Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
A T. rex named Sue 3.0 by ScottHartman A T. rex named Sue 3.0 by ScottHartman
This is specimen FMNH PR2081, the largest, most complete, most awesome, most hyperbole-filled specimen of Tyrannosaurus on the planet (the known universe, really).

In all seriousness it's a very nice specimen, but in many ways too much has already been written about it (especially on the interwebs). Still, such a lovely and quite complete specimen needs to be restored, so here it is.

Edit: A perceptive question by bLAZZE92 led me to re-evaluate the skeletal reconstruction again, and I was able to leverage newer data to catch some scaling errors I perpetuated from the original monograph. Thankfully the nips and tucks were much smaller than the recent Stan update, but the legs are a bit shorter now (on the order of 4-7%, depending on the element). Some even more minor adjustments were made to the presacral column. I now have much better references for the skull than I did back in 2006, so I redrew it from scratch; the changes aren't dramatic there either, but it does look a bit different.

Perhaps most pleasantly out of this whole process, I got a better constrained scale bar (since I was able to eliminate the scaling inconsistencies inherent in the original publication). The result is an animal that measures almost exactly 12.3 meters (12.32 by my hand), which (for those of you who are metric-impaired) gives us a T. rex specimen that actually reaches 40 feet.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconeusou123:
This is awesome, the skull is great, the legs not that much, i love how the vertebras are done, the arm is very good, the tail is a little bit short, if it had more five or six vertebras is would be perfect, the legs are to short, if they were longer Sue, the 12,3 to 12,8 meters T-rex would have her head height of 4,2 meters but this as just 3,5 meters, but great work it's as robust as it should be I give a mass estimate of eight tones, the mass of Sue when alive, it's almost perfect.
What do you think?
The Artist thought this was FAIR
26 out of 28 deviants thought this was fair.

:iconyu-gi-nos:
Critique by Yu-Gi-Nos May 29, 2016, 6:06:48 PM
I've seen a LOT of different takes on Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons, let alone "Sue" skeleton recreations. Most resemble the Jurassic Park style tyrannos. Others don't get the proportions not quite right. This one is PERFECT! Using the official Sue stats compared to this image, you've got it exactly the right size. Well done!

The Tyrannosaur at the bottom portion of the image is great for size comparisons and for showing the completed specimen. The upper portion showing how much the specimen was actually found (and with the accompanying info) are very informative as well. I knew that Sue was 90% complete, but didn't know where the 10% missing were from.
What do you think?
The Artist thought this was FAIR
10 out of 10 deviants thought this was fair.

The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork

Please sign up or login to post a critique.

:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner May 19, 2017
Hi Scott! Please respond to what Franoys and bricksmashtv found! I'm very intrigued about this, like Franoys, too!
Reply
:icongenewm:
genewm Featured By Owner Edited Dec 19, 2016
All the dinosaur art work in this gallery is outstanding.  I downloaded Sue the T.rex and we plan to use in an educational poster for elementary and high school students.  Well done Scott!
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Edited Sep 1, 2016  Student Digital Artist
Hi Scott. I've been thinking on how your Sue restoration hindlimbs look a bit short when compared to the mount and the mount replicas. Your Sue also seems to be within centimeters in hip height to all your other restored Tyrannosaurus while Hutchinson et al states Sue's legs to be 25 cm longer than the other specimens (all the other specimens being very close to each other). Did you measure the hindlimb bones yourself? Or are the leg proportions purely based of Hutchinson et al "A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions  nTyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth"?

Because if they are, they gave a 3,3 meters stimate for the hindlimbs  journals.plos.org/plosone/arti… while in your restoration the hindlimbs seem to be 3,12 meters in length (I measured the skeletal with gimp, it yielded 1,31m for the femur, 1,20 for the tibia and 0,61 for the Tarsus+metatarsal lll). With a 3,3 meters leg length, then Sue would be about 3,6 meters tall to the hips (in the same position as in your drawing) instead of the 3,45m tall she is now, and would be more coherent with the 25 cm difference in leg length between Sue and the other adult Rex specimens.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
According to the measurements in the JVP monograph appendix (link here in case anyone needs it) the measurements are as follows (in cm obviously XD):

Femur: 132.1 (right); 130.8 (left)
Left tibia: 114.3 (without tarsus); 124.5 (with tarsus)
Metatarsal III: 67.1

so Scott's metatarsal III seems to be too short.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
my bad here's the JVP monograph drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Yj0…
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2016  Student Digital Artist
So, checking the anatomy really close it is something like this:

Using the measurements table:

Femur (1,32m)+ Tibia+ calcaneum+ astragalus (1,245)+ tarsal bone (0,03m)+ Metatarsal lll (0,671) = 3,266 meters.

