|
Post by sbell on Apr 9, 2009 19:06:55 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. Scotty has been determined as more massive in this instance--based, among other things, on the femur circumference (one of the most useful measurements available). As far as PC has stated, there may only be one known theropod femur--a Giganotosaur--that is heavier; but of course those dinosaurs tended to be slightly more lightly built. For the record, Scotty is shorter than other ones; he just appears to be heavier. His skull, for example, is not as long as, say, the Wankel rex, but it is much higher and boxier. That said, yes the bigger/taller/meaner stuff is generally without any scientific merit, but it is an interesting exercise--mostly because we keep having to push the boundaries on how big we think these things could get.
|
|
|
Post by saurianarts on Apr 9, 2009 19:23:23 GMT
Maybe you can help this debate then. Since the skull is showing as boxier and shorter and showing signs of being a female morphotype, is there any discussion or merit to the division of T rex into 2 species as suggested by Bakker? He seems to argue tooth morphology, count and the shorter snout in some specimens like AMNH5027 as being distinct from the type specimen and others such as sue. The specimens listed in the 2008 edition as tyranno x also shows sexual dimorphism according to Bakker. I know he tends to push things a bit to get a debate going, but is there merit to his arguement or has it been dismissed. Like his45mph estimate of rex speed. I would think that in some specimens, distortion due to preservation could account for some differences. Not all of course. Yes it is an interesting excersize and I do not think that it is pointless, I just get irritated when some people take it to the point of arguing absolutes as far as who was badder. In my opinion it is pointless. It would be more important to see how gigantism evolved independently among "carnosaur", Spinosaurid and Tyrannosaurid lines and the environmental implications leading to this. pitting two dinosaurs that lived millions of years apart and in different ecosystems is not of merit to me. Given the setting any one of them may have come out on top in thier own environment at any one time. Or not. As far as how big they could get, that can be done without fictional Monster Island battles. I could very well be wrong, but it does not seem that any biped could get much larger than 15meters and 8tons in weight. Than seem to be where most of the lit i can access puts the max estimation.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 9, 2009 19:33:02 GMT
I know that Phil is uncomfortable--to say the least--so far with the idea of splitting T.rex into two (or more) taxa. Overall, the morphology is similar, there are just very wide morphological differences among them; but at the end of the day, they all look like a T.rex.
|
|
|
Post by saurianarts on Apr 9, 2009 20:58:07 GMT
I would agree. I would be very disappointed if the most famous dinosaur fossil in the world was no longer t rex. I tend to look at the differences as variations among different populations and time. i also tend to look to P C as the foremost authority on theropods and if he has not creditied the hypothesis I look at it with doubt. Again, it could just be Bakker trying to stir things up, which is not a bad thing. Thanks for the info. and again don't feel if you need to correct my info that I take offense. To me, there is very little about dinosaurs that can be considered as absolute truth. There is unfortunately too little evidence. I just enjoy the debate, as long as there is science to support it. i also don't have acess to all the most recent findings. I only have my encyclopedias and the available mainstream articles or whatever Barnes and Noble decides to have on thier shelves.
|
|
|
Post by Radman on Aug 27, 2009 17:08:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 27, 2009 17:45:17 GMT
Magnificent beast. Nice pics, thanks for sharing!
Anyone know the artist behind that gold/green illustration of Sue? You can see it in the arch, in the image containing the tail.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 27, 2009 18:14:06 GMT
Pirates + Tyrannosaurus Rex = EPIC WIN!!! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Radman on Dec 15, 2009 21:09:55 GMT
In case any of y'all missed it, I posted some pix of T-rex named Sue a while back (page 2 of this thread). Some nice ankle shots, they look pretty massive to me, discuss amongst yourselves. ;D
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Dec 15, 2009 21:34:14 GMT
In case any of y'all missed it, I posted some pix of T-rex named Sue a while back (page 2 of this thread). Some nice ankle shots, they look pretty massive to me, discuss amongst yourselves. ;D Thank you Radman. I'll let the photos speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 15, 2009 21:42:01 GMT
Yeah, but the 'argument' was really over how much flesh they would have had on them in life. I mean, check out that outline they use on the 'Sue' sign...are those too thin?
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Dec 15, 2009 21:45:35 GMT
Now ... THIS looks like the "REAL DEAL"!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 15, 2009 21:50:04 GMT
Aaarrghh I don't really care! I mean, yes, they do look a few inches thicker. Hooray. You're right, let's all go home.
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Dec 15, 2009 21:52:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Dec 15, 2009 21:57:01 GMT
See...now why can't we have shows on TV with CGI like that? Those dinos look totally awesome and accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 15, 2009 21:57:57 GMT
See...now why can't we have shows on TV with CGI like that? Those dinos look totally awesome and accurate. Seconded. Someone hire this fellow.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 15, 2009 23:16:23 GMT
Wow, they gave it a jurassic park T-rex head.
But, it's completely justifiable, because he added on a few inches to the legs.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 15, 2009 23:26:34 GMT
Wow, they gave it a jurassic park T-rex head. I don't know. I thought that at first, and it certainly is a little bit JP, but perhaps not stylised to the same extent. The snout does look a little on the short side in some of the shots admittedly. However, it is in proportion and doesn't have friggin' pronated hands, so hooray! It's good in my book.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 15, 2009 23:27:50 GMT
Look at that last picture. Straight out of jurassic park IV if you ask me
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 15, 2009 23:30:55 GMT
Aarrghh no more ultra-petty arguments please! By the way, this thread is very cool. I might attempt a full-body drawing over the holiday based on one of those Sue shots. And I'll give it tiiiiiny ankles. Kidding! Kidding!
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Dec 15, 2009 23:33:39 GMT
Make them like toothpicks!
And petty arguments is what we're all about! ;D
|
|