Dr. Mike O'Sullivan
@irishpalaeo.bsky.social
Palaeontologist, teacher and general nerd.
Author for Palaeogames
www.palaeogames.com
www.dinocon.co.uk
Personal account @irishpalaeonerd.bsky.social
Author for Palaeogames
www.palaeogames.com
www.dinocon.co.uk
Personal account @irishpalaeonerd.bsky.social
Statistics say you're the wrong'un!
November 27, 2025 at 12:32 AM
Statistics say you're the wrong'un!
King-Ohger is a classic case of strong reviews not translating to equal sales
November 26, 2025 at 9:51 PM
King-Ohger is a classic case of strong reviews not translating to equal sales
Drive suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccks
November 26, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Drive suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccks
If you think about historical trends we are probably in a period of overdiagnosis
November 26, 2025 at 2:21 PM
If you think about historical trends we are probably in a period of overdiagnosis
I'm feeling very judged
November 15, 2025 at 12:07 PM
I'm feeling very judged
Reposted by Dr. Mike O'Sullivan
But do I think ALL mid-sized Hell Creek tyrannosaurs are Nanotyrannus?
Not necessarily.
The big challenge now is differentiating specimens of Nanotyrannus from bona fide juvenile rex. And it will be tough, as they are probably really similar.
Not necessarily.
The big challenge now is differentiating specimens of Nanotyrannus from bona fide juvenile rex. And it will be tough, as they are probably really similar.
October 30, 2025 at 4:39 PM
But do I think ALL mid-sized Hell Creek tyrannosaurs are Nanotyrannus?
Not necessarily.
The big challenge now is differentiating specimens of Nanotyrannus from bona fide juvenile rex. And it will be tough, as they are probably really similar.
Not necessarily.
The big challenge now is differentiating specimens of Nanotyrannus from bona fide juvenile rex. And it will be tough, as they are probably really similar.
Reposted by Dr. Mike O'Sullivan
this should be considered a victory for evidence and proper evaluation of data and science. But I'm sure it'll be considered as vindication that wanting something to be true and arm waving about what someone else said they measured on a specimen no one else had seen, gave the *right* answer.
October 30, 2025 at 5:23 PM
this should be considered a victory for evidence and proper evaluation of data and science. But I'm sure it'll be considered as vindication that wanting something to be true and arm waving about what someone else said they measured on a specimen no one else had seen, gave the *right* answer.
Reposted by Dr. Mike O'Sullivan
to be convinced. Now that has happened, people like me and @arctomet.bsky.social and @stevebrusatte.bsky.social are saying 'yes, this is convincing, Nano appears to be valid' *because* the scientific method was followed, and *not* because people *thought* that it was. In short...
October 30, 2025 at 5:21 PM
to be convinced. Now that has happened, people like me and @arctomet.bsky.social and @stevebrusatte.bsky.social are saying 'yes, this is convincing, Nano appears to be valid' *because* the scientific method was followed, and *not* because people *thought* that it was. In short...
Reposted by Dr. Mike O'Sullivan
that had already been dismissed or contradicted in the literature were the way to go and that we should have listened to them. But I and so many others always said that what we wanted to see was convincing data. Proper material, properly studied, with real measurements and testable data...
October 30, 2025 at 5:20 PM
that had already been dismissed or contradicted in the literature were the way to go and that we should have listened to them. But I and so many others always said that what we wanted to see was convincing data. Proper material, properly studied, with real measurements and testable data...