The family containing both Dryptosaurus and Nanotyrannus has to be called Dryptosauridae Marsh, 1890, which has priority over the newly-named Nanotyrannidae.
That being said, the subfamily Nanotyranninae can be used for the subclade of Dryptosauridae containing Nanotyrannus but not Dryptosaurus
To clarify, this would be the nomenclatural situation if that particular topology is correct. If the other topologies where Nanotyrannus does not belong to the same family as Dryptosaurus are correct, then it could still be called Nanotyrannidae.
The family should have been labeled Dryptosauridae in that topology, to reflect the nomenclature if it is correct.
@TylerGreenfieId Not in the first phylogeny though right?
@TM9380 Right, in that case Nanotyrannidae has priority. I’m not sure which topology the authors favor since the paper is not out yet.
@TylerGreenfieId The issue is that this relationship with Dryptosaurids is only in 1/8 of the analyses. This was highlighted in James' thread. Every other analysis is just the two Nanotyrannus specimens which I don't think anyone would argue is synonymous with Dryptosauridse.
@Paleodude123 Correct, if Nanotyrannus does not belong to a family with Dryptosaurus, then Nanotyrannidae has priority. I’m not sure which topology the authors favor since the paper isn’t out yet.
@TylerGreenfieId I think they should be very careful choosing to erect a new family as well. In particular, there's already a clade name still valid before.
@SomniosusW I think it’s fine, since you could rerank it to a subfamily if Nanotyrannus falls within Dryptosauridae. The proper ranks and included taxa are what matter.
@TylerGreenfieId Or Appalachiosaurus and Nanotyrannus can be considered outside Dryptosauridae which would include Dryptosaurus aquilunguis, the Delaware dryptosaur, etc
@ChaseBrownstein Yes, I noted that that is possible in the other topologies. However, I found out that 'Nanotyrannidae' is a nomen nudum so can't be applied to any family (see my follow-up thread).
@TylerGreenfieId They also left my boi Nanuqsaurus out of this study. 💔
@themightymrpink For good reason, it's a fragmentary taxon that can negatively affect the resolution of a phylogenetic analysis.
CLUMSY MALE DINOSAURS INJURED FEMALES DURING MATING: Our new paper (Filippo Bertozzo et al. 2025), shows that a common tail injury seen in duckbilled dinosaurs was probably caused by heavy male dinosaurs clumsily crushing the spines of females during mating. /1
Sad news to report for in the world of paleontology. It sounds like the university of Carthage is moving forward with its plan to gut its paleo program. The eventual home of the collection is up in the air. Really sucks to see stuff like this
One of the largest temmnospondyls ever to exist: the gigantic Koolasuchus was also the last non-lissamphibian temnospondyl to exist. It survived into the Early Cretaceous of Australia when all other stereospondyls were long gone
Bakker's story of Nanotyrannus