Milo Gaillard
@milogaillard2.bsky.social
25/male/autistic/aspiring paleontologist. I also like animals, dinosaurs, video games, movies, and I work out.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Credit for this amazing meme goes to based @jgn-paleo.bsky.social
December 6, 2025 at 5:20 AM
Credit for this amazing meme goes to based @jgn-paleo.bsky.social
#FossilFriday With the new Nanotyrannus paper out, I decide to dedicate a mini-thread to the Cleveland holotype skull (CMNH 7541), which has been found to belong to a mature individual, after all. 1/9
December 5, 2025 at 8:41 PM
#FossilFriday With the new Nanotyrannus paper out, I decide to dedicate a mini-thread to the Cleveland holotype skull (CMNH 7541), which has been found to belong to a mature individual, after all. 1/9
Also, I get that this is an illustration, but WTAF is going on with lambeosaurines here!? 😭
November 29, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Also, I get that this is an illustration, but WTAF is going on with lambeosaurines here!? 😭
So if I’m understanding this correctly, the specimen that proved that Edmontosaurus regalis likely did have a soft tissue crest, is being reassigned to an indeterminate Edmontosaurus species. Is that right?
anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
November 29, 2025 at 2:37 PM
So if I’m understanding this correctly, the specimen that proved that Edmontosaurus regalis likely did have a soft tissue crest, is being reassigned to an indeterminate Edmontosaurus species. Is that right?
anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Oh yeah, In case anyone has any questions about the supplementary material, here’s why the raw supplementary data has yet to be uploaded.
Link to said data: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vjkts...
Link to said data: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vjkts...
November 28, 2025 at 4:04 AM
Oh yeah, In case anyone has any questions about the supplementary material, here’s why the raw supplementary data has yet to be uploaded.
Link to said data: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vjkts...
Link to said data: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vjkts...
I know right? This needs to stop.
And of course no paper describing a new mamenchisaurid taxon would be complete with yet another nonsensical phylogeny.
For a second, I actually thought they had a monophyletic genus…then I almost immediately realized it was a polytomy. 💀
And of course no paper describing a new mamenchisaurid taxon would be complete with yet another nonsensical phylogeny.
For a second, I actually thought they had a monophyletic genus…then I almost immediately realized it was a polytomy. 💀
November 25, 2025 at 5:57 PM
I know right? This needs to stop.
And of course no paper describing a new mamenchisaurid taxon would be complete with yet another nonsensical phylogeny.
For a second, I actually thought they had a monophyletic genus…then I almost immediately realized it was a polytomy. 💀
And of course no paper describing a new mamenchisaurid taxon would be complete with yet another nonsensical phylogeny.
For a second, I actually thought they had a monophyletic genus…then I almost immediately realized it was a polytomy. 💀
This has affected basically every tyrannosaur tree since, because said authors kept using that matrix with only slight modifications. Heck, in the Khankhuuluu supplementary material, Nano was found as the sister taxon to Tyrannosaurini. Do you see why, now? 5/6
November 12, 2025 at 1:26 PM
This has affected basically every tyrannosaur tree since, because said authors kept using that matrix with only slight modifications. Heck, in the Khankhuuluu supplementary material, Nano was found as the sister taxon to Tyrannosaurini. Do you see why, now? 5/6
Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about. Tyrannosaur phylogeny has been pretty bad for the past 8 years or so, because they used a phylogeny that was so heavily built on Nano=young rex (specifically the phylogeny from the 2017 Daspletosaurus horneri paper). 3/6
November 12, 2025 at 1:26 PM
Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about. Tyrannosaur phylogeny has been pretty bad for the past 8 years or so, because they used a phylogeny that was so heavily built on Nano=young rex (specifically the phylogeny from the 2017 Daspletosaurus horneri paper). 3/6
I think Lawrence Witmer probably makes the best case for why this has been such a hard question to solve and why Nano=young rex became the scholarly consensus. IMO, it was a mix of limited data and confirmation bias. Wimer goes over most of said reasons why. 1/6
November 12, 2025 at 1:26 PM
I think Lawrence Witmer probably makes the best case for why this has been such a hard question to solve and why Nano=young rex became the scholarly consensus. IMO, it was a mix of limited data and confirmation bias. Wimer goes over most of said reasons why. 1/6
Wow. I knew that the anti-Nano crowd became toxic, but this is just appalling.
November 1, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Wow. I knew that the anti-Nano crowd became toxic, but this is just appalling.
Finally, I’d like to briefly comment about “Stygivoenator” here. I know that the paper calls it a nomen dubium, but I think they make a pretty good case for it being a junior synonym of N. lancensis. In fact, that’s what it is, in my unprofessional opinion. 25/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Finally, I’d like to briefly comment about “Stygivoenator” here. I know that the paper calls it a nomen dubium, but I think they make a pretty good case for it being a junior synonym of N. lancensis. In fact, that’s what it is, in my unprofessional opinion. 25/25
This really changes so much of what we believed about tyrannosaur phylogeny. @jgn-paleo.bsky.social and Zanno have created THE BEST TYRANNOSAUR PHYLOGENY YET. It opens up so many new possibilities to explore, which excites me as an aspiring paleontologist. 24/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
This really changes so much of what we believed about tyrannosaur phylogeny. @jgn-paleo.bsky.social and Zanno have created THE BEST TYRANNOSAUR PHYLOGENY YET. It opens up so many new possibilities to explore, which excites me as an aspiring paleontologist. 24/25
Pretty much every recent tyrannosaur phylogeny prior to this is how do I put it…kind of bad? I don’t mean that those researchers did a bad job necessarily. In fact, I respect all of the hard work that was done in numerous studies and I’m not trying to offend anyone here. 22/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Pretty much every recent tyrannosaur phylogeny prior to this is how do I put it…kind of bad? I don’t mean that those researchers did a bad job necessarily. In fact, I respect all of the hard work that was done in numerous studies and I’m not trying to offend anyone here. 22/25
Nano (Jane in particular) being thought to be a young rex. This led to those studies believing that tyrannosaurids had insane ontogenetic variation, so it’s likely that tyrannosaurids in general are overlumped. For example, Raptorex was thought to be a baby Tarbosaurus,- 16/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Nano (Jane in particular) being thought to be a young rex. This led to those studies believing that tyrannosaurids had insane ontogenetic variation, so it’s likely that tyrannosaurids in general are overlumped. For example, Raptorex was thought to be a baby Tarbosaurus,- 16/25
The phylogeny also has other very interesting results that leads into what I want to discuss here: what this changes about our understanding of tyrannosaur growth, ecology, and evolution. Many past studies built their understanding of tyrannosaur growth off of- 15/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
The phylogeny also has other very interesting results that leads into what I want to discuss here: what this changes about our understanding of tyrannosaur growth, ecology, and evolution. Many past studies built their understanding of tyrannosaur growth off of- 15/25
The phylogeny in this paper is shocking and wonderful. Turns out Nanotyrannus is not an albertosaurine, or an alioramin, or even a tyrannosaurid. It’s a nanotyrannid, a newly erected eutyrannosaur family. They literally named a family after Nanotyrannus. 14/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
The phylogeny in this paper is shocking and wonderful. Turns out Nanotyrannus is not an albertosaurine, or an alioramin, or even a tyrannosaurid. It’s a nanotyrannid, a newly erected eutyrannosaur family. They literally named a family after Nanotyrannus. 14/25
So yeah, Napoli and Zanno did an excellent job arguing for Nano’s validly and conclusively resolving the debate, and Jane is a second Nano species called N. lethaeus. I thought I’d be unconvinced by this split, but damn. Jane really was the odd one out. 13/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
So yeah, Napoli and Zanno did an excellent job arguing for Nano’s validly and conclusively resolving the debate, and Jane is a second Nano species called N. lethaeus. I thought I’d be unconvinced by this split, but damn. Jane really was the odd one out. 13/25
Chimpanzees were just young humans, because only adult human and young chimp fossils had been discovered. I mean after all, no juvenile humans or adult chimps were found. Clearly they’re the same. Secondary metamorphosis teleost analogue is parsimonious (like seriously?) 12/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Chimpanzees were just young humans, because only adult human and young chimp fossils had been discovered. I mean after all, no juvenile humans or adult chimps were found. Clearly they’re the same. Secondary metamorphosis teleost analogue is parsimonious (like seriously?) 12/25
And yes, T. rex being literally unrecognizable as an adult is a point against Nano=rex, but there are almost no shared features exclusive to the two. The one exclusively shared feature (wide temporal region) is convergently evolved, likely for excellent vision. 10/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
And yes, T. rex being literally unrecognizable as an adult is a point against Nano=rex, but there are almost no shared features exclusive to the two. The one exclusively shared feature (wide temporal region) is convergently evolved, likely for excellent vision. 10/25
-change it’s skull to the point where it’s literally no longer recognizable. Even tooth count doesn’t change during growth, much to my surprise. Past evidence turned out to be faulty.
