Deviation Actions

MattMart's avatar

Deinodon horridus w/ Nypa sp. palm

Well, probably. As far as we know, there are two types of tyrannosaur present in the Judith River/Dinosaur Park Formation, currently going under four names. Two names are based on teeth alone: Deinodon horridus and Aublysodon mirandus. A. mirandus teeth are incisors from a juvenile tyrannosaur, and they match most (but not all) characteristics from a subadult specimen referred to Daspletosaurus torosus, a slightly older species from the Oldman Formation (interestingly, A. mirandus teeth also have some but not all features present in teeth of the later Tyrannosaurus rex, making it possible that it's an intermediate species between the two). Skeletal material has been referred to Daspletosaurus sp. from the Dinosaur Park, but doesn't really need a new specific name--A. mirandus is available and probably the same species.

Deinodon horridus is a bit more problematic, since there is a named tyrannosaur from the Dinosaur Park known from good skeletal material--Gorgosaurus libratus. Most authors have conceded that these two are almost certainly synonymous, though the presence of Daspletosaurus sp./Aublysodon mirandus makes this tricky. Some authors have also referred A. mirandus to D. horridus as a junior synonym, but as one is based on juvenile teeth that seem to have more in common with tyrannosaurines than with albertosaurines, this seems unlikely. As far as I know, no work has been done to tell whether or not tyrannosaurine and albertosaurine adult lateral teeth can be differentiated or not. Until then it remains possible that Aublysodon mirandus is the juvenile form of Deinodon horridus, and that both are tyrannosaurines. However, since most modern sources seem to make Deinodon a potential synonym of Gorgoaurus and Aublysodon of Daspletosaurus, I've followed that here.

Long story short, this is a drawing of Gorgosaurus libratus that I labelled Deinodon horridus because I fancy an avant garde approach to the art of nomenclature. ;) I drove this home by depicting it in a very old-school way and in a tripodal stance because, why not? All the work since the 1970s shows that theropods probably walked with the vertical column near-horizontal, but the key word there is "walked." This big displaying male is standing still. So there!

Based primarily on a skeletal (I believe representing the holotype) by Tracy Ford.
Image details
Image size
1000x975px 612.11 KB
© 2013 - 2022 MattMart
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Labrada-Enrique's avatar
I swear Deinodon was a Jobaria-like dinosaur O.o
Kazuma27's avatar
Such a elegant restoration of Gorgosaurus/Deinodon/whatever you wanna call him, really elegant; it reminds me of those late 19th century animal pictures!
vasix's avatar
It's actually quite nice that you are willing to draw dinosaurs in more than just the classical "Active poses" and are doing pieces like this, You can really grasp the retro feel through the texture of the background itself
Brad-ysaurus's avatar
Very cool. That recent "study" about students drawing tyrannosaurs standing too vertically and therefore "wrong" really irritated me too!

Most open-mouthed restorations of tyrannosaurs show the mandibular adductor muscles visible about as far anteriorly as the eye. Why doesn't yours?
MattMart's avatar
Honestly, I extended it a bit to avoid giving him a big toothy grin... though maybe that would be more accurate. Any studies showing that the muscle would fill the jawline as far foreword as the eye, or is that a leftover Paulianism?
Smnt2000's avatar
Fantastic. Love the retro style you used. Bravo!
Green-Mamba's avatar
very nice. unusual but evocative.
TyrannosaurusPrime's avatar
P.S. The posture of the Gorgosaurus/Deinodon in this pic reminds me of the posture the protagonist male Tyrannosaurus rex/Manospondylus gigas "Stumpy" did in Dinosaur Revolution/Dinotasia/Reign of the Dinosaurs in both his confrontations with his archnemesis Rex "Jack". ;)
MaxterandKiwiKing's avatar
I don't like the term "Manospondylus". Tyrannosaurus has been used for so long,that changing it would cause mass confusion or anger.
MattMart's avatar
As I've argued before on my blog, it's just a matter of doing leg work to see if Manospondylus can be disposed of by declaring it a nomen oblitum. I've been fooling around with a manuscript of a paper for a while on this that would meet the ICZN requirements to sink Manospondylus once and for all in favor of Tyrannosaurus. So far I haven't found any post-1900 references to it that consider it "valid" so it could be declared a nomen oblitum if somebody took the time to do so (guess I should try to finish that paper :) ).
TyrannosaurusPrime's avatar
I agree with you on this one, Brontosaurus's existence is far inferior to that of Tyrannosaurus. Plus, Manospondylus is probably the worst genus name I've ever heard. :p (Cope, y u do dis?)
TyrannosaurusPrime's avatar
Wait a sec, I thought Aublysodon remains are only known from the Hell Creek Formation? Or did I miss something? :? :iconjackiechanmemeplz:
MattMart's avatar
Aublysodon remains have been reported from pretty much everywhere and every when. It's become a wastebin taxon for any juvenile tyrannosaur teeth. I'm talking specifically about A. mirandus, the type species, which is from the Dinosaur Park/Judith River formation and to which the name must stick.

There are two named species of Aublysodon from the Lance/Hell Creek - A. amplus and A. cristatus. These are almost certainly juvenile T. rex teeth (which means one of those names is probably a synonym of T. rex, making it T. amplus or T. cristatus instead). Unfortunately I doubt they meet the criteria for nomina oblita like Manospondylus gigas does so somebody would have to petition the ICZN to sink them.
Julio-Lacerda's avatar
Very nice mix of modern interpretation in regards to integument and old-school but far from implausible tripodal posture.
olyolyoxenfr's avatar
Very interesting, and I agree wholeheartedly that Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus should be renamed, or at least usually classified as the same as Deinodon and Aublysodon. But, unless this was intentional for some reason, you referred to Daspletosaurus "formosus" instead of torosus, which I thought I might kindly point out.
MattMart's avatar
Oops! Freudian slip there, as Troodon formosus is basically in the same exact situation as Aublysodon mirandus but for some odd reason still considered valid :)
olyolyoxenfr's avatar
A very rare occurence indeed, when a 19th century tooth taxon is still considered valid today AND lend it's name to an entire family.
eorhythm's avatar
I find this illustration most appealing. Definitely piques my interest.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In