family in South America it took more than three million years for these three species (Tyrannotitan, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus)to evolve so I think this Tyrannosaurus Theory might be a little stretch since T-Rex had a rain of two million years and that's very little time for a species to evolve three species and of course maybe just fictional because it's a little too quick for evolution to work in my opinion as well.

I can only see two different species ever coming from this group rather than three because for some reason 3 seems a little too much it really takes a long time for evolution to take place anyway depending on the different challenges on one animal. Yeah maybe two species might evolve but possibly not. But so far I agree there is still just one.

 

[LordTrilobite]

It would make me feel a lot better if we could get a re-evaluation by Top Paleontologists from all over the world to decide if this theory is true or not.
The closest thing and I could think of that is close to this Theory is the Giganotosaurus family in South America it took more than three million years for these three species (Tyrannotitan, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus)to evolve so I think this Tyrannosaurus Theory might be a little stretch and of course maybe just fictional because it's a little too quick for evolution to work in my opinion as well.

I can only see two different species ever coming from this group rather than three because for some reason 3 seems a little too much it really takes a long time for evolution to take place anyway depending on the different challenges on one animal. I wouldn't mind if they were two different species like Tyrannosaurus Imperium and Tyrannosaurus Rex if they did discover evidence of two species that is.

Mjmannella is pretty on point. The paper is quite controversial and we shouldn't jump to conclusions. We have quite a good record for Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons. That makes it a lot easier to compare them and judge whether some might be different species. But some near complete skeletons in the paper aren't even assigned to one or the other species. If you can't identify near complete specimens as one or the other, then maybe the characters that identify that as a separate species aren't good enough. It could just be individual variation if there is only so little difference.

And a few more things.
No, there are not more species of T. rex. T. rex is the species. The genus is Tyrannosaurus, and its species is rex.
T-Rex is also a incorrect spelling. Species names are never capitalized and always in italic. And the dash also makes no sense. The genus Tyrannosaurus should be abbreviated as T.
So the correct spelling would be Tyrannosaurus rex or T. rex for the abbreviated version. T-Rex is never correct.

And then if the new paper is correct that there are more species. Those would be species of Tyrannosaurus. Not species of Tyrannosaurus rex, because that makes zero sense.
The other species would be Tyrannosaurus regina or T. regina and Tyrannosaurus imperator or T. imperator.

And no, it's not a theory. A theory in science is the end point of an idea. You start with just an idea. Then you figure out how to test this idea and it becomes a hypothesis. And after it has been tested and it has not been disproved, then it becomes a theory. When it's a theory, basically all experts agree with it.


But while the methods used in the paper are kinda suspect. The idea is not that outlandish. It's possible that some of the Tyrannosaurus specimens found in different geologic layers could be a different species than the original T. rex. We see this in Triceratops for example. There are two valid species for Triceratops. T. horridus and T. prorsus. These are found in different layers and T. horridus is likely the ancestor of T. prorsus. A similar thing could be happening with Tyrannosaurus.

 

[Mjmannella]

T-Rex is also a incorrect spelling. Species names are never capitalized and always in italic. And the dash also makes no sense. The genus Tyrannosaurus should be abbreviated as T.
So the correct spelling would be Tyrannosaurus rex or T. rex for the abbreviated version. T-Rex is never correct.

I've come to accept "t-rex" as a common name for the species (like urvogel for Archaeopteryx). But yeah, the binomial shorthand is most accurately T. rex.

Sidenote: I would also like to bring up the tyrannosaurid found from the Ojo Alamo Formation. Whether or not NMMNH P-3698 is Tyrannosaurus brinkmani, Alamotyrannus, or simply just T. rex will only be determined once a description comes out.

 

[LordTrilobite]

I've come to accept "t-rex" as a common name for the species (like urvogel for Archaeopteryx). But yeah, the binomial shorthand is most accurately T. rex.

Sidenote: I would also like to bring up the tyrannosaurid found from the Ojo Alamo Formation. Whether or not NMMNH P-3698 is Tyrannosaurus brinkmani, Alamotyrannus, or simply just T. rex will only be determined once a description comes out.

Urvogel is indeed kind of the common name for Archaeopteryx and also just ancient bird in German. T-rex or T-Rex is just an incorrect misspelling of an actual abbreviation. It's just prevalent because a lot of people do not understand binomial names.

And yes I also thought of brining up the Ojo Alamo fm but thought it would detracted from my main point. But this material is probably more likely to be a different species than the material in this new paper.