[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Tyrannosaurus Sue!
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 8:30 PM
Subject: Tyrannosaurus Sue!
I went up to the Gainsville Natural History Museum today to see a cast of
Sue. I'm not going to bore you with wonder and awe because I didn't really
feel any (I'm not a T. rex fan, give me a huge pack of Allosaurs any day!)
They had alot of interesting things for people to play with. Very nicely
Anyways, I was wondering just how accurate is this skull reconstruction? It
appears to have a much more concave profile than other reconstructions I've
seen (they had a cast of the LA T. rex in the lobby.) The teeth seemed
really small to me (again the L.A. rex had much larger teeth) but the arm
bones were surprizingly robust compaired to the Wanckle (sp) rex.
Here are a few bad pics from my digital camera:
I also noticed that almost all of the neural spines from the first neck
vertebrae to a good third of the way down the tail appear to be arthritic or
crushed, something I've never heard mentioned before (which explains why HP
GSP's restorations have raised spines over the shoulder area and Sue does
My personal reaction, Sue was not an attractive animal. She seems to be
missing all of the graceful lines and curves of other rexes. Her 42 ft frame
was impressive but she appears to lack the powerful looking jaws of others
of her spieces. All in all a very interesting experiwnce:)
Well, if you check the archives (probably under Sue, someplace) you'll find
out that the skull wasn't corrected for the crushing it received during
fossilization. You'll also find more interesting information that will
answer your questions and some you hadn't thought of.
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca 92074