I respond to Andrea cau's arguments

I recently noticed that Andrea Cau, an Italian paleontologist, criticized Gregory S. Paul's paper twice, the first under a post specifically made for the paper and the last time recently in an online debate, although it's clear from the comments that he also implies Paul's paper. Cau, when talking about Paul's measurements, wrote: "All claimed measurements are based on photographs, which is not a solid argument because scale bar placement may bias the estimate due to photographic distortions. This is particularly relevant for 3-dimensionally preserved bones. One specimen is not even measured. I am skeptical about this claim pending proper measurements." The problem is that Paul took photos with the fossils flat and the framing stabilized, therefore with minimal distortion (Paul comm on the dinosaurs mailing group). "Based on the number of neurovascular foramina in the subcutaneous surface of the dentigerous bones, a corneous tegument cannot be excluded. That said, alveoli decrease with size is already documented in Tyrannosaurus." , Voris et al 2025 shows an alveolar decrease only on the left maxilla of Sue, in the right maxilla and in the dentary it is not present, it could be an extra tooth that grew later with the other teeth that became larger and was then resorbed. "Specimen BHI6439 is a partial dentary lacking the posterior part, so the actual number of alveoli is not known. Stating that it had 13 teeth as an adult is an error due to assuming the alveolar series is complete, which is not the case." What is true is that if we compare the dentary with other Tyrannosaurus teeth, usually after that preserved part other teeth do not grow, ""Baby Bob" is a commercially-owned specimen so it's unclear how much is the fossil and how much is restored. I'd avoid commenting on it." This is not a good argument since despite being commercially-owned its veracity has been verified by many paleontologists who have seen it (you can see this online by doing a quick search). "Again, the specimen KUVP 156375 is not complete, and it is missing the end of the alveolar series... https://media.invisioncic.com/e327962/monthly_2020_02/5e442c0a81877_KUVP156375.thumb.jpg.07420bab964e1b4f3665668d801e3e44.jpg" The alveoli end before the part where the maxilla is damaged, so this argument doesn't hold up, you can also notice it from the photo sent by himself and also by Paul 2025. His post on the subject also partially analyzes Paul 2025's question about proportions, except that Cau fails to explain why the arms of juvelines are longer than those of adults. In no amniote do the limbs become shorter as they grow, he is right about the proportions, but they were not a central topic of nanotyrannus. Furthermore, it does not explain why the growth of Tyrannosaurus, if we included Nanotyrannus, would be comparable to a bony fish (Paul 2025), and does not even remotely coincide with Tarbosaurus or Gorgosaurus (Paul 2025, Longrich and Saitta 2024). Carr 2020 does not adequately address the data presented by Larson 2011, which proves that certain anatomical features in theropod dinosaurs do not change. Jane, moreover, on the most recent data was very close to being an adult, and its adult dimensions, like those calculated for Nano, Bloody Mary, Jodi, Stygi, and Zuri, would not coincide with those of Tyrannosaurus, while the true Tyrannosaurus juveniles found match almost perfectly. Conclusions based on the data analyzed, Nanotyrannus, etc., are valid. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EBNtA16ix/ https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FFkz79ToJ/