Newfound T. rex relative was an even bigger apex predator, remarkable skull discovery suggests

An artist's illustration of Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis
The newfound species, Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis, was around the same size as T. rex and could have been even larger. (Image credit: Sergei Krasinski)

Paleontologists have uncovered a never-before-seen tyrannosaur species in North America that has been masquerading as a Tyrannosaurus rex for decades. The newly identified species is the closest known relative of T. rex and could have been even larger than the dinosaur king, a new study shows.  

The newfound sister species, Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis, was identified from a partial fossilized skull that paleontologists unearthed in 1983 while exploring the Hall Lake Formation in New Mexico. The calcified cranium was originally classified as a T. rex skull and has been displayed at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science (NMMNHS) ever since. But in 2013, a team of paleontologists decided to reevaluate the skull after noticing subtle yet suspicious anomalies in its shape.  

In a new study published Thursday (Jan. 11) in the journal Scientific Reports, the team revealed that the skull dates to between 73 million and 71 million years ago during the Cretaceous period (145 million to 66 million years ago). This makes T. mcraeensis between 3 million and 5 million years older than T. rex.

The stark age difference was the main giveaway that they had discovered a new species. But there were also major morphological differences that stand T. mcraeensis apart from the infamous dinosaur king.

"The most striking difference is the shape of the lower jaw, which is more slender and curved [than T.rex]," study co-author Nick Longrich, a paleontologist at the University of Bath in the U.K., told Live Science. "It also lacks the prominent bosses or hornlets found over the top of the eyes in T. rex."

T. mcraeensis also has fewer teeth than most other tyrannosaurs, which is one of the main reasons why the researchers believe it is T. rex's closest relative — because T. rex also has fewer teeth, Longrich said. 

Related: Nanotyrannus vs. T. rex saga continues: Controversial study 'doesn't settle the question at all'

The newly identified species is the closest known relative of T. rex, researchers claim. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

The size of the skull suggests this particular T. mcraeensis was around the same size as a typical adult T. rex, which grew to around 39 feet (12 meters) long — around the same size as a double-decker bus. But other individuals of the same species may have been even larger.

"It's not impossible" that T. mcraeensis could have been even larger than T. rex, Longrich said. "Since we only have one individual, it's unlikely we've found the biggest individuals of the species."

T. mcraeensis was likely the apex predator of its time, just like T. rex, Longrich said. And if the pair had existed at the same time, they would have "probably been pretty evenly matched" in a fight, he added.

T. rex and most other tyrannosaurs lived exclusively on an ancient landmass known as Laramidia, which was made up of what is now the western coast of North America from Alaska down to Mexico.

T. mcraensis would have roamed Laramidia, an ancient landmass that covered the West Coast of what is now North America. (Image credit: Dalman et al.)

Until now, T. rex's closest relatives were a pair of tyrannosaurs named Tarbosaurus bataar and Zhuchengtyrannus magnus, which are found in modern-day China and Mongolia. Both species dated back further than T. rex, which suggests tyrannosaurs may have first emerged in what is now Asia, although this has never been confirmed. 

The new findings suggest that Laramidia is a more likely origin of the tyrannosaur lineage, which would imply that these dinosaurs later spread to Asia. However, there is still uncertainty around this.

Laramidia was home to a wide variety of dinosaur species, including several other recent discoveries, such as Sierraceratops turneri — a horned herbivore similar to Triceratops that was described in a 2022 paper and was also previously misidentified as a different dinosaur species.

The new findings are further evidence that New Mexico is one of the best places in the world to search for new dinosaur species, study co-author Spencer Lucas, the curator of geology and paleontology at NMMNHS, said in a statement sent to Live Science. "Many new dinosaurs remain to be discovered in the state, both in the rocks and in museum drawers," he added.

Harry Baker
Senior Staff Writer

Harry is a U.K.-based senior staff writer at Live Science. He studied marine biology at the University of Exeter before training to become a journalist. He covers a wide range of topics including space exploration, planetary science, space weather, climate change, animal behavior, evolution and paleontology. His feature on the upcoming solar maximum was shortlisted in the "top scoop" category at the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ) Awards for Excellence in 2023. 

  • akiprev
    "the team revealed that the skull dates to between 73 million and 71 million years ago during the Cretaceous period (145 million to 66 million years ago)."
    I'm risking to be boring, but for goodness sake, Harry, before writing such an absurd article will you please explain me how we can find a discernable snout of t. rex sticking from ground after 70 million years? If your nose were sticking from ground just a couple of thousand years, it would certainly be obliterated, even if you're Cyrano's descendant.
    I also beg Live Science to edit such nonsensical articles, if there's any sense in visiting it.
    Reply
  • bolide
    akiprev said:
    "the team revealed that the skull dates to between 73 million and 71 million years ago during the Cretaceous period (145 million to 66 million years ago)."
    I'm risking to be boring, but for goodness sake, Harry, before writing such an absurd article will you please explain me how we can find a discernable snout of t. rex sticking from ground after 70 million years? If your nose were sticking from ground just a couple of thousand years, it would certainly be obliterated, even if you're Cyrano's descendant.
    I also beg Live Science to edit such nonsensical articles, if there's any sense in visiting it.
    The article does not say this fossil was found "sticking from ground." But fossils thousands or millions of years old are sometimes found at or near the surface of the ground. That doesn't mean they've been right there all that time!

    Over geological time spans, the Earth is constantly moving, rising, falling, shifting, eroding. A piece of the Earth containing a fossil may be brought into a position where it's subject to erosion. Over time, wind or water wear it away, until the fossil is exposed. Then, as you said, it probably will not last long. But it is in that comparatively short window of time, after it has been exposed, that it may be discovered right there at the surface.
    Reply
  • akiprev
    bolide said:
    The article does not say this fossil was found "sticking from ground." But fossils thousands or millions of years old are sometimes found at or near the surface of the ground. That doesn't mean they've been right there all that time!

