|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 13, 2009 21:49:26 GMT
This thread will include any questions pertaining to either of these giants.
Sbell, can you tell me a little bit more about Scotty? Or link me to a page containing information?
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Mar 13, 2009 22:27:43 GMT
Why don't you just make a generic trex thread?  |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 13, 2009 23:08:18 GMT
Because this is more specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 13, 2009 23:13:38 GMT
At this point I can't say much--there isn't much published research. That said, I can say that Scotty is in the top 5 for completeness (by bone count--it's a funny thing) and seems to be ready to topple the other 'biggest' T rexes by quite a wide margin. Not necessarily in length or height, but in weight/mass. The femur is almost ridiculously large and thick, and may even indicate being of a mass that outdoes the carcharodontosaurs. As well, the osteology indicates an animal that is so old that it can't be measured (I am not a histology guy, so I can't really explain very well).
Fortunately, there will be at least some writing done on Scotty come May--when we have our conference, and several papers will include info about him. Attendees will of course be receiving the extended abstract volume, but I am going to assume that the Royal Saskatchewan Museum (the printing agency) will be making the volume available for sale as well (if anyone is interested, let me know now and I can try to ensure that extra copies are kept available for this purpose).
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 13, 2009 23:27:38 GMT
How much old is Scotty? Is he older than Sue or Stan?  |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 13, 2009 23:28:14 GMT
Ah. So of course Scotty isn't well known to the public, but comes May more information will be issued? If you could,I'd be interested in a copy sbell. I appreciate the the information that you had knowledge of though, and I'm interested in learning more in the future about this specimen. If you find any more news/info, please let me know.  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 14, 2009 0:58:17 GMT
How much old is Scotty? Is he older than Sue or Stan? Immeasurably so--it has to do with histology. Sue & Stan (actually a young specimen) can be measured--the holes (whatever they are called) apparently have collapsed back into an indistinct form (but the size precludes being anything but full grown). |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 14, 2009 2:04:43 GMT
Well that's certainly raises problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 14, 2009 2:23:55 GMT
Well that's certainly raises problems. Well, it does, but at the same time it is still meaningful--after all, we now know that they can reach a near-geriatric state! Of course, in 'reptiles' that doesn't mean quite the same thing. It would be more like that tortoise that reached over 100 years old (although not that age)--an old beast that was not growing more than bare minimum over the years. We will know more soon--the published work up of Scotty (Phil Currie is working on it) is also supposed to be published fairly soon--and then we will be able to be more clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 14, 2009 4:15:28 GMT
Ah I see. So we're fairly positive it was older than Sue (Who was 28 years old), correct?
Published and available for purchase? Or will this be an article?
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 19, 2009 17:48:13 GMT
Okay, so I have a little more info now. I have to stay circumspect about all of the details, but here is the distilled version:
Conservative estimates of Scotty's weight, based on Tibia and especially Femur dimensions (a standard measurement) is about 5.2-5.3 tonnes(substantially higher than others).
The only larger known theropod femur is from the type specimen of Giganotosaurus carolini.
Some parts are shorter (like the skull) are shorter than in other rexes, but are more massive.
Some parts of Scotty are not ossified or sutured as expected, given the age--this may be pathological.
Remodelling of the bone in the histological sections means that Scotty's age cannot be determined; this tends to occur in very old animals. The oldest measurable specimen was 28 (a MOR specimen) ergo Scotty was either older, or aged more rapidly.
Obviously, I am giving the detail-free version of things, and cannot be more specific about a lot of things. The good news is that the full Scotty monograph is supposed to come out fairly soon as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2009 19:01:38 GMT
Okay, so I have a little more info now. I have to stay circumspect about all of the details, but here is the distilled version: Conservative estimates of Scotty's weight, based on Tibia and especially Femur dimensions (a standard measurement) is about 5.2-5.3 tonnes(substantially higher than others). The only larger known theropod femur is from the type specimen of Giganotosaurus carolini. Some parts are shorter (like the skull) are shorter than in other rexes, but are more massive. Some parts of Scotty are not ossified or sutured as expected, given the age--this may be pathological. Remodelling of the bone in the histological sections means that Scotty's age cannot be determined; this tends to occur in very old animals. The oldest measurable specimen was 28 (a MOR specimen) ergo Scotty was either older, or aged more rapidly. Obviously, I am giving the detail-free version of things, and cannot be more specific about a lot of things. The good news is that the full Scotty monograph is supposed to come out fairly soon as well. I can't wait to read the monograph |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 19, 2009 20:32:19 GMT
So I presume it is probably larger than Carchardontosaurus? Neither can I Sid. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 19, 2009 21:17:53 GMT
So I presume it is probably larger than Carchardontosaurus? Neither can I Sid. More massive than any carcharodontid, yes. With the possible exception of that Giganotosaurus type (however, I don't believe they are usually as massively built). |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Mar 19, 2009 23:02:28 GMT
How long was this beast?  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Mar 19, 2009 23:47:39 GMT
I don't know--that is a value they didn't give. I can say with fair certainty that he(?) is shorter than some other rexes--head is shorter, for example. But much more heavily built.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Mar 20, 2009 5:00:15 GMT
That's a feature Tyrannosaurids, all of them, share. Tyrannosaurids were shorter theropods, but bulky. This is why Tyrannosaurus was so massive. He was just as long as any other theropod (Besides Spinosaurus. With Gigantosaurus your're just spitting hairs), and "hefty". And at the same time, Carnosaurs like Gigantosaurus which were the same length had a slender build.
