[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Anatomically correct T. rex?
Since you've asked for general comments, mine is that
there is no foundation for the huge, laterally
projecting orbital "horns" on the BMNH rex. There were
rugosities over the orbital area that indeed probably
supported keratinous extensions, either as a series of
scales (a la Paul) or as a single mass, but these were
broad and more or less vertically oriented, not
laterally, as in Carnotaurus. Other non carnotaurine
abelisaurids are more like what you see in T. rex,
such as Rugops and the new Rajasaurus. Another flaw is
the lack of external tooth flaps (artfully avoiding
the term "lips")which terrestrial dinosaurs and other
tetrapods needed to avoid dessication of the mouth
tissues and to help discourage ectoparasites. Even
with these the upper teeth would have protruded below
this line, but you wouldn't see these to the extent
they are shown.
--- JAMES ARONIS <Apollo@Mlink.net> wrote:
> With the recent spate of posts concerning
> anatomically correct
> theropods, specifically Tyrannosaurs, I was
> wondering if a striking
> restoration I have recently come across at CNN's
> site is anatomically
> correct. The restoration in question is of a _T.
> rex_ and can be viewed
> (head only) on this page:
> My curiosity mainly lies in the accuracy of the
> restoration's rather
> large orbital 'horns', its dentition the longest of
> which appear longer
> than I imagined and the somewhat high position of
> the nasal openings. I
> won't inquire about the 'lips' factor since that
> already occupies space
> in another thread, but anyone can comment on that if
> they wish. With
> what we currently know of _T. rex_, how accurate is
> this restoration?
> Thanks to anyone who can answer my inquiry.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software