    Over geological time spans, the Earth is constantly moving, rising, falling, shifting, eroding. A piece of the Earth containing a fossil may be brought into a position where it's subject to erosion. Over time, wind or water wear it away, until the fossil is exposed. Then, as you said, it probably will not last long. But it is in that comparatively short window of time, after it has been exposed, that it may be discovered right there at the surface.
    But I saw numberless fossils quite well preserved, without a trace of anything ever been on them, Even a snout sticking from a cliff, like in Scotland, or fossilized wings of dragonflies on the surface,, let alone bird tracks No way they could retain their shape after so much geological tumbling you talk about.
    I'm sure you had math in the school to plot the erosion rate and the damage on these superficial fossils. Just don't be afraid of Nat Geo.
    Reply
  • bolide
    akiprev said:
    But I saw numberless fossils quite well preserved, without a trace of anything ever been on them, Even a snout sticking from a cliff, like in Scotland, or fossilized wings of dragonflies on the surface,, let alone bird tracks No way they could retain their shape after so much geological tumbling you talk about.
    I'm sure you had math in the school to plot the erosion rate and the damage on these superficial fossils. Just don't be afraid of Nat Geo.
    Delicate fossils, like your dragonflies or bird tracks, will typically have been preserved in mud, which gradually is overlaid and hardens into rock. If the small volume of rock that contains them remains intact, the fossil does too. Researchers have sophisticated techniques to expose them fully and let them be seen in situ without damaging them.
    Reply
  • akiprev
    bolide said:
    Delicate fossils, like your dragonflies or bird tracks, will typically have been preserved in mud, which gradually is overlaid and hardens into rock. If the small volume of rock that contains them remains intact, the fossil does too. Researchers have sophisticated techniques to expose them fully and let them be seen in situ without damaging them.
    How you think that "delicate" fossils remain "intact" for million years on the surface, is beyond me. I cited the rock erosion rate many times in this forum. Remind you, ca 40ft/my.
    Anyway, I mentioned numberless sticking recognizable dinos' fossils (even lying on ground!) and their perfectly preserved tracks, so if you use a bit of logic can't claim they could stand in that state any time even near dozens thousands years.
    Reply
  • bolide
    akiprev said:
    How you think that "delicate" fossils remain "intact" for million years on the surface, is beyond me. I cited the rock erosion rate many times in this forum. Remind you, ca 40ft/my.
    Anyway, I mentioned numberless sticking recognizable dinos' fossils (even lying on ground!) and their perfectly preserved tracks, so if you use a bit of logic can't claim they could stand in that state any time even near dozens thousands years.
    Reading comprehension? I think I stated pretty clearly that ancient fossils found at ground level had only been exposed at ground level for a relatively very short time.
    Reply
  • akiprev
    You obviously misread me. I said "recognizable". If they ever were under some other layers they would be clearly melted with the surroundings. There are numberless snonts, legs, tails and even whole well fossils on the ground. Or take perfectly preserve tracks. How could they have been under anything to be so preserved? Just turn on some logic, as I've said.
    Reply
  • bolide
    akiprev said:
    You obviously misread me. I said "recognizable". If they ever were under some other layers they would be clearly melted with the surroundings. There are numberless snonts, legs, tails and even whole well fossils on the ground. Or take perfectly preserve tracks. How could they have been under anything to be so preserved? Just turn on some logic, as I've said.
    Bones (among other things) don't "melt." Softer body parts may be preserved by the chemical makeup of the surrounding soil, burial in ice, lack of oxygen, etc. Tracks may be preserved by being encased in mud, while the material the tracks were made in hardens into rock. There are numberless examples of these types of preservation for intervals ranging from hundreds to millions of years.

    How do you think we know about dinosaurs? Where did all those bones in our natural history museums come from?
    Reply
  • akiprev
    Melt or fused or whatever, if fossilizaion takes place mused nust be involved, so they had to be mashed with the surroundings. After hardening, who could separate them after any longer tract of time? Nonsense.
    As to dinos' tracks, google for them (finally) and just look at them better, You'll see they were never filled or covered by anything, being empty and of sharp edges.
    If I made a track and it fossilized, I'd be mad to think the footprints would be recognizable even in a 5000 years, let alone millions, blllions or whatever years. Just use common sense.
    Reply
  • bolide
    akiprev said:
    Melt or fused or whatever, if fossilizaion takes place mused nust be involved, so they had to be mashed with the surroundings. After hardening, who could separate them after any longer tract of time? Nonsense.
    As to dinos' tracks, google for them (finally) and just look at them better, You'll see they were never filled or covered by anything, being empty and of sharp edges.
    If I made a track and it fossilized, I'd be mad to think the footprints would be recognizable even in a 5000 years, let alone millions, blllions or whatever years. Just use common sense.
    "After hardening, who could separate them ... ?" Palaeontologists could. They do it all the time. They have imaging techniques to identify fossils in rock before they are exposed, and ways to then cut away the rock to reveal the intact fossil. The items they find are those that were not buried so deeply that they would be crushed by the pressure.

    The dino/bird/human tracks are brought (close) to the surface by the erosion processes that you keep referring to. They are clean because the dirt that filled them was washed away, or cleaned off by the paleontologists who found them. (If I showed you a perfectly clean and unmarked bucket, would you say that proves that there was never anything in that bucket?)

    I say again, How do you think we know about dinosaurs? Where did all those bones in our natural history museums come from?
    Reply