[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Tyrannosaurus imperator
At 07:19 AM 6/18/98 -0700, Larry Dunn wrote:
>So, I know that the rigby T. "rex" has yet to be described, making it
>inappropriate to discuss it yet.
>But it seems people are discussing it anyway.
Ugh. Why not discuss something we can actually answer.
>In the latest issue of Prehistoric Times, Mike Melbourne writes that
>Rigby estimates the size of the animal's pubis to be 10-20% larger
>than giganotosaurus's pubis. The skull is reportedly two meters long.
> That's over six feet, last time I checked.
>It's so big, Melbourne reports, that some paleontologists have taken
>to calling it Tyrannosaurus imperator.
>So what's the deal, speaking preliminarily, of course?
>A new species just because it's a big specimen? Are there other
>differences -- Melbourne mentions (somewhat cryptically) larger, more
To my knowledge, Melbourne is basing his article on unsubstantiated
information. The skull length, for example, was information from the land
"owners", and cannot be verified since they tried to dig it up with a
backhoe. As discussed on the list, the initial data provided by Rigby do
not suggest an individual larger than Sue, or possibly even the type.
Also, can Melbourne NAME the paleontologist(s) who are using the name
"Tyrannosaurus imperator"? I'm not, for one.
Were the forelimbs even collected? We need Melbourne to give his sources.
Otherwise this is just more of the rumor-mongering that is very un-helpful
in dinosaur paleontology.
>Anyone know when we can expect a description (when will the critter be
>out of the matrix)?
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661