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

Re: Exact length of Sue



Thanks! I had thought both legs of AMNH 5027 were replicas of CM 9380, which I 
assume is the holotype we sold to the Carnegie in the 1940s. Now I’m going to 
have to revise what I tell visitors!  They often assume that what they see are 
“fakes”, by which they mean copies. They are happy to learn that most of our 
4th Floor fossils are genuine, although I always add that most fossils are 
themselves casts of the original bones.

Jerry Alpern

On Apr 21, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:

> Half of the tail (and all the legs) of AMNH 5027 are imaginary. And 
> incorrectly restored in both cases, unfortunately.
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/51bf3928e4b09edc5f83d0af/51bf5cdae4b05a61167e0279/1382741309923/Tyran
> nosaurus+AMNH+vs+CM.jpg?format=750w
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
> Email: tholtz@umd.edu Phone: 301-405-4084
> Office: Centreville 1216                      
> Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
> Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
> http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
> Fax: 301-314-9661             
> 
> Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
> http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
> Fax: 301-314-9843
> 
> Mailing Address:      Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
>                       Department of Geology
>                       Building 237, Room 1117
>                       University of Maryland
>                       College Park, MD 20742 USA
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of 
>> Victoria & Jerrold Alpern
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:49 AM
>> To: dariusnau@gmx.at
>> Cc: dinosaurtom2015@seznam.cz; DML
>> Subject: Re: Exact length of Sue
>> 
>> How does the length of FMNH PR 2081 compare to AMNH 5027?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Jerry Alpern
>> AMNH Tour Guide
>> vjalp@mindspring.com
>> 917-623-1446
>> 
>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Darius Nau <dariusnau@gmx.at> wrote:
>> 
>>> FMNH PR 2081 seems to be almost exactly 12.3m (40.35feet) long. That is the 
>>> length given by Hutchinson et al. (2011), who laser-
>> scanned the skeleton, and one gets almost the exact same figure when 
>> measuring the axial length in Scott Hartman's (2013) skeletal
>> reconstruction of the same specimen.
>>> These are probably the most accurate representations of its total length 
>>> that are available, and I'm willing to trust them over
> a
>> museum website any day.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As regards intervertebral spacings, they must surely add to the total 
>>> length, although how much is a good question. I'm a bit in
> the
>> dark as to how much these estimates and reconstructions already account for 
>> them tough.
>>> 
>>> REFERENCES:
>>> Brochu, Christopher A. (2003): Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex:
>>> Insights from a Nearly Complete Skeleton and High-Resolution Computed
>>> Tomographic Analysis of the Skull. Memoir (Society of Vertebrate
>>> Paleontology), Vol. 7 pp. 1-138 Hartman, Scott (2013): A T. rex named
>>> Sue 3.0.
>>> http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/A-T-rex-named-Sue-3-0-124138016
>>> (accessed 12 April 2015) Hutchinson, John R.; Bates, Karl T.; Molnar,
>>> Julia; Allen, Vivian; Makovicky, Peter J. (2011): A Computational
>>> Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with
>>> Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. PLoS ONE, Vol. 6
>>> (10) pp. 1-20 Larson, Peter (2008): Variation and Sexual Dimorphism in
>>> Tyrannosaurus rex. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth:
>>> Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington pp. 103-128
>>> 
>>> On 2015-04-21 07:29, Poekilopleuron wrote:
>>>> Good day,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> thank you all for your reply to my previous question (I assume Jack
>>>>> Horner's given date of 1903 must be a mistake). I have another
>>>> question >regarding tyrannosaurs - what is the exact length of
>>>> specimen FMNH 2081 (Sue)? >I've seen various values ranging from 12,2
>>>> to 12,9 metres (about 41 to 43 >feet), which one is correct? Or is it
>>>> unknown at such a precise manner given >that we don't currently
>>>> understand how wide are intervertebral "gaps" >and/or how much would
>>>> soft tissue add to the actual length of the skeleton? Thank >you very
>>>> much, Tom
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yours sincerely,
>>> 
>>> Darius Nau
>>> --
>>> dariusnau@gmx.at
>>> http://www.paleo.keepfree.de
>