[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sue on ABC
In a message dated 5/28/00 0:56:53 AM EST, email@example.com writes:
<< As a journalist writing for a general science magazine, I haven't
seen much new science of interest to our audience in Sue. She adds
some details to our understanding of T. rex that are important to
serious dinophiles and paleontologists. >>
Tracy Ford and I, having seen the news programs on the unveiling of the
skeleton of Sue, are wondering whether Sue really is a Tyrannosaurus rex.
Trouble is, the news shows are filled with quick shots and weird camera
angles that don't give you much of a handle on what the skull and skeleton
really look like. Not to mention that it's a cast (as far as I know), and
that the skull has apparently been "straightened out" from its original
crushed state. But the skull does look too long and too narrow occipitally to
be a T. rex like the one in New York, and the neural spines on the posterior
dorsal and anterior caudal vertebrae seem way taller than in the New York and
Carnegie specimens. Much too soon to jump to conclusions yet, even though
Stephan Pickering has given Sue the nomen nudum Tyrannosaurus
stanwinstonorum; the differences could be due to wonky casting, wonky camera
angles in the news shots, old age of the individual, all kinds of things.
Wonder whether anyone else has noticed these things or other peculiarites
about the skeleton.