Wouldn't it be incredible if we discovered a Tyrannosaurid larger than Tyrannosaurus Rex?
|
|
|
|
Post by saurianarts on Apr 9, 2009 16:42:01 GMT
Where do you guys get your info? Has anyone read the new book by Indiana press? Sue's weight is estimated at over 6 to 7 tons. both Sue and Stan's femurs measure longer than Scotty. 1340 and 1310mm compared to Scotty 1290mm as confirmed by Currie 2005. tyrannosaurids had more comact bodies and shorter tails compared to the proportions of other theropods. This is an adaptation to environment and to allow for strength and speed. Carcharodontosaurids and Spinosaurids as well as Allosaurids were less advanced theropods and more primitive in skull, brain and overall skeletal design. Spinosaurids being somewhat more speciallized in skull morphology. When comparing skulls of Tyrannosaurids and Spinosaurids, there is a good analogy in modern day crocodilians. See gavials and nile or salt water crocs. Gavials have much weaker skulls for a specialized diet of fish and smaller prey. This can be observed in some crocodiles such as Johnston's. The Gavial can exceed the crocodiles in length but not weight and certainly not predatory ability. They just are not built to do this. The crocodile's skulls are built to crush bone and take large struggling prey. Not perfect but a decent way to compare whay may be the reason for the occurence of Spinosaurids along side Carcharodontosaurs in Africa and South America. As far as Tyrannosaurids, they were built to take on large hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. Prey that Carchs and spino's never encountered and therefore were not adapted to. In a fight I would have to put the Tyrants way ahead of the others taking into account the jaw strength, binocular vision and brain size. This is a pointless arguement though as tyrannosaurids of large size were absent from the southern hem and vice versa. Carcharodonosaurids were extinct by the time of T rex and never came into contact with each other. The fictional pitting of animals in gladiator battles is not something that would happen in nature as predators tend to avoid each other with few exceptions. This is a human ego issue. Each of these animals was adapted to thier environment ans prey available. Scotty is overrated, just as Peck's rex was supposed to supplant Sue. One of Horner's finds, C-rex may prove larger, but is a badly preserved specimen. As far as largest size, it seems that the oxygen levels of the Mesozoic and the laws of physics will dictate the largest overall size of a bipedal animal at between 12 and 15 meters. The difference here is probably the length of tail and lengthening of the snout of the animal. None of this dictates the power and effectiveness of the animal as predator. Prey and environment does.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 9, 2009 17:11:31 GMT
Seeing as this is the Scotty and Sue thread, please keep your discussion to that.
That said, your book is lovely--but it is incomplete. The info on Scotty was not properly updated, because there was not much to be updated during the writing. Also, check the publication date--there has been a recent revision (I believe it came out in 2008). I myself have personally read the extended abstract discussing many of the newer details about Scotty. By Phil Currie. Who will be here Monday.
Did I mention that I am the GM at the T.rex Discovery Centre? The place where Scotty is housed and researched (by a team from the University of Alberta, headed by Currie)? And that we are holding a conference here in mid-May, complete with an abstract volume wherein the Scotty details--however brief--is published?
So that is where I get my information from. Talking to the researchers.
|
|
|
|
Post by saurianarts on Apr 9, 2009 18:08:09 GMT
My edition is the 2008 edition. I apologize for my misinformation regarding the size of the femur measurements. As noted in the lit, Scotty is described as being of about Sue size. I would love to know the size of the animal as now estimated. I am not in any way trying to say that there are not larger specimens than Sue. I hope and welcome for their discovery. I do however have issues with promotions of specimens as "largest ever" until a specimen is fully prepared, cast and mounted by the Paleontologists. As i said in my previous comment, even Peck's rex suffered from this false promotion based on a specimen that had not been prepared. I welcome Currie's final notes and description of the specimen following preparation.
|
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
