Tyrannosaurus rex

[JurassicDD]

(06-10-2020, 05:09 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: I suppose we can each stick to what we'd trust. I think that this (link) is the diagram; for what it is worth, as far as I can tell, since 2004 onwards, the main updates to Scott's Tyrannosaurus skeletals appear to be related to soft tissue, articulation, and posture while the TL of the specimens does not appear to have changed. But yeah, it's possible that post 2004 information will get something new.
As for BHI 3033, I think that both Scott Hartman's version and the 11.78 meters of the mount are plausible. This is something Franoys had to say about it:

"I know about his concerns; first I'm not sure there really is spacing between the skull and the cervical vertebrae, I did the restoration of all of the cervicals and attached the skull normally, what is true is that the neural spines of the neck are angled backwards, and they make it look as if there was a spacing, specially in the scan in Hutchinson et al 2011; but this is not the case when you look at how the skull is articulated in higher res photographs or scans. About the tail; it does seem like the specimen preserves a few distal caudal vertebrae, according to the BHI site, caudals 35 and 39-41 are preserved, and when scaling Sue's posterior region of the tail to them it ended up just like this, in fact that makes me wonder if the posterior most caudals in Sue's mounted skeleton aren't too small, and if the tail shouldn't be a bit longer, as Sue only preserves caudals up to caudal 35 going by Brochu's 2003 osteology.
There is no reason to be very concerned about the length however, there is enough margin of error for both reconstructions to be plausible. And after all, Tyrannosaurus tail is still not fully known."

Right that is a good find and as you can see in 2004 our ideas regarding the mass for Tyrannosaurus and most other giant theropods was a lot different to what we have now you can see how far we have come since then. Look at Sues mass me and you both know with current studies and how we currently view Tyrannosaurus there is no way an animal the size of Sue could mass 6400 kg you have been told plenty of times by people that know far better than we do its impossible thankfully you use 8400 kg for Sue and that is within the current weight range for that specimen. And even back then MOR 980 was in the 6000 kg range so with current estimates it should be brought in to the 8000 kg range so in the same kind of weight range as Sue. So the Chicago museum’s lead curator might be right.

But we can not be sure because there is no detailed peer reviewed study we can only really speculate and in the end it really does not matter that much. And you are right regarding Stan but im going from the more up to date stuff and that has Stan at 11.7 and its always a good idea to stay up dated but you do what you do no point us being toxic over it. Reply