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

RE: Rigby's rex (wasRe: the biggest predators)

Any additional information on Rigby's T-Rex dig? I did see a Glasgow
newspaper article in which there was going to be a museum near the Fork Peck
Reservoir housing at least a cast of the T-Rex and possibly a preparation
lab. This article was from about a year ago.


Bob Simon

        Steve  Brusatte wrote: 
> Rigby's Tyrannosaur, in my opinion, is the most enigmatic specimen and
> situation in paleontology today.  
> I still remember the first news article about the find, stating that it
> was larger than Sue and possibly a new species.  However, Rigby has been
> almost closed to the media, and there is still a legal problem.  I did get
> the chance to interview him in 1999...and looking back on it, I wish I did
> a better job.  Anyway, he did talk A LOT about the T. rex in our
> interview, and this is what I have in my notes that may be of some
> importance:
> *The specimen is under lock and key in Montana, and Rigby planned to work
> some more on it in the summer of 1999.  I haven't heard anything about any
> more work on the specimen, though.
> *Rigby accuses the owners of the land for all of the legal troubles.  He
> says that the two owners started to brew the controversy after they got
> themselves over $4 million in debt.  Apparently, their parents (now
> deceased) deeded the land on which the rex was found to the federal
> government 10 years ago.  However, the children "kept" the land (I don't
> know how), let Rigby and his Earthwatch team dig there, got themselves
> into a whole bunch of debt, and fearing prosecution, told the federal
> government about the specimen and the entire land situation.  Again, this
> is just from my notes, taken over a year and a half ago, and I wasn't all
> to familiar with the legal situation in the first place.  
> *Rigby says he has piles of T. rex bone, not all articulate, including
> parts of a skull, which was discovered disassociated in a 10 square foot
> area of rock.  The skull size is apparently average, but the pubes are
> incredibly large for a T. rex (he says 52 inches...and that does seem
> large).  He also says that four pubes were found, indicating two different
> individuals.  
> *He told me word for word that "it's beginning to look like these (other
> bones) belong to a second animal...is it the largest T. rex?  Maybe.  Most
> of our bones are coming from an average (size) T. rex, and the pubis may
> or may not belong.  If it does belong, it raises questions, questions
> about body proportions.  It is still possible that (it) was an average T.
> rex with big hips.  I also wouldn't bet that there is another meat eater.
> So, he didn't really discuss anything about a new species...
> I do recall that there was an article about this find in Notre Dame's
> alumni magazine.  I don't have the article, but if anyone is interested, I
> recommend trying to dig it up.  
> I doubt that much will come to fruitation with this situation in the near
> future.
> Steve