Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Don't mess with T. rexes by ScottHartman Don't mess with T. rexes by ScottHartman
Ok, so I took some liberties with the spelling (for the non-Americans out there, I was poking fun at the phrase "Don't mess with Texas"). Technically this is a work in progress as I still need to update Peck's Rex and then do MOR 555, but I'm not actually researching Cretaceous dinosaurs right now and there's only so many hours in the day.

Enjoy!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconthedubstepaddict:
TheDubstepAddict Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
What about Tristan? Where would you put him size - wise?
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Apr 14, 2017
i see you haven't yet got a response so i guess ill give you my answer.

Based off of the dentary and scale bar we see that its dentary is 82.3 cm in length cdn.theculturetrip.com/wp-cont… scaling it to models of Tristan's head and photos if said skull dinosaurpalaeogerman.files.wor…  dinosaurpalaeogerman.files.wor… we see thats its skull is approximately 150 cm. (vs ~152  cm in Sue)


based off of (good) side view photos Tristian and assuming all measurements are correct (they probably are BTW)  Tristan's should be 12.0 meters in length (along the centra)   theworldofanimals.proboards.co…

hope this helps.
Reply
:iconthedubstepaddict:
TheDubstepAddict Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thank you!
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2016
I have a question.

Are the mounted CM 9380's ribs mounted correctly? If not, should the rib cage be wider or narrower?

Thanks in advance.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
So looking at the Lidar scan of the Carnegie mount in the 2011 Hutchinson et al., "computational rexes" paper, it looks like the width of the rib cage is about right (it could maybe be a slight bit wider when the ribs were expanded at the maximum point of inspiration, but it's well within the life position laterally-speaking). But the anterior ribs are too vertical, and as a result the pectoral girdle is too far anterior, the torso is too long, and the neck too short.

So to answer your question the torso is too long (by a lot, 15-20%).
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2016
well, the pelvis of CM 9380 is similar to Sues in heft so perhaps the rib cage is similar to that of Sues as well since its only known from a few ribs to begin with.
Reply
:iconspinoinwonderland:
SpinoInWonderland Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2016
The mount suggests a width of ~1.45ish meters, but I'm asking if that mount's ribcage is properly articulated in the first place.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2016
Well, I brought it up because it could very well have ribs like Sue due to already having a pelvis around the size of Sues anyway.
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016
Is it possible other T.rex have the more fingers than T.rex? How and Why?

Do these four adult live in same time? which one of them were female like Sue? How do you recognize their gender?

Please see ...Sue in compare of other adults. Why did Sue have such different shape?

I ask you this issue because if we repeat this subject with giant Pliosaurs, head in compare of body size, we can get to 13 meters again

Were Kronosaurus a Sue through giant Pliosaurs?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
So we really don't know whether any of these specimens truly lived at the same time (they all seemed to have lived within ~2 million years of one another, but that's still a LOT of time). We also have no way to tell apart male and female T. rex, except in the one case where a femur has medullary bone, which is found only in females about to lay eggs (sadly none of these specimens had evidence of it).

The 3rd metacarpal found in Peck's rex was probably there in all of these specimens, it's just small and easily lost (most don't have hands preserved anyways). I don't expect a huge amount of variation to occur in finger count normally, but you could have unusual mutations that allowed the expression of an extra digit (sometimes today you will get extra horse toes, for example). 

