There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tyrannosaurus rex

JurassicDD Offline
Member
**
( This post was last modified: 06-10-2020, 05:59 AM by JurassicDD )

(06-10-2020, 05:39 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.
3 users Like JurassicDD's post
Reply

Canada DinoFan83 Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 06-10-2020, 06:02 AM by DinoFan83 )

I forgot to mention to ignore the weight estimates for that.

By the way, you mentioned you'd trust Franoys over most other people about MOR 980's size. I found a quote from them about it.
"There are also specimens comparable to CM 9380 in size, so specimens that sue outsizes by about a 5%, or not much more than that, AMNH 5027, MOR 980, MOR 555, BHI 3033.
So far all of the above are over 11.5 m in length except perhaps Stan although that is not certain."


This would support a length around the 11.7 meters mark for MOR 980. Just thought you might want to know what Franoys had to say about it; I definitely agree with you that above all else, this specimen needs a good description and measurements.
2 users Like DinoFan83's post
Reply

JurassicDD Offline
Member
**
( This post was last modified: 06-10-2020, 08:42 AM by JurassicDD )

(06-10-2020, 06:01 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: I forgot to mention to ignore the weight estimates for that.

By the way, you mentioned you'd trust Franoys over most other people about MOR 980's size. I found a quote from them about it.
"There are also specimens comparable to CM 9380 in size, so specimens that sue outsizes by about a 5%, or not much more than that, AMNH 5027, MOR 980, MOR 555, BHI 3033.
So far all of the above are over 11.5 m in length except perhaps Stan although that is not certain."


This would support a length around the 11.7 meters mark for MOR 980. Just thought you might want to know what Franoys had to say about it; I definitely agree with you that above all else, this specimen needs a good description and measurements.

So going from that size comparison MOR 980s skull and mandable look huge larger than Sues its pubis looks very similar to Sues to it really does not look much smaller at all just shorter in length. 

Its very possible it is around 11.7 meters but possibly in the 8000 kg range so yeah i would personally say its in the same kind of range to Sue(8400 kg to 8828 kg) not quite as big though and quite a lot less than Scotty if we are going from persons et Al (8870 kg) and from what Franoys has said to me regarding the size of Scotty he stated it is possibly around 300-500 kg more than Sue so possibly 9128 kg to 9328 kg


But i can not be 100 percent concrete on MOR 980 with out any peer reviewed description. So yeah id say it is a large specimen going from the limited stuff we have but its up to you what you do lad.
3 users Like JurassicDD's post
Reply

Canada DinoFan83 Offline
Regular Member
***

Fair enough.
1 user Likes DinoFan83's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

Paulo Leite: " Zhuchengtyrannus commission "


1 user Likes Spalea's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

Sarah Whelan: " Finished Tyrannosaurus sculpt and paint scheme "


2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

" Let's bring back to life one of the most awesome fossil displays of the T. rex specimen, "BLACK BEAUTY" ❤


Black Beauty (specimen number RTMP 81.6.1) is a well preserved fossil of Tyrannosaurus rex. The nickname stems from the apparent shiny dark color of the fossil bones, which occurred during fossilisation by the presence of minerals in the surrounding rock. The specimen is housed in the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta, Canada. Black Beauty is the 14th most complete known skeleton ofTyrannosaurus rex, featuring 85 original bones (28% complete). Casts are on display in museums around the world, like the display at Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet in Stockholm, Sweden. In 2009, a paper by Jack Horner and colleagues illustrated the concept of parasitic infections in dinosaurs by analysing the lesions found on the cranial bones of Black Beauty. The specimen has been used to study comparative morphology between tyrannosaurids and Tyrannosaurus individuals, and some have suggested that Black Beauty should be classed as Dynamosaurus (=Tyrannosaurus). The video-animimation was created by Brendan Body "


2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Canada DinoFan83 Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 04-13-2021, 03:06 AM by DinoFan83 )

I'd like to make a post on the Tyrannosaurus models from Hutchinson et al. (2011), and a correction of their model for Sue.

