Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
The king T. rex by Asier-Larramendi The king T. rex by Asier-Larramendi

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.

Add a Comment:
 
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2017
How is that you made the skull to be 144 cm long, and Scott Hartman made it to be 152 cm long, yet his version doesn't seem to be slack jawed at all: 3.bp.blogspot.com/-PgIFCmrN1CY… ?
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2017  Professional Digital Artist
Well, following Brochu (2003), in my opinion, the skull can hardly be over 150 cm especially taking into account the lower jaw. The jaw is about 139 cm in length, this means that in anatomical position, in lateral view, would be even less, so again, following Brochu (2003), Scott's reconstructed head might be too large because his restored jaw is over 140 cm in lateral view.
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Edited Jun 22, 2017
very nice, however i see a few things that appear to be inaccurate.

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.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2017  Professional Digital Artist
Hi kirkseven,

  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.


Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2017
thank you Asier.

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. 
Reply
:iconyu-gi-nos:
Yu-Gi-Nos Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2017  Student General Artist
Superbly done!
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2017  Professional Digital Artist
Thank you!
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2016
How long is the skull at its greatest length?
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
The crushed skull is 140 cm, and the restored one (my own estimation) 144 cm.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Apr 3, 2016  Student Digital Artist
It's great, but the skull doesn't look like the museum's mount at all. The mount's skull does look a tad longer. Your skull doesn't give the impression of overbite, the upper jaw looks smaller than the lower. It seems like you used the original skull as a reference, when it is crushed and heavily distorted.
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.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Edited May 21, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks for the comment and sorry for my late replay, I've been very busy in the last months.

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.

Best!
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner May 6, 2016
The skull of the mount is in itself an attempt of correcting the crushing, everyone is free to attempt to decrush it by themselves.
Reply
:iconthedinorocker:
thedinorocker Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2016
This one is a very good restoration!
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2016
What is advantagous of Sue dorsal view in compare with Sue dorsal view by G. S. Paul?

I wish you place a large size of Sue dorsal view in your deviantart in future for watch details?
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Well, the main differences are in the tail.

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
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2016
What is advantagous of your Sue in compare with Sue by Sott Hartman?

I like to know about opinion of good artists about art of each other!
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
My restoration is very similar to that of Hartman's. I added more details to bones and probably and the main differences are in the pubis size, which the real dimensions are not easy to find out. Also, Scott's reconstruction skull is somewhat larger. I also gave to my restoration a more columnar posture in order to reduce the huge stress the legs would have suffered. These are main differences, I'm not talking about advantages. Although, a clear advantageous is that I added a dorsal view.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
People I know have noted that UCMP 137538 is most likely not larger than FMNH Pr 2081 at all (given its assignment to the IV-2 position of T. rex is correct).
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]).

Excellent skeletal!
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Dear theropod1,

   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.

Thanks again.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
Likewise, thanks for the response and keep up the great work!
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Thank you so much for this interesting post! Once I 've time, will check it by myself and tell you something.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015
Good work, but Sue is actually 12.3 metres long.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
According to my skeletal, the straight length, with totally straight tail, is about 11.8 m. I rounded it to 12 m.

Sometimes the length is calculated around the body curvature, which has less sense to me.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2015
Not sometimes, always, axial length is standard in extinct reptiles because it's easier to measure/estimate from fossils.
Reply
:iconsurf-by-shootin:
Surf-By-Shootin Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2015
I dont think there was a nasal hump and the nasal opening is lower and sinks downwards.

You can see  that its not there in this link:

www.123dapp.com/catch/T-Rex-Su…

You can check by clicking 3D view.

Hope you find this link interesting :)
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks for the image. That's Sue's skull as it was extracted and it is totally crushed. Much better preserved skulls, show that's morph.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2015
The skull is crushed top to bottom, the way the fossil is now is not how it was in life.
Reply
:iconsurf-by-shootin:
Surf-By-Shootin Featured By Owner Oct 3, 2015
I am aware of that, even with uncrushing the nasal openings are quite low.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015
I think you might have the pubis too short, or the pelvis too small, I know Brochu (2003) has the right ilium as being 146cm long but compare to the scans of the mount made by Hutchinson et al. (2011)
www.rvc.ac.uk/research/…

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.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Many thanks for your comments, will check it. I rigorously based on Brochu (2003) measurements. If you check Brochu fig. 91 and 92 (direct side view of the pelvis), the pubis is considerably smaller than in the 3D, and fits perfectly with my restoration. The main problem probably is that Brochu (2003) did not give measurements of the Pubis. I have some data indicating that the pubis is 1326 mm, I've to check where I took these data.

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.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Nov 16, 2016  Student Digital Artist
Is the fact that you used GSP stimates the reason why CM 9380 and AMNH are cited as being 10.5 meters long in your new book even if that is downright impossible? CM 9380 mount was scanned for hutchinson et al, and most of it is a replica of AMNH 5027. The mount ended up being 11,9 meters long which is the same length of Scott's skeletal:

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…

journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…

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.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Dear Franoys,

    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.

Best!
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Nov 16, 2016  Student Digital Artist
Oh ok, I guess that also explains it. It is true that both specimens made a very brief appereance, but it still caught my attention.

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):

scotthartman.deviantart.com/ar…

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.

Best wishes.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Yes you are right, but in our book we use the length along the centra of the vertebrae, which is the most objetive measurement to compare low and high spine dinosaurs. Check "Como usar el libro" we explain there. This measurement it is a bout 2-3% lower than the length along the back in low spine therorpods, that's why CM 9380 is 11.6 m and not 11.9 m, because the different way of the measurements.

Yes I have that work, thanks.

Sure no problem.
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2016  Student Digital Artist
Oh ok, I just measured both skeletals along the centra of the vertebrae and got 11,64 m for AMNH 5027 and 11,74 m for CM 9380, so roughly consistent with your measurements.

Thank you for your attention.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
You are welcome
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2015
A little update on this, I just found out about the supplementary material of Allain et al. (2012) listing the pubis length of Sue at 1360mm, which seems to be halfway between how you and Hartman reconstruct it, though I'm not sure of the proper landmarks for measuring the length of the pubis.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Edited Nov 15, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Dear bLAZZE!

   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
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2015
That's great! good thing that we now know the real measurement, and I can't wait for those giant elephant news. :)
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
I've checked Allain et al. (2012). I also see that they listed Sue's ilium length as 1670 mm and that's not correct... will ask Hartman for more info.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015
Could it be that fig 91 and 92 suffer some perspective distortion? otherwise is hard to reconcile why it differ so noticeably from the scans.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
I've checked Brochu (2003) 91-92 images. I'm quite sure that they are a photomontage now. This will explain the size difference, may be Brochu put the Pubis and Ischium too small in the montage, although the "articular" segments fits ok.

I will ask some authors to find out the Pubis length measurement. May be Scott knows it.
Reply
:iconblazze92:
bLAZZE92 Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2015
Ok :D

It never crossed my mind that it was a photomontage.
Reply
:iconthescipio:
TheScipio Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The true king of Hell Creek! Nicely done as usual. Seeing as how you just reconstructed a commonly known species, are you planning on doing some species that aren't well known/aren't popular?
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
Thanks for your comment. That's somewhat difficult concerning to dinosaurs, but with mammals surely.
Reply
:iconthescipio:
TheScipio Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Cool ^^. So what other mammals do you have planned besides Proboscids?
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
October 1, 2015
Image Size
213 KB
Resolution
1439×800
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
3,270
Favourites
58 (who?)
Comments
46