Rigorous multiview skeletal reconstruction of the famous Sue (FMNH PR2081) Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. This reconstruction is for a book of Theropod records (Records mitos y curiosidades Dinosaurios Terópodos) will be published next year (2016).
This specimen is the biggest and most complete Tyrannosaurus
known, although an isolated phalange (UCMP 137538), might suggest a considerably larger individual assuming that the identification to Tyrannosaurus is correct.<
It was so massively built, that it was nearly 2 tonnes heavier than other specimens with a similar femur length.
Straight length: 11.8 m
Length along the curvature of the back: 12.35 m
Length along the centra of the vertebrae: 12 m
I would like to thank Rubén Molina, and specially to Ángel Alejandro Ramirez Velasco, for their suggestions and useful comments, that improved the skeletal restoration.
Note: Thanks to theropod1 user, I carefully revised the size of UCMP 137538 specimen comparing it to Sue's analog phalange. Using breadth measurements, it may be stated that UCMP 137538 finally was comparable in size to Sue's phalange.
the pubis seems to have been drawn too small when comparing it to the versions Scott Hartman and Franoys made, along with the scale bar from this drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Yj0…
the other things that i am curious about would include the skull and the length along the centra as both appear to be too short. (though the original skull was badly crushed at 139 cm so i guess any 'corrected' version would be an estimate anyway)
the length along the centra of the vertebrae from the mount and other skeletal's suggest it was 12.29-12.35 meters long and the preserved portion of Sue's skeleton it already 11.8 meters long (again by measuring Hartmans version) so for it to be 12 meters would mean the tail would have been pretty stumpy.
i noticed some of my points were a little nit picky.. sorry for that, it kinda wanted to address everything in this comment of mine rather than picking out just one detail.
Thanks for your comments. Well, first the pubis is exactly on the same scale of Brochu if not a bit larger because according to Allain et al. (2012) (which I'm based on) it is 136 cm in length and according to Brochu's scale is 133 cm. The problem is that: first Brochu did not give any measurements on the Pubis and second, Brochu made a photomontage with the pubis and ilium, so the exact proportions are impossible to deduce from Brochu.
My skull restoration is 144 cm in length, in my point of view, it is very hard to do it longer because the perfectly preserved left mandible is 139 cm in transverse length, so in anatomical position, it will be some cm lesser because of the angulation. Thus, if I make the skull longer, the mandibles would be too short compared to the maxilla.
The exact length is not possible to know because some vertebrae are missing. In my restoration I equated 1 mm to 1 pixel, so the differences can be also explained depending the amount of cartilage added between vertebrae centra.
on the pubis, it came out as being 136 cm with the 2003 paper using the scale bars for me.. soo i was wrong to have accused you of making it too small it seems and you used a different source and got the same answer.
(also he did not give any figures just scale bars which i sort of forgot about my bad)
The skull is indeed a bit tricky to reconstruct, however when i claimed it was too small i was thinking of Hartmans version cdn.discordapp.com/attachments…
i don't think a ~150 cm skull with a ~139 cm mandible would be that slack jawed seeing how Trix has a ~150 cm skull and uses Sues lower jaw in the mount farm6.static.flickr.com/5341/3…
unless the lower jaw size was up sized some how for the mount.
as far as total length goes.. i forgot about the cartilage issue and i am not sure how much of a role that played.
I think ussing the replica and other rex's skull to correct it's deformation would do good to your restoration. No offense!
I must say I love the pose on your rex though.
The skull was restored based on the original bones and comparing these with other much better preserved individuals. The crushed skull is 140 cm in length and the restored one in my reconstruction is 144 cm. The skull hardly can be made longer (based on the original measurements). As it is, the mouth can be closed completely.
I wish you place a large size of Sue dorsal view in your deviantart in future for watch details?
The tail of my retostaron is much longer and wider. Paul apparently did not follow Brochu (2003) publication. Caudal vertebrae are clearly longer and wider than in his restoration.
This illustration will appear in a Theropod book I'm working on. It will be published later this year and the dorsal view will appear in large size
I like to know about opinion of good artists about art of each other!
The length given by Horner and colleagues as 13cm is most likely just not the equivalent measurement to Brochu’s figure for Sue’s phalanx at 11.1cm based on how both match up with other measurements (so they compare like this [source]).
I finally had time to revise the UCMP 137538 piece. And yes, I'm with spinodontosaurus user from the forum.
I've checked by myself and I got nearly the same numbers, just 1 mm of difference on midshaft width. All in all, UCMP 137538 specimen may belonged to an animal similar in size to Sue, although might be somewhat heavier at 8.5-8.7 t. Although it should be noted that estimating from so poor material and considering that the length of tyranosaurs phalanges could be variable, the mass estimates is just very approximate.
Sometimes the length is calculated around the body curvature, which has less sense to me.
It used to be the case that when saving the images in that page the saved image will be of higher resolution, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore so I'll share it here. i.imgur.com/u4BVE9i.png
Sue being almost 2t heavier than other specimens with similar femur length is based on GDI of other T. rex skeletal reconstructions you've made? or on Paul's estimates? doing a GDI of Hartman's several skeletals (assuming hip and ribcage width were proportional to their length, that might as well not be the case) I got estimates of almost 7 tonnes for Stan and over 7.5 tonnes for CM 9380.
The body masses were calculated by GDI and applying a SG of 0.95. For other specimens I used Paul's restorations, but modifying their tails because in my opinion he made them too slim. According to my estimations, Stan is about 6.5 tonnes with a femur of 1285 mm.
I've also just read Osborn original descriptions of both AMNH 5027 and CM 9380 and came to the conclussion that Paul's rexes are extremely anteroposteriorly compressed and I can't really understand why.
Thank you so much for the post. It is a typo error! It should be 11.6 m (not 10.6 m), we based in Hartman's CM 9380 reconstruction. We will correct it for the future editions. Thanks again. From my personal experience, I can't trust in mounted skeletons; many of them are incorrectly mounted leaving too much space between vertebrae. Take into account that all lengths estimates are approximations only, because there is no complete skeleton preserved, and usually many vertebrae (specially caudal) are missing.
Some of GP's Tyrannosaurs are too short (specially Sue), I advise him about, but he did not correct it in his new book, which is wonderful BTW.
About the 11.6 meters figure, Scott Hartman has AMNH 5027 at 11.8 m long and CM 9380 at 11.9m, his CM rex is probably longer due to the dorsals of it being a bit longer than their homologous in AMNH 5027. (Both stimates are coherent with the scanned mount in the study I posted)
You can tell in this deviation of his, and you could also perhaps ask him about it (if you consider it necessary):
While it is true that the length of both animals is an aproximation, AMNH 5027 has it's cranium and most of it's vertebrae column preserved in very good conditions. It has intact cervicals and dorsals, as well as a good amount of caudal vertebrae preserved. Even then it is true that 20 or 30 cm of tail is not that big of a deal.
If you are interested and haven't read through it yet this paper includes a good analysis on the animal dimensions even if it is very outdated: drive.google.com/open?id=0B-K0…
Are you native spanish speaker? If so, there are some questions I would like to ask you via note (if you don't mind) , so we can communicate in a more accommodative manner.
Yes I have that work, thanks.
Sure no problem.
Great news, it is just 34 mm more than in my reconstruction. I was just for contacting Hartman tomorrow!. Will check Allain et al. (2012). As you point, it is difficult to ascertain how authors take measurements, there is no standard.
Thank you so much!
PS: I have more news on giant elephants from Nerbudda (Narmada) valley
I will ask some authors to find out the Pubis length measurement. May be Scott knows it.