While when measuring Scott's skeletal I get legs no longer than 3,12m.

Hutchinson et al got 3,3 m for the legs when Lidar scanning the mount.

Ibrahim et al is the only source that gets legs 3,13 m long, but they ignored the calcaneum+ astragalus for calculating the leg length.

Also Larramendi has got this exact same bone measurements for his Sue. So I believe this is pretty much settled. The legs are like 15-17 cm too short in this restoration.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed so
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2016  Student Digital Artist
It is like 16,3 cm shorter than it should be, considering I measured the metatarsal and the tarsus together. The leg length with the measurements you provided would be 3,26 m which is close to what hutchinson et al suggested.
Reply
:iconbricksmashtv:
bricksmashtv Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
indeed
Reply
:iconfranoys:
Franoys Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2016  Student Digital Artist
Hi Scott. What are your thoughts on this? If you had the time to answer, I would be gratful since I'm intrigued about this. Grettings!
Reply
:iconunrulydinosaur:
unrulydinosaur Featured By Owner Jul 26, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
I've seen your dinosaur skeletals in the book Dinosaurs: How to Draw Thunder Lizards and Other Prehistoric Beasts
                                                                 ________________________________________________________
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 26, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Yup, they're in there :)
Reply
:icondinosaurguy10:
Dinosaurguy10 Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2016   General Artist
hold up, was sue a male or a female?
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
niBBa did you just assuming Sue's gender?

*roars in agony*
Reply
:icondinosaurguy10:
Dinosaurguy10 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2017   General Artist
omg im so sawrry i meant is sue an attack helicopter
Reply
:iconrizkiusmaulanae:
RizkiusMaulanae Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2017  Student Traditional Artist
Oh me didn't know an attacc chopper has a gender

*mindblows*
Reply
:icondinosaurguy10:
Dinosaurguy10 Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2017   General Artist
myaes
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
We don't know.
Reply
:icondinosaurguy10:
Dinosaurguy10 Featured By Owner Jul 18, 2016   General Artist
can i use this as a skeletal reference?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Sure thing.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Edited Jun 22, 2016
How long is the skull at its greatest length? Also, can you show me the T. rex skeletal made by Kenneth Carpenter? I've never seen it, and I failed to find it on the web (Paleo-reptiles wrote he send it to you on Facebook).
Reply
:iconkirkseven:
kirkseven Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2016
It's about 152 cm or exactly 5 feet long
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2016
According to Bakker in The Dinosaur Heresies, the foot claws of tyrannosaurids were reduced to allow for greater speed and agility.

Is that really true? I don't see it.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
It's true that reducing weight in the feet of flex-limbed animals can potentially yield improvements to speed and/or agility, but I agree with you that I don't see a clear reduction in claw size in tyrannosaurs compared to other coelurosaurs.  Of course back in '86 tyrannosaurs were generally put in carnosaurs with allosauroids, so perhaps you could argue for a reduction under that older phylogenetic scheme?
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2016
It doesn't look to me like tyrannosaurids had particularly reduced foot claws even compared to non-coelurosaur theropods.

I also have another question. Is it shorter toes or longer toes that help with cursoriality and how?

Thanks!
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 7, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Shorter toes, this makes your contact surface smaller and allows for steps in quicker succesion.
Though, feet that are too small might impair your maneuvrability, since they can take less stress in tight turns...
Look at cheetahs: they have reaaaaly small ''feet'' (actually, the walk on their toes like rex), while the slower Lynx, has broad feet.
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2016
Thanks for clearing that up. So, where does Tyrannosaurus fall under in regards to shorter or longer (or neither) toes?
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well, compared to other large theropods, I'm not quite sure.
I have read somewhere that Tyrannosaurus had pretty robust metatarsals (foot bones) allowing for greater stress put on them while running and turning.
But in general, large theropods have pretty small contact surface with the groud.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
That's what the skeletal is for :P
Well, I have read that T.rex had pretty robust metatarsals (the foot bones) which would allow for more stress on the foot=more efficient turning.
Theropods in general, have a pretty small contact surface, but I am not quite sure wheter T.rex has a small or large one compared to other large theropods.
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016
dear Scott

What is the story?