As many of you already know, even their minimal model (9500 kg) is substantially larger than other estimates for Sue (such as 8400 kg via Scott Hartman or 8200 kg via Asier Larramendi). However, there are also a lot of issues plaguing this reconstruction. They are as follows:

-Their model for Sue has no spinal curvature and therefore the torso is longer and more voluminous than it would have been in life. This is in contrast to, say, Scott Hartman's Sue, which has about 10% more spinal curvature than that.
-Their model for Sue has the ribcage too wide; as they acknowledge themselves, "the torso of the mount is inflated in width due to a dorsal displacement of the transverse processes on the trunk vertebrae, which forced a dorsal displacement of the tubercular articulations and a lateral expansion of the rib cage as a whole."
By my measurement it's about 1.8 meters as opposed to 1.6 meters in Scott Hartman's model (given a 132.5 cm femur), so it's about 13% too wide.
-The dorsal ribs on the mount, instead of being angled backwards following Hartman, Larramendi, and Greg Paul's comment on the study, are strongly swept anteriorly, inflating the torso's volume. They're about 25% more anterior than the ribs in Hartman's, meaning the torso is 12.5% too voluminous with the rib articulation.
-Following Scott Hartman's standards for soft tissue, the torso and the neck seem (to me at least) to have about 10% too much of it.

The correction:
Sue's torso mass is listed as 5,560 kilograms for the minimal model. Applying each correction will result in a decrease in its overall volume as will be discussed below.

10% more spinal curvature: Volume reduction of 10%, meaning the mass is decreased to 5004 kilograms.
Deflating the ribcage 13%: Volume reduction of 13%, meaning the mass is reduced to 4428 kilograms.
Sweeping back the ribs 25%: Volume reduction of 12.5%, meaning the mass is reduced to 3936 kilograms.
10% less soft tissue on the torso and neck: The neck model is listed as 504 kilograms, and with the torso at 3936 kilograms, this reduces their volumes to 458 and 3578 kilograms, respectively. 

Overall, correcting all of this, the minimal model is reduced by 2028 kilograms. Thus, with all these issues fixed, the minimal model for Sue of Hutchinson et al. ends up at 7470 kg. Going by this, I would say that 7470-8400 kg is a good size range for Sue when considering both this and Hartman's model, with a mean of about 7900 kg.
Given that the mean estimation matches Asier Larramendi's Sue, and that Hartman's Sue as well as the corrected model both differ from the mean by about the same percentage (thus representing a plausible size pattern of seasonal variation), I'd say my correction is highly likely to be correct.
Bear in mind that Scotty would have been about the same size as this model, most likely.

EDIT: this does not use the new density of 0.95 for large theropods from Larramendi & Paul (2020). Applying it to these estimates changes the size range from 7770-8700 kg, with a mean of about 8200 kg.
2 users Like DinoFan83's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

" North American Tyrannosaurs


By ©2014 PaleoGuy on DeviantArt

The name says it all. This group of huge carnivores must have tyrannically ruled the land during the last part of the Cretaceous, 85 to 65 million years ago. Short but deep jaws with banana-sized sharp teeth, long hind limbs, small beady eyes, and tiny forelimbs (arms) typify a tyrannosaur. The Tyrannosauridae included such similar animals (in rough order of increasing size) as Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and of course Tyrannosaurus rex. A tremendous skeleton of Tyrannosaurus now stands guard in the Valley Life Sciences Building, which houses the UCMP and the Department of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley. Tyrannosaurs belong to the Saurischia, or "reptile-hipped" dinosaurs. Within the Saurischia, tyrannosaurids belong to the group of carnivorous dinosaurs known as theropods. Traditionally, the tyrannosaurs have been included within the Carnosauria. In this classification scheme, carnosaurs represent the largest carnivorous animals to ever walk the land.

Tyrannosaurs are surprisingly common in many North American fossil beds, especially their large, serrated teeth, which they shed periodically like most archosaurs. "


2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

" Dr Nicolás Campione standing beside a cast of Tyrannosaurus rex at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in 2009.

Credit: David Evans
Aside from being one of the largest of the known carnivorous dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex — T. rex, for short — is the dinosaur that has arguably received the most media exposure. It had a starring role in the "Jurassic Park" movies and has a renowned exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
The name Tyrannosaurus rex means "king of the tyrant lizards": "tyranno" means tyrant in Greek; "saurus" means lizard in Greek, and "rex" means "king" in Latin. In 1905, Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History at the time, named Tyrannosaurus rex.
T. rex was a member of the Tyrannosauroidea family of huge predatory dinosaurs with small arms and two-fingered hands. Aside from Tyrannosaurs, other Tyrannosaurid genera include Albertosaurus, Alectrosaurus, Alioramus, Chingkankousaurus, Daspletosaurus, Eotyrannus, Gorgosaurus, Nanotyrannus (a controversial genus that might, in fact, be an adolescent T. rex), Prodeinodon, Tarbosaurus and Zhuchengtyrannus.
T. rex fossils are found in western North America, from Alberta to Texas. "


2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

Paulo Leite: " T. rex commission "


2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Canada DinoFan83 Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 02-13-2021, 02:22 AM by DinoFan83 )

I'd like to post some food for thought on the sizes of UCMP's 2 most famous Tyrannosaurus specimens (UCMP 137538 and UCMP 118742), as well as the 'giant' skull MOR 008, for those who do not know.

