[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [Re: Running T. rex]



>>> Patrick Strutzenberger <July-12th-1962@gmx.co.uk> 12/24/00 04:03AM >>>
> > And Sue is an "it," not a "she." (chris brochu)
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Why exactly is this?
>
> What's wrong with the first chevron criteria?
>
> Was Sue's first chevron too messed up to give an accurate sexing; is that why
> her sexual identity is no longer known?
>
> Jura
>
>
>AFAIK the sex was never really known, it was just named Sue after the 
>>discoverer.
>
>I heard or read somewhere that it's assumed to be female cause of it's size.
>That's not much more than a guess, I think. We don't know wether females >were 
>bigger or not.
>
>Patrick

Actually, there is a little more to it than that. When the discovery of "Sue" 
was first announced and a quick write up was done, the discoveres (Black Hills 
Institute) wrote that they believed "Sue" was a "she" for two reasons: 1) her 
size (and that fact that female reptiles in genreal are larger than males); and 
2) the lack of a chevron on the first caudal vertabrae (in alligators/crocs, 
this chevron is very important for males - it is the attachment for muscles to 
retract the penis. A lack of such an attachment point meant, in their minds, 
that "she" did not need one). Since then, the chevron in question has been 
discovered, so it's back to square one - are the larger, more robust T rex or 
the smaller, more gracile T rex female? No one knows - as long as they did, why 
should we worry?

Brent : )