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

RE: putative Javelina T.rex specimen

On a recent trip to Terlingua, I ran into
a relatively new fossil exhibit six miles
east of Lajitas on the north side of hwy. 170.

It is still under construction and will soon
be a Dinosaur and Marine Fossil Museum when complete.
The gentleman was nice enough to allow me to photograph
some things.

Of note to this thread are two teeth he had labeled
as Dromaeosaurid. I recognized them not to be Dromaeosaurid
at all but to be Tyrannosaurid. Because of the rarity of
Texas Tyrannosaurid material I thought these pictures
could be of use to someone here.

Any opinions of the ID of the animal that lost these teeth
are welcome too.

I am sorry there is no scale the photos, but the largest
tooth is just under 2".

http://logojoe.com/images/teeth/P3194076B.jpg  800 x 600 195K
http://logojoe.com/images/teeth/P3194077B.jpg  800 x 600 185K
http://logojoe.com/images/teeth/P3194078B.jpg  800 x 600 177K

Joe Forks

Subject: Re: putative Javelina T.rex specimen
Posted for Chris Brochu.

In a message dated 3/28/2003 9:00:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu writes:

<< About a decade ago, a paper on variation in T. rex stated that TMM
41436-1 belonged to a different taxon as the specimen indicated a much
shorter face than in T. rex. More recently, C. Brochu suggested TMM 41436-1
is T. rex after all. What is the truth?>>

< From what I recall of HP Brochu's comments, he was MUCH less decisive in
his assessment. Something like "it could be T. rex." >

That's not entirely what I said:

"Carpenter (1990) argued that the Texas specimen (TMM 41436-1, an isolated
left maxilla) lies outside the range of shape variation for T. rex, but the
morphology of the promaxillary foramen and the number of teeth are both
consistent with T. rex (pers. obs.).  If it is a different species, it is a
close relative."

In other words, it's either T. rex OR a close relative.