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


I hate to play the skeptic here again, but the announcement at:
about a furcula found on a 2/3 grown _T. rex_ says that the fragment is 10.5 
inches long (26.67 cm) and is 3/4 of its original size.  

In Chris Brochu's monograph on FMNH PR2081, "Memoir 7, Osteology of 
_Tyrannosaurus rex_:  Insights from a Nearly Complete Skeleton and 
Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Skull," pp. 95-96, he writes:

    "The putative _T. rex_ furcula figured by Larson (2002) is furcula-like, 
but is more likely homologous with the putative p23 rib and is not associated 
with the appendicular skeleton."

    "Based on relative size of the furcula [for FMNH PR2081] and other 
postcranial elements in other tyrannosaurids, we estimate the furcula of FMNH 
(whether or not this bone is a furcular fragment) to have been approximately 
20 cm in length.  This seems rather short, but the furculae of other 
tyrannosaurids are also rather short."

So, a fragment of a "furcula" in a _T. rex_ which was not fully grown is 
longer than a complete furcula would have been in a mature _T. rex_?   Not even 
using Jim Cunningham to do the math :), the complete furcula on the 
specimen would have been 35.36 cm compared to FMNH PR2081 at 20 cm?