View Full Version: Alamotyrannus brinkmani?

Hell Creek > Mesozoic Palaeontology > Alamotyrannus brinkmani?


Title: Alamotyrannus brinkmani?


dbscksrb123 - April 26, 2014 11:53 AM (GMT)
When I was reading Dalman's 2013 paper, I found something pretty interesting: Dalman and Lucas are preparing a new paper dealing with new large tyrannosaurid species "Alamotyrannus brinkmani"

DALMAN, S.G. AND S.G. LUCAS. A new large Tyrannosaurid Alamotyrannus brinkmani, n. gen., n. sp. (Theropoda: Tyrannosauridae), from the Upper Cretaceous Ojo Alamo Formation (Naashoibito Member), San Juan Basin, New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Sci- ence Bulletin. In press.

It seems like they are refering southern T.rex specimens to this species.
But though I'm not an expert about dinosaurs, It seems that they do not think the Tyrannosaurus "vannus" isn't from T.rex. So I got a feeling that they were actually just a T.rex.
Though this is not yet published, what do you guys think?

Tomozaurus - April 26, 2014 12:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (dbscksrb123 @ Apr 26 2014, 11:53 AM)
Though this is not yet published

Answered your own question there, didn't you. How are we supposed to make any judgement on specimens we know nothing about?

MechanicV2 - April 26, 2014 02:04 PM (GMT)
New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletins can take some time to produce. Who knows when this will actually come out?

dbscksrb123 - April 26, 2014 04:20 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Tomozaurus @ Apr 26 2014, 12:17 PM)
QUOTE (dbscksrb123 @ Apr 26 2014, 11:53 AM)
Though this is not yet published

Answered your own question there, didn't you. How are we supposed to make any judgement on specimens we know nothing about?

The possible materials are these:

"In contrast, the southern regions in North America, such as Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Utah yield mostly fragmentary skeletal remains that have been referred to Tyrannosaurus rex, including TMM 41436-1 (Lawson 1976), DMNH 2827 (Carpenter and Young 2002), UMNH 11000 (Sampson and Loewen 2005), and NMMNH P-3698 (Gillette et al. 1986; Lucas 1993, 2009). Carpenter (1990; pers. comm. 2012) thinks that the right maxilla TMM 41436-1 from the Tornillo Formation of Texas may represent a new genus and species of tyrannosaurid theropod, whereas Carr and Williamson (2000, 2004) regard the specimen as that of T. rex. Although fragmen- tary, the many isolated but diagnostic tyran- nosaurid skeletal fossil elements from the Naashoibito Member of the Ojo Alamo Formation (early Maastrichtian) of northwestern New Mex- ico (Sullivan et al. 2005; Jasinski et al. 2011; Dal- man and Lucas, in press) provide evidence for the occurrence of a new taxon of a large tyrannosaurid."

mmartyniuk - May 4, 2014 02:28 PM (GMT)
The Ojo Alamo formation spans more than 5 million years as usually defined, so in terms of biostratigraphy, it would not be surprising for there to be multiple species or at least chronspecies there aside from T. rex.

If I had to bet, I'd say this is probably just a tyrannosaurine from the early Maastrichtian, maybe an intermediate form between "daspletosaurins" and tyrannosaurins. The title says it's Naashoibito Member which pre-dates T. rex by around 2 million years.

Zimices - May 8, 2014 10:01 PM (GMT)
According to the last paper of Steven Wick (New evidence for the possible occurrence of Tyrannosaurus in West Texas), the specimen TMM 41436-1 is a subadult Tyrannosaurus (but not necessarily T. rex).

Zimices - December 11, 2014 09:31 AM (GMT)
I guess that ths news is relevant here: http://www.wggb.com/2014/12/09/new-dinosau...ies-discovered/

dbscksrb123 - December 13, 2014 11:42 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Zimices @ Dec 11 2014, 09:31 AM)
I guess that ths news is relevant here: http://www.wggb.com/2014/12/09/new-dinosau...ies-discovered/

I saw that news. Hope the paper be out soon..




Hosted for free by zIFBoards