It seems the time has come for some sort of review of the situation, with an open mind, as it seems possible there is a tendency for the default position to be, ”another species” with the kudos that brings.

The nice thing about finding young and old, male and female of a species, is how this gives a hugh new dimension to what is known of that species ! Equivalent to colour TV instead of black and white and 3D instead of 2D! Much greater potential for interest and knowlege.

Dear Drtachyion.
I think I didn’t explained my example in detail. Let us assume that a meteor comes right now, the actual animals go extinct and some different species evolve afer that (just like at the end of the Cretaceous). From these one species, one becomes intellignt after many millions of years and develops a civilization. They produce their own archeologists, who do digging in Komodo Island, find the rests of a baby Komodo dragon and an adult. Will they classify them as different species, or they will be able to reconstruct the growing process of Komodus varanensis?
Greetings.

That’s where most fossils are found, set in stone; they are stone, for Pete’s sake! Had to get that out of my system.

In all seriousness, we never really will completely understand dinosaurs, how can we? They died out (well most of them) millions of years ago.

Big surprise…Dinosaur Science is NOT set in stone!!! Not Black and White!!!
In the words of John Henson of the late, great, still missed show “Talk Soup”—
“WOW!!!” (Sarcasm added).

Seriously, though—
I actually happen to agree with Drtachyon:
“The important thing to remember is that science is a self-correcting, human endevor that attempts to explain our world, there is no final word on virtually any subject.”

Amen to that.
I also agree in some things with Both Dwa AND Norman-Uk.
I just wish scientists would not be so quick to declare certain things as being “definitive” when there ARE “no final word on any subject.”
Some may disagree and say that scientists are NOT definitive about anything. I would disagree with that. But that’s me.

Karl Popper (no “mean” philosopher of science, wouldn’t you say?) said it best: “All knowledge is tentative.”

Well, they would be some really weird archeologists for one thing, they don’t typically classify reptiles . I don’t really understand the hype around this. Concerns about picking fossil adults from fossil juveniles has been with us for a long time, Nanotyrannus was a controversial species to begin with for this very reason. One problem is that there are literally about 20 definitions for what a species constitutes depending on what field of study you are engaged in. The traditional definition that jumps to mind is that a species is a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring, given favorable circumstances. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it does become very complicated when working with fossil specimens.

Loren, your title’s caveat of “What else is wrong?” seems a little over the top. There is still very much we don’t or can’t know. The important thing to remember is that science is a self-correcting, human endevor that attempts to explain our world, there is no final word on virtually any subject.

There could of course be ramifications for cryptozoology giving more interest in the possibilty of same, instead of different species.

DWA
I quote you
”But once again, all we have is speculation. It makes sense to revise speculation based on further evidence; but it remains speculation, as we’ll never see one alive. Almost nothing we “know” about dinosaurs is really knowledge. Intelligent reasoning, based on considerable evidence, but you can touch a coelacanth. (If you catch one.)”

Are you not being rather absolutist about proof? With dinosaurs its not all speculation and if not the speculation can be limited. For example an adult tyrannosaurus was large, is this not proven. It is not absolutely known if it was a scavenger or a hunter and here we have speculation, not the guesswork interpretation but the theorising interpretation within limits

Now off to make some more of the usual daily arbitrary decisions about this and that.

I was also surprised to see a way teeny Nanotyrannus.

But once again, all we have is speculation. It makes sense to revise speculation based on further evidence; but it remains speculation, as we’ll never see one alive. Almost nothing we “know” about dinosaurs is really knowledge. Intelligent reasoning, based on considerable evidence, but you can touch a coelacanth. (If you catch one.)

Maybe this is a newborn, and not a larger, grown specimen? Most living things begin very much smaller than when they die, correct?

Or perhaps this is a drawing of Nanotyrannus in comparison to a True Giant?