The paper also demonstrates just how nonsensical a Nano + rex growth series would be. 9/25
The paper also demonstrates just how nonsensical a Nano + rex growth series would be. 9/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
-change it’s skull to the point where it’s literally no longer recognizable. Even tooth count doesn’t change during growth, much to my surprise. Past evidence turned out to be faulty.
The paper also demonstrates just how nonsensical a Nano + rex growth series would be. 9/25
The paper also demonstrates just how nonsensical a Nano + rex growth series would be. 9/25
However, let’s say that we still had 0 evidence of any adult Nanos. The differences between Nano and rex are so insane, that ontogeny explaining all of it just sounds like parody to me. Tyrannosaurus would have to shrink its arms, grow at least 7 more verts, and drastically- 8/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
However, let’s say that we still had 0 evidence of any adult Nanos. The differences between Nano and rex are so insane, that ontogeny explaining all of it just sounds like parody to me. Tyrannosaurus would have to shrink its arms, grow at least 7 more verts, and drastically- 8/25
First off is the maturity of Bloody Mary. Histology in the paper shows that it’s an adult that is about 20 years old. Once the EFS was found, the Nanotyrannus debate ended. If any Nanos are mature, they can’t be a juvenile of anything, so they can’t be a young rex. 7/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
First off is the maturity of Bloody Mary. Histology in the paper shows that it’s an adult that is about 20 years old. Once the EFS was found, the Nanotyrannus debate ended. If any Nanos are mature, they can’t be a juvenile of anything, so they can’t be a young rex. 7/25
T. rex and Nano which just seemed implausible to me even accounting for ontogeny, James Napoli’s preprint from last year, and seeing pictures of young T. rex specimens (such as Teen Rex and the fragmentary Baby Bob) that look nothing like Nano. 5/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
T. rex and Nano which just seemed implausible to me even accounting for ontogeny, James Napoli’s preprint from last year, and seeing pictures of young T. rex specimens (such as Teen Rex and the fragmentary Baby Bob) that look nothing like Nano. 5/25
For #FossilFriday I thought it’d be appropriate to celebrate the return of Nanotyrannus lancensis (left) and welcome the new species, Nanotyrannus lethaeus (right).
With this, comes a thread about my thoughts on the paper (link to the paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41...). 1/25
With this, comes a thread about my thoughts on the paper (link to the paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41...). 1/25
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 AM
For #FossilFriday I thought it’d be appropriate to celebrate the return of Nanotyrannus lancensis (left) and welcome the new species, Nanotyrannus lethaeus (right).
With this, comes a thread about my thoughts on the paper (link to the paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41...). 1/25
With this, comes a thread about my thoughts on the paper (link to the paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41...). 1/25
Considering that even Longrich is teasing something on the same day as Naish, Holtz, and Taylor…I think I know what this is about…
October 28, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Considering that even Longrich is teasing something on the same day as Naish, Holtz, and Taylor…I think I know what this is about…