There does seem to be a lot of variation in T. rex. Maybe they just become increasingly robust as they get larger and older, or maybe it's because we are mixing in individuals that were evolving over a couple of million years (or maybe there was sexual dimorphism or even more than one species...but these are ideas that can't currently be supported by the evidence we have).
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016
only B-rex had its gender identified
the gender all the other t.rexes (including sue) are currently unknown
and sues so called "different shape" is possibly due to individual variation among t.rexes 
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016
I love this work....very good! many thank my good friend, Scott
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2016
do you think its a good idea to try and reconstruct a T.rex named scotty?
apparently it rivals sue in terms of size
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
I don't actually know - they seem to have a good skull, but the specimen hasn't been published yet and I don't know how complete the rest of it is.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Feb 22, 2016
the picture at the very bottom of the page might be a good reflection in its completeness
if your curious
carnivoraforum.com/topic/93306…
Reply
:iconplastospleen:
PLASTOSPLEEN Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2015
Would you do BHI 6230?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
At some point I'd love to, but it's not in the cards for the near future.
Reply
:iconplastospleen:
PLASTOSPLEEN Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2015
Good enough for me.
Reply
:iconiamadinosaurrarrr:
IAmADinosaurRARRR Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Hello Scott. I was wondering whether you've been able to take a look at the toddler Tarbosaurus and how it relates to Jane. The only credible source that I know of was by Larry Witmer and he said that the specimen discredits the possibility of Jane being a T.rex as it had the same number of teeth as an adult Tarbosaurus. Also, is the recent documentary about Nanotyrannus reliable? Thank you :3
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
I have looked at the toddler Tarbosaurus (I was hoping to do a skeletal reconstruction of it, but I'm not sure now if that will happen in the near future or not). Tooth counts are probably not useful in this manner. Just this year a paper in the Journal of Anatomy by Brown et al., examined tooth counts in crocodilians and komodo dragons, and found that while tooth counts don't correlate with growth stage, there are still variations of 3-4 teeth within living populations - sometimes there is variation in the same individual between the left and right sides. Given this we would need a population of individual tyrannosaurs to test for the mean and variance in tooth row counts to test whether we are seeing two separate groups (presumably species) or not, but alas we don't have a population of either T. rex specimens nor of Nanotyrannus (and note that they would have to be from the same time and place to really do a proper analysis, because of course tooth row counts could evolve over time based on prey preference, changes in hunting behavior, etc.). 

So I think for now tooth row counts are just out as useful phylogenetic differences, at least in this case. I didn't see anything else in the toddler Tarbo that would inform the Nanotyrannus debate either way.
Reply
:iconiamadinosaurrarrr:
IAmADinosaurRARRR Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Thank you so much, this really cleared things up for me. On another note, what's going to happen to the Dino-death battle specimens? Are they going to be in privet hands forever? 
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
I wish I knew! They're cool specimens for sure, but the last I heard (and it's been a while since I heard) their asking price was higher than anyone would pay. I believe much of that price inflation was based (outside of old fashioned wanting to make money) on the idea that they were both new species. Having seen quite a bit of the specimens I feel fairly certain that the ceratopsian is just Triceratops. As for the tyrannosaur, I'd really like to see a CT scan of the skull and braincase. Otherwise the most compelling reasoning for it being a Nanotyrannus (based on personal communication) is the arm being larger than expected relative to adult T. rex. Jane has the "expected" arm size for a juvenile 'rex, so this is an interesting argument, but how much weight should be given to that (as opposed to simple individual variation) isn't instantly obvious. 

But for now this is all arm-waving, until it makes it to a museum and gets published :(
Reply
:iconiamadinosaurrarrr:
IAmADinosaurRARRR Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
National Geographic recently made a documentary on the pieces. It's "very" cinematic but it does make a few interesting points if your willing to stand the edgy music and nauseating cinematography - www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ0L8h…

Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
So I watched it. First of all, I should say that most of the participants in the documentary aren't just colleagues, but people I consider friends. They are certainly attempting to portray the data as they see it, and I wouldn't want to cast aspersions on any of them. But I'm very disappointed in National Geographic on several levels. First off, for as badly as they got burned on the "Archaeoraptor" composite skeleton I'd have expected them to be a bit more cautious than to basically base an entire documentary around unpublished specimens. Second, note that of all of the paleontologists featured, only Scott Williams (and possibly histologist Holly Woodward Ballard, who I don't know personally) represent the opposition here, so the documentary is very one-sided and not representative of overall opinion on the subject. Scientifically speaking, absolutely nothing new was in the documentary - the arguments are the same that have been proposed and not found to be completely convincing by the rest of the professional community.

So I'll note just a few things. First off, it wouldn't be surprising if a second tyrannosaur species was present in the Maastrichtian of North America - there were usually more than one tyrannosaur for the previous dozen or so million years, and so there's nothing weird about having two species, especially if there was a large and a smaller one.

That said, note that it's very clear that Jane is well and truly a juvenile. Not only is Jane not an adult, but the growth lines haven't started to converge, so we know there's a lot of growing left to do (unlike what is implied in the documentary). Also, there are literally dozens of other features in both the Cleveland skull and Jane that are consistent with not being adults, including the semi-circular orbits. So as near as we can tell even if Nanotyrannus is a real taxa, it might not be any smaller than T. rex (or at least nowhere near the size implied in the documentary). I'm also not that impressed with the brain differences in the documentary - brains change during ontogeny, and since the Cleveland skull is close to the same size as Jane's it can't be an adult either (and has numerous other juvenile characters, as pointed out by Carr) it's very hard to read those differences, especially since (if these are all Nanotyrannus) we obviously don't have any juvenile T. rex brains to compare them against.

