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

Re: Exact length of Sue



I don't think this is quite true: "most fossils are themselves casts of the original bones." If it was, there would be no discipline of paleohistology.

Dan


On 4/21/2015 10:37 AM, Victoria & Jerrold Alpern wrote:
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