UCMP 137538:
These writeups by SpinoInWonderland should be plenty sufficient to show why it is nowhere near as large as often thought. Not to mention this supports these.
http://sauropodomorphlair.blogspot.com/2...eally.html
https://www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonder...-370912332
https://www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonder...-373140864

UCMP 118742:
This maxilla's giant size was based on a combination of an incorrectly extrapolated growth trajectory and a misconception about its age. According to the Theropod Database, the maxilla is 81 cm long, which is over 6% smaller than Sue's 86.1 cm maxilla. And based on the mean estimate of 7900 kg for Sue I have calculated in this thread, UCMP 118742 would have been around 6600 kg. In fact, its maxilla is barely any larger than that of MOR 555 (80 cm), and judging by the fact that both were estimated at age 16 in Erickson et al. 2004, I would consider MOR 555 to be the best base.
Going off of the estimation for MOR of 6000 kg in Bates et al. (2009), UCMP 118742 ends up at 6200 kg - substantially smaller than Sue. And given that it's already an adult judging by the age estimation, there is no need to apply any growth rate for it. This is also worth a read.

MOR 008:
This is commonly famed as being the largest known Tyrannosaurus skull and larger than that of Sue. However, this is almost certainly not the case, for the following reasons:
-The skull's giant size appears to be based on poorly restoring the missing pieces; Scott Hartman agrees with this.
-Following the Theropod Database, the maxilla and dentary (72 and 88 cm) are substantially smaller than those of Sue (86.1 and 101 cm) as well as MOR 555 (80 and 99 cm), and aren't even much larger than those of the 6600-6900 kg AMNH 5027 (71 and 85 cm) or the 600-700 kg CM 9380 (69.5 and 85 cm). Going by this, even if MOR 008 was a smaller headed specimen I find it difficult to envision it exceeding 7000 kg, and it could well have been larger headed meaning possibly >5000 kg for it.

Hopefully this helps to clear up any misconceptions on these 3 specimens' sizes.
2 users Like DinoFan83's post
Reply

Czech Republic Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

Nice reconstitution !





" Make way for the largest meat eater in western North America, the king of Cretaceous carnivores, Tyrannosaurus rex, a.k.a. T. rex.

T. rex didn’t discriminate when it came to dinosaurs. No matter how large or small T. rex ate ‘em all!
The iconic dinosaur was a force to be reckoned with during the Late Cretaceous. Here you can see our carnivorous king taking a bite into a Triceratops! We guess when you’re more than 15,000 pounds and 42 feet long, with six-inch teeth that can crush bone there are not a lot of competitors who can challenge you.
FYI: This T. rex was unearthed by a rancher named Kathy Wankel in Montana in 1988! "
2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Online
Expert & Researcher
*****

Tyrannosaurus rex at the Field Museum:

There is no doubt that the T. rex is the heaviest and most powerfull carnivore dinosaur ever discovered, at this time, not even the largest Carcharodontosaurids (Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus) and the infamous Spinosaurus reached it body mass and strength! This animal had the strongest bite amount the entire carnivore dinosaurs and among the strongest bites in the entire animal kingdom. With around 9 tonnes in weight and almost 13 meters long (including bones, flesh, cartilage and fat), it was the "king of the beasts" in the Cretaceous.

Since July 2020, the Field Museum presents a life sized replica of the famous Tyrannosaurus rex "Sue" FMNH PR 2081, with an incredible array of details and shows the amazing animal that T. rex was. Check these images:


*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author



*This image is copyright of its original author


This is one of the most accurate reconstructions of the T. rex at this moment, and everyone can see the magnificent size and massiveness of this predator. Is fair to think that this animal weighed no less than 8 or 9 tons! And remember that the T. rex "Scotty" RSM P2523.8 is slightly more massive and heavier! shocked   Wow

Seeing this reconstruction, we can remember the words of the famous paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn:


"Tyrannosaurus is the most superb carnovorous mechanism among the terrestrial Vertebrata, in which raptorial destructive power and speed are combined."


