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

Re: Furculae

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <MKIRKALDY@aol.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 10:56 PM
Subject: Furculae

> I hate to play the skeptic here again, but the announcement at:
> http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/096799-4686-009.html
> about a furcula found on a 2/3 grown _T. rex_ says that the fragment is
> 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
> but is more likely homologous with the putative p23 rib and is not
> 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
> (whether or not this bone is a furcular fragment) to have been
> 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
> 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?
> Mary

As usual,the initial size estimates for any newly found large theropod
remains are exagerated.They always seem to have to be bigger than the
biggest T.rex (or African and South American carcharododtosaurines) known.

My 2 cents worth,
John Bridgman