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

RE: Sue on ABC




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.
For better views of the skull and skeleton see the new issue of National
Geographic Magazine. I don't know what they did, but the skull looks totally
wrong. Real long, naries are really large. The legs look wrong. The distal
end of the femur is about 1/2 a foot from the distal end of the pubis. From
what I know, and have done some research on, the distal end of the femur
should be close to the distal end of the pubis. But if it was casted from
the actually specimen, then 'Sue' is a strange animal.
Tracy