|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 10, 2011 7:55:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 10, 2011 16:06:49 GMT
Hmm, it's the long and narrow-skulled morph and from Cleveland-lloyd, so it's probably based on some Allosaurus "atrox" material. But there are tons of allo skulls and bits o skulls out there, so without specimen numbers it's hard to say what it's based on. Could be something from a private collection.
The site also says that it's based on several partial specimens, as are pretty much all allosaur skulls except maybe Big Al (which is probably a new species). So artistic license or differences in interpretation can account for differences between skull reconstructions as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Apr 10, 2011 16:09:43 GMT
I envy the man who can spend over $1000 on a model skull...
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadToothCrackKnuckle on Apr 10, 2011 17:56:36 GMT
I agree with dinoguy2, the skull looks quite elongated. They probably used other species of Allosaurus for reference (as dinoguy2 stated) or the just took a deformed skull for reference. I probably wouldn't spend my money on it anyway!  |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 10, 2011 19:38:29 GMT
That's what concern me. If it's not an accurate piece or even supported by a museum or some authority somewhere there really is no interest for me. Don't feel to bad..I'm looking at this guy for half price from another dealer..but cheaper doesn't help if it's not a quality piece to start with. So would anyone here say this is " perfectly fine Allosaurus skull reconstruction " ? Normally when I think Allosaurus I think of this one :  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Apr 10, 2011 19:50:52 GMT
Me too. Classic A. fragilis.
|
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Apr 10, 2011 19:53:19 GMT
The reconstruction skull you're looking to buy seems to remind me of drawings I've seen of A. 'jimmadseni', which is from the more southern parts of the Morrison. And who is this dealer who's giving half off on reproduction skulls? I want some!
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Apr 10, 2011 21:36:58 GMT
That's what concern me. If it's not an accurate piece or even supported by a museum or some authority somewhere there really is no interest for me. Don't feel to bad..I'm looking at this guy for half price from another dealer..but cheaper doesn't help if it's not a quality piece to start with. So would anyone here say this is " perfectly fine Allosaurus skull reconstruction " ? Normally when I think Allosaurus I think of this one : Here's what Theropod database has to say on the issue... In short, it could be that the 'short skull' version, though much more common, is somewhat incorrect. While the snout length varied between individuals (or populations, possibly), the shorter reconstructions are probably too short. For the record, here's a reconstruction of Big Al, which has a perfectly preserved skull, and an A. fragilis  |
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 11, 2011 6:10:58 GMT
I really want to take a moment and thank you guys for the help ! Big Al has a very distinctive skull for sure, it's quite tall...much more than most other allosaurs. The skull in question seems to be pretty narrow though..maybe more than the diagrams there.  A. Jimmadensi also seems to look higher...hmm. So if I'm compiling all this info correctly the skull I'm looking at is to the best of our knowledge accurate ? |
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Apr 11, 2011 11:28:12 GMT
Hm. After some further investigation of my own, I'll have to agree with you that this one isn't too accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 11, 2011 18:15:22 GMT
It just seems a bit too slim ..almost stretch out...but if there is actual specimen that looks like that I'd be fine with it...I just need proof. Expert opinions help too ! ;D
|
|