So TL;DR - nothing in the documentary hasn't been discussed ad nauseum by the scientific community, and it hasn't shifted the overall consensus decidedly in favor of Nanotyrannus being real. It wouldn't be crazy if it turns out to be real (and the enlarged arms of the unpublished "Bloody Mary" specimen are at least potentially interesting here) but right now the published data doesn't justify removing Jane from T. rex.
Reply
:iconfredthedinosaurman:
FredtheDinosaurman Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2016  Student General Artist
What are your thoughts on the arms that was brought up in the doc (Bloody Mary's arms apparently much larger than Rex's)? I personally think that might be a deal breaker but then again it wasnt thoroughly investigated.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
I think that is the most intriguing part of Bloody Mary, but remember that Bloody Mary hasn't been published. I've seen casts of the arm and I don't have reason to doubt the proportions, but until it's published it's just hearsay in science, even if it's correct hearsay. I should note that we don't really have a proper sample of T. rex arms (i.e. a statistically valid sample will probably always elude us here) which by definition means that we don't understand the range of variation present in T. rex arms, and if the distal part of the forearms were basically vestigial (which I suspect is true) then we might expect them to see a higher degree of variation than portions of the skeleton are more direct influence of natural selection. 

But having said all that, at a general qualitative level the arm size is really intriguing. Note that Jane's arms are NOT that size, so that could suggest that we have both juvenile T. rexes and some second tyrannosaur, but that's still arm-waving (hah!) until Blood Mary is scientifically published.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconjdailey1991:
Jdailey1991 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2016
Does the brain of any extant terrestrial vertebrate change during adolescence?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Yes, in particular in extant theropods: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
I'll try to skim through it when I get a free moment (or maybe I'll play it while working on a skeletal over the holiday week).
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2015
Jane is a nanotyrannus. Her snout is too long to belong to a juvenile T. rex.
Reply
:iconavcdps:
AVCDPS Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016
Yes and I'm a chimp since my snout is too short.
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016
Did I say that only because the snout of a juvenile is shorter it must be a juvenile a random species?
Reply
:iconavcdps:
AVCDPS Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2016
Yes you did. Also under your logic many genuses must be destroyed.
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2016
HAHAHAHAHA I just said that her snout is to long to belong to a T. rex, but I did not say that it should belong to every albertosaurine (I also said she should be a nanotyrannus).

If you are barely able to interpretate a text, not replying until you get better in interpretating is a far better option than making a fool of yourself.
Reply
:iconavcdps:
AVCDPS Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2016
Actually you are the fool. Let's say Jane wasn't a T. rex. She would still probably be a Tyrannosaurus species instead of a whole new genus. Get your biology right and learn analogies before screaming about how smart you are.
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2016
Now you just make a "theory" out of nowhere and I am the fool? Ha, stupid pseudo intelectual. Jane does show features that we would not expect from a teenage T. rex: I already talked about the snout lenght, the orbits do not show any transition from circular, albertosaurine like orbits (babies probably had such orbits) to adult T. rex, key hole shaped ones and she shows an illiac hook that is equal to those of adult gorgosaurus. Also Bloody Mary (specimen from "Montana's Dueling Dinosaurs") shows arms that are bigger on absolute terms and also more developed than those of an adult T. rex (so it is not a T. rex) and it's skull is almost equal to Jane's.

Do more research and consider giving logic points when debating.
Reply
:iconavcdps:
AVCDPS Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2016
Honestly you should do more research as A) I haven't made a theory out of nowhere anymore than you have. B) you have given no citation (you've ignored all papers people have given to you because your words as so much more important than that of other people), and C) you are basically shouting the same thing one hundred times as if you've got no counterclaim besides "you are a fool and I am so much better than scientists who have seen the fossils."
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2016
You have no arguments so you just make me look ridiculous.
Reply
:iconspacetaco101:
SpaceTaco101 Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2016
I don't want to. because you're just gonna try so hard to convince people about false facts like some kind of con-artist
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2016
False facts? This proves that you did not even search before saying shit.

First: if you searched before believing on everything that is said out there, you would realize that every modern vertebrate with direct development shows proportionally larger heads, shorter snouts and higher skulls when they are babies, so teenagers should not show lower skulls and proportionally longer snouts.

Second: the "worst" thing that could have heppened was if baby T. rexes had circular orbits like those of the Cleveland skull, but a teenager's should already have started to gain the shape of the orbit of an adult.