*This image is copyright of its original author


Long live the King!
2 users Like GuateGojira's post
Reply

Canada DinoFan83 Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 10-16-2020, 07:23 AM by DinoFan83 )

(10-16-2020, 04:33 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: Tyrannosaurus rex at the Field Museum:

There is no doubt that the T. rex is the heaviest and most powerfull carnivore dinosaur ever discovered, at this time, not even the largest Carcharodontosaurids (Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus) and the infamous Spinosaurus reached it body mass and strength! This animal had the strongest bite amount the entire carnivore dinosaurs and among the strongest bites in the entire animal kingdom. With around 9 tonnes in weight and almost 13 meters long (including bones, flesh, cartilage and fat), it was the "king of the beasts" in the Cretaceous.

I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with this. As I have went over earlier in this thread, the average Tyrannosaurus is approximately 6 tonnes and Sue is most likely around 7.9 tonnes (the 9 tonne estimates are most likely incorrect; I can explain if needed).
Likewise, the average of both specimens of Giganotosaurus appears to be around 9.23 tonnes (therefore over 3.2 tonnes heavier than Tyrannosaurus on average based on known specimens) when correcting for the common problem of the incomplete pectoral girdle, our only adult specimen for Carcharodontosaurus is very likely in the 9-9.8 tonne range (therefore a mean of 3.4 tonnes larger than Tyrannosaurus on average based on known specimens), and Spinosaurus appears to be in the 10-12+ tonne size range on average based on known specimens, meaning that going by that, it was nearly TWICE the size of Tyrannosaurus on average. And at maximum size, Sue appears to be outmassed by MUCPv-95 by well over 2 tonnes (7.9 vs 10.29), SGM-DIN 1 by a mean of 1.5 tonnes (7.9 vs 9-9.8), and MSNM v4047/NMC 41852 by 4.1+ tonnes (7.9 tonnes vs 12+ tonnes)
For what it is worth, there's also Mapusaurus* (linked in the Giganotosaurus post), who appears to be 8.17 plus tonnes on average and 10.87 tonnes at maximum based on known specimens, meaning that based on these known specimens Tyrannosaurus is outweighed by over 2 tonnes on average and almost 3 tonnes at maximum by Mapusaurus.
Considering all this, I see absolutely no reason to think Tyrannosaurus was the largest carnivorous dinosaur ever discovered seeing as based on all of this, Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Carcharodontosaurus all appear to have been SUBSTANTIALLY heavier.

Edit: Also, for what it's worth, using Sue and Scotty to judge whether or not Tyrannosaurus was larger than any given theropod is a very poor idea. They are the largest and oldest in a sample of well over 30 adults, while all the giant carcharodontosaurids outlined above, as well as Spinosaurus, are only known from 1-3 presumably adult specimens that almost certainly aren't senescent and may not even be adults for all of them due to lack of study on that topic (ie: we don't know). 
Following logics of comparing extremes, who's to say Bucky, B-rex, DMNH 2827, Wyrex, MOR 009, and such are worse representatives? Of course they are also bad representatives for Tyrannosaurus as a species, but since there are a lot more specimens in their size class than in the size class of Sue and Scotty therefore they are if anything a better representative for Tyrannosaurus. The best comparison by far would be average vs average (a specimen close to 6 tonnes such as MOR 555, BHI 4182, LACM 23844, BHI 3033, MOR 008, MOR 980, or UCMP 118742), and as I have gone over above when based on known specimens, Tyrannosaurus is quite smaller not just at average but also at maximum and obviously at minimum.

*Just as a side note, do you remember the earlier discussions we had about Mapusaurus' size roughly a year ago, where I had proposed 8-8.5 tonnes for the giant pubis MCF-PVPH-108.145? As you can probably tell from the estimations outlined here, that is a SEVERE underestimate. Using the scenario of maximum parsimony, you'd have an animal approaching 11 tonnes based on the pubis, and even if we completely disregard the pubis we still have the tibiae that lead to >9.7 tonne specimens. So consider all my old posts on Mapusaurus from that discussion to be a FUBAR by now, considering how rife with underestimation they are.
2 users Like DinoFan83's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB