The Independent’s journalism is supported by our readers. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn commission.

Tyrannosaurus Rex may have been three different species - not just the T.Rex

Tyrannosaurus had a massive head and tremendous bite strength, walked on two strong legs, and had puny arms with just two fingers

Will Dunham
Tuesday 01 March 2022 10:01
Comments
<p>T. rex, meaning “tyrant lizard king,” has been the sole species of the genus Tyrannosaurus since the dinosaur was first described in 1905</p>

T. rex, meaning “tyrant lizard king,” has been the sole species of the genus Tyrannosaurus since the dinosaur was first described in 1905

King of the dinosaurs the Tyrannosaurus may have been three species and not just the single T Rex, researchers have claimed.

T. rex, meaning “tyrant lizard king,” has been the sole species of the genus Tyrannosaurus, recognised since the dinosaur was first described in 1905. A genus is a broader grouping of related organisms than a species.

A team of three researchers led by Baltimore-based independent palaeontologist and paleoartist Gregory Paul on Monday said variations they spotted in an examination of about three dozen Tyrannosaurus fossils warranted the recognition of two additional species: T. imperator, meaning “tyrant lizard emperor,” and T. regina, meaning “tyrant lizard queen.”

“After over a century of all specimens being placed into one species without the issue being carefully examined, the first and only analysis finds that the variation in Tyrannosaurus is beyond the norms for dinosaurs, and is distributed over time in a manner that indicates that Darwinian speciation from one (species) to two new species had occurred before the final dinosaur extinction cut off further evolution,” Paul said.

A tyrannosaurus skeleton at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum dinosaur and fossil hall in Washington, U.S.

Tyrannosaurus prowled western North America during the Cretaceous Period at the twilight of the dinosaur age before an asteroid struck Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula 66 million years ago, dooming the dinosaurs.

Paul and his colleagues cited differences in the robustness - some larger and others more lightly built - of the thighbone or femur, and differences in the number of the small teeth at the lower jaw tip among the examined fossils.

“It is a concern that this will be controversial because of the charismatic status of T. rex, but on the other hand the study would not be getting so much attention otherwise,” said Paul, whose study was published in the journal Evolutionary Biology

Paul was correct about the controversy. Some paleontologists not part of the study disagreed with its conclusions.

“Ultimately, to me, this variation is very minor and not indicative of meaningful biological separation of distinct species that can be defined based on clear, explicit, consistent differences,” University of Edinburgh paleontologist Steve Brusatte said.

“It’s hard to define a species, even for animals today, and these fossils have no genetic evidence that can test whether there were truly separate populations. Until I see much stronger evidence, these are all still T. rex to me, and that’s what I’ll be calling them,” Brusatte added.

Paul did not rule out that differences among individuals or differences between Tyrannosaurus males and females were at play, but called this unlikely.

A child looks at a 67 million year old skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus, named Trix, during the first day of the exhibition “A T-Rex in Paris” at the French National Museum of Natural History in Paris

Tyrannosaurus had a massive head and tremendous bite strength walked on two strong legs and had puny arms with just two fingers. Perhaps the largest-known Tyrannosaurus is a specimen named Sue at the Field Museum in Chicago, at 40-1/2 feet (12.3-meters) long and an estimated 9 tons. The new study concluded that Sue is not a T. rex but rather a T. imperator.

The scale of the differences among the three proposed Tyrannosaurus species, Paul said, is akin to the differences between a lion - scientific name Panthera leo - and a tiger, scientific name Panthera tigris. Lions and tigers are members of the same genus, Panthera, but have enough differences that they are recognized as separate species.

Palaeontologist Thomas Carr of Carthage College in Wisconsin, whose 2020 study of variation in T. rex found no evidence of multiple species, also differed with the new study.

“Perhaps most damning is the fact that the authors were unable to refer several excellent skulls to any of the three species,” Carr said. “If their species are valid, then more than just two features should identify them: nearly every detail - especially in the head - should be different.”

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in