Third: both Jane and the Clevaland skull show proportionally longer, albertosaurine like lacrimal bones that are rather pointy and pointed fowards, while adult T. rexes show lacrimals that are circular and pointed backwards (if the babies had albertosaurine like lacrimals, they should already start to gain the shape of the lacrimals of the adults).

And the last one: Carr says that the similarities with T. rex say everything, but the similarities with albertosaurines (that should not be that similar due to ontogeny) do not say anything. The skulls that are often said to bwlong to nanotyrannus show characteristics that are found in (adult and teenage) albertosaurines but not on (adult) T. rexes (and vice versa). So these must be different species.
Reply
:iconmunkas02:
munkas02 Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
are you really as stupid as you icon makes you look?
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2016
My name is DovahkiinHU3BR. Nothing better than a HUE BR face with a Skyrim iron helmet to be my icon.
Reply
:iconmunkas02:
munkas02 Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
yeah, that's pretty stupid
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2016
For you. I like to be playful and since I am brazilian a HUE BR face fits me.

One thing is not stupid just because YOU do not like it. Get real, you stuck up child.
Reply
:iconmunkas02:
munkas02 Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
me? get real? seriously!?!? YOU'RE the one making up your bullshit fantasies (without and evidence to support your claim!) and shoving them in other people's faces, YOU'RE the one aggravating the decent people of the paleontological and paleoartistic communities and arrogantly boasting that some now disproved animal (nanotyrannus) is apparently being called something else, which it actually is! the fucking person who thought they had discovered it has gone back on their claim and admitted that they were wrong! you're as smart as a potato, - actually, dumber! everyone who has seen your trolling has looked down on you as an impolite, awesomebro, unrealistic douchebagge! just deactivate your account and NEVER show your face around here again!
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2016
Calm down and tell me HOW has nanotyrannus been disproved.

I am trolling and unpolite? At least I show arguments and compare dinosaurs with modern animals in aspects that they are compareble instead of making afirmations with no arguments and just insulting people instead of giving arguments (unlike you).

The fact that 90% of your comment are insults and affirmations with no arguments demonstrates that you have no arguments to support your claims and that you are most likely nothing more than a puppet who repeats things without caring if they are poorly researched or not. You are the one who should shut up.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Yeah, let's get off the insults (everyone, not aiming this at one person). So Dovah, here's a couple of things about Nanotyrannus research. First, you can access this free PeerJ preprint that goes through character by character to show that not a single proposed Nanotyrannus character isn't known from individual or ontogenetic variation in tyrannosaurs:

peerj.com/preprints/852v1.pdf

Second, you may have read about a very recent paper from Cretaceous research that tried to show support for Nanotyrannus (it's from Cretaceous Research, so it's behind a firewall, sorry). But before the day was even out it had been (properly, IMO) torn to shreds because it was also using characters that are well known to vary both in adult individuals as well as ontogenetically. There are several good replies, but I'll link Mickey Mortimer's since it also references replies by Headden and by Carr:

theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/…

A big reason why I'm off the Nanotyrannus bandwagon is that this has become a pattern, of those who support Nanotyrannus publishing papers that have already been shown to be wrong by the existing literature. This is the sort of pattern we saw with the "birds aren't dinosaurs" crowd for over a decade, and it suggests a hypothesis that doesn't have good enough data to be worth supporting. That doesn't mean it HAS to be wrong - as I've said several times there are some intriguing things about the Bloody Mary specimen that I can't wait to see published, but there's a very bad trend of publishing "facts" that are easily (and already) refuted in "support" of Nanotyrannus, and that's never a good sign. Hopefully the fighting specimens find a proper research home and we can see what secrets it holds sooner rather than later.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconlythroa:
LythroA Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
youtu.be/ca9GuwuOVZc

Lythro away...
Reply
:icondovahkiinhu3br:
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2015
I am sorry if the child does not have any arguments and just laugh to make me look wrong.

If you are not going to show arguments (like Sekley, Scott and I did), just fuck off and do not try to waste my time.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
300 Purchase Purchased Download Purchase Soon
3.5 MB ZIP File. Includes JPG
Don't mess with T. rexes.jpg
6.5 MB
Add Your Rating! Thanks for Rating! Change Your Rating




Details

Submitted on
July 31, 2014
Image Size
6.5 MB
Resolution
6000×8640
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
12,799 (1 today)
Favourites
231 (who?)
Comments
593
×