I would like to point out that there is no line numbers on your paper; also there is no visuals in this article.To help this problem find the pictures of the fossils in your paper.There is also no indentation to see when the paragraph starts. Next, there is no work cited page to be found and should added immediately. I do think most of the research is very sound so far yet you should go into further detail.
First off, the abstract did well to convene the general goal and content of the paper.
Additional anatomical references are recommended for each ontogenetic comparison.
A single comparison versus multiple comparisons to a theropod relatives better supports the argument.
On page 3, paragraph 3, elaborate on examples of young theropods with ontogenetic differences in the scapulocoracoid glenoid
The works cited should include a header. The title of books and paper should be consistently italicize for uniform citations. Scientific names of organisms should be italicized in the work cited
The science of the osteological and ontogenetic comparisons seem scientifically sound and well thought out. Looking at how you used other species that are tyrannosaurids or oviraptorosaurs, which are derived from tyrannosaurids. As well as the Tarbosaurus, which is a tyrannosaurid as well. Using species that are related to the Tyrannosaurus Rex supports your comparisons.
Very well-written and straight to the point to say the least, Mr. Yun! It does an excellent job of addressing the arguments brought to justify generic separation of "Nanotyrannus" from Tyrannosaurus, although there is still one factor that I feel you should address as well regarding supposed diagnostic features on "Nanotyrannus". This would be the difference in brain shape between the two taxa is used to justify the taxonomic validity of "Nanotyrannus", thus, I recommend citing this paper : http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129939
Kawabe S, Matsuda S, Tsunekawa N, Endo H (2015) Ontogenetic Shape Change in the Chicken Brain: Implications for Paleontology. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129939. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129939
It would further help with the case you are presenting, and also would help to clarify to anyone that brain morphology can change throughout ontogeny.
With respect to juvenile tyrannosaurs found in Lancian-age strata in western North America besides CMNH 7541 and Jane, Snively and Longrich (2009) report on an undescribed juvenile T. rex specimen (RSM P.2347.1) from the Frenchman Formation of Saskatchewan, which is ontogenetically intermediate between CMNH 7541 and LACM 28471 (holotype of Stygivenator molnari) (see http://tyrannosauroideacentral.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-jane-diaries-entries-36-43.html). Since you noted that contribution by Larson (2013) does not cite the description of juvenile Tarbosaurus by Tsuihji et al. (2011), it looks like you recognized the fact that even juvenile Tarbosaurus specimens have Gorgosaurus-like cranial features (e.g. T-shaped lacrimal), making it clear that juveniles of tyrannosaurine tyrannosaurids were somewhat morphologically similar to Gorgosaurus. Even though RSM P.2347.1 is undescribed, it may be useful to mention this specimen in your paper when discussing why Nanotyrannus is a T. rex juvenile.
Snively E. and Longrich N. 2009. A small juvenile tyrannosaurid specimen from the Frenchman Formation (Maastrichtian) of Saskatchewan. Frenchman Formation Terresrial Ecosystem Conference, Royal Saskatchewan Museum Contribution to Science Number 12: 46.
A new paper by Schmerge and Rothschild (2016) claims that Nanotyrannus is not just distinct from T. rex, but also an albertosaurine because CMNH 7541, Jane, and BHI 6437 have a dentary groove as in albertosaurines. However, the conclusions by Schmerge and Rothschild are complete bogus because those authors didn't examine the T. rex holotype or AMNH 5027 (both of which have a dentary groove; see http://tyrannosauroideacentral.blogspot.com/2016/01/by-way-that-groove-is-also-seen-in.html). Even worse, those authors don't mention the fact that the Tarbosaurus juvenile described by Tsuihji et al. (2011) has most of the cranial features that Larson (2013) used to distinguish Nanotyrannus from T. rex, including a T-shaped lacrimal. I discussed the paper by Schmerge and Rothschild with Stephen Brusatte and he totally agrees that Schmerge and Rothschild's paper is flawed and downplays the variability of the presence or absence of a dentary groove among tyrannosaurid specimens, including tyrannosaurines.
Joshua D. Schmerge & Bruce M. Rothschild (2016) Distribution of the dentary groove of theropod dinosaurs: Implications for theropod phylogeny and the validity of the genus Nanotyrannus Bakker et al., 1988. Cretaceous Research 61: 26-33 doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2015.12.016 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667115301415
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily