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

Re: An Odd Question on Tyrannosaurs.....




Why do you assume the sternum on Paul's Tyrannosaurus is cartilaginous?  It's true he sometimes adds cartilaginous sterna (or parts of them) to his reconstructions (as seen in Archaeopteryx and ornithomimids), but he puts ossified ones there if they are known.  You can't tell from a Paul skeletal reconstruction whether a sternum was ossified or not, so I'm certainly not saying it's wrong.  I'm not sure whether sterna have been found for Tyrannosaurus rex itself.


Right.... Sometimes cartilaginous sterna, or parts of them, are added when it logically makes perfect physical sense that they were there in the first place, and other times they are added in as being ossified when they have actually been found to be such. This is completely true. This is also why my thoughts are as they are. And sorry if I interpreted incorrectly what you were saying there. I must have gotten some wires crossed when I was reading it. I too have never heard of a rex being found with ossified sterna.... or a sterna of any sort for that matter. When some of the more complete rex specimens were found, how articulated were they when it came to the chest area? The same goes for the Gorgosaurs and bataars..... Were their sterna articulated with, or in the proximity of, the coracoids? These are the questions that make me curious. But anyway, I tend to think it's a sure thing that the rex apparently had something in-between tho! se! ! coracoids. This is why in my mind, what is drawn by Mr. Paul for a rex is cartilaginous...... This is me being my usual cautious self. Think of it this way..... With a character state like that, if it hasn't been completely verified, I don't like to make it solid. Know what I mean? I knew of the Gorgosaurus ossified sterna, but I didn't know about the bataar. The bataar makes me think that maybe the rex had ossified sterna after all..... And really, now that I think of the bigger picture, so does the very fact that Gorgosaurus had the same. Only makes a bit of phylogenetic sense right? Or am I being a bit presumptuous with my reasoning?

But regardless, thanks.

Kris