Do you agree with Critique by Eusou123? What is your answer about height, legs is short,  and legs is not match or tail is short and need to more vertebrate or the skull is very large?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
No I don't agree with it, this skeletal is correct according to all the data available. 
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Edited Jun 24, 2016
Maybe it will sound rough/harsh/rude (It doesn't meant/wants to be, though), but don't you thought the same back in 2011 when you made it with quite long legs? Anyway, as of now I think the actual leg length was somewhere between your 2011 and your current (2013) restoration.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jun 24, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
No, the specimen's leg length matches the current skeletal. You are right that I thought it was correct in 2011, and it was scaled correctly based on the data that I was using. The problem is that quite a few different lengths were published in the past for Sue's elements in different places, and they were often contradictory. The 2011 version used some incorrect data, which was why I updated it - the new one is correct, it's not a guess because the legs "looked too long".

Not to sound harsh, but personal preference doesn't change which one is right.
Reply
Hidden by Commenter
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016
my friend Asier-Larramendi said: 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.



I agree with your Sue. logical shape. but What is issue about Dimention?

G. S. Paul make T.rex with short tail. Carpenter make T.rex with a small head(once, I show you this T.rex in facebook). Asier show Sue with smaller pubis and Skull. all of you are Scientist and watch real bones but Dimensions are different. Why? their stimated methodes  for Dimension is  different between you or part of bones lose? I remember T.rex estimate 15 meters at first although Sue was not discovered. I am surprised How we can have mistake for estimate of animal lenghth or dimensions of parts while we discover bones?


the other issue is shape of skull. in the Jurassic park. T.rex show with a hyena snout (wide and short). your T.rex have a wolf snout (slender and long) probably, They perform mistake in reconstraction but why? Do do not have complete skull or Sue do not be as their reference?

Now, Asier draw a hyena snout for Sue. Why? unless we do not have complete skull of Sue? Is his Skull shape correct?


I hope  you use white teath for your Dinosaurs like Asier because teeth are important in reconstraction and recognise species. please see Tylosaurs. Mike always pay attention to numbers of teeth.  you should give teeth a flesh nature as an experts even if white teeth make mistake some dimensions.

Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
There's a lot of questions packed in here. I agree with Asier that in general the bones are pretty similar between the two reconstructions. The pubis shape can be difficult to ascertain without seeing it in person because one shaft is strongly curved around the long axis (the other is broken), leaving the boot canted off of its normal axis (this is sort of obscured in the JVP monograph, because the pelvis is still figured in side view as per the ilia and ischia).

The skull of Sue is entirely known, but it is crushed, especially in the snout. I used to restore mine a bit more like the "hyena snout" you are talking about based on the badly restored skull that is on the mount. I don't know if that's what Asier was doing (obviously!), but that's what lead me astray when I first restored Sue several years ago.

As for a 15 meter T. rex, you have to understand that popular estimates (in dinosaur books, many websites, etc.) for a long time used almost no rigour. They often just found the biggest estimate they could find and used it (like the AMNH T. rex was sometimes estimated to be 40+ feet long, even though that's not possible). I'm comfortable with the length estimate of my skeletal, but remember that length is measured along the curve of the back, so even a 12-13 meter long T. rex won't appear that long if you are measuring a straight line along the ground.

Finally, as to the teeth, there is little chance I will ever adopt the white teeth convention, because it would break the rest of the skeletal (in my case). That's because in my skeletals the measurements of the bones end right at the edge of the white space (not in the middle or the outside of the black lines that are visible when bones overlap). If I drew white teeth they would either have to look too big (by putting black lines outside of where the teeth are) or they would have to follow different rules than every other bones in the body, which isn't acceptable either.

Since there is no good solution, they stay black. I'm not saying others have to follow this convention, but I've put a lot of effort into making sure the measurements always end in the same place on my skeletal reconstructions, and I'm not going to break that all that effort for the teeth.
Reply
:iconspinosaurus14:
Spinosaurus14 Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2016
So, are the the black lines between the caudals not just outlines but also "invisible cartilage" as well?
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
That's basically correct, yes.
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Dear friend, Scott


Please see your opinion about This Sue? IS positions of hands (forward direction) correct? Why?

asier-larramendi.deviantart.co…
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
I used to restore them in the forward position as well, but after manipulating the hand bones of Peck's rex and some other specimens I had to agree with Lipkin and Carpenter that the wrist articulates naturally into a flexed position. I'm not actually sure it could fully straighten out to be honest.
Reply
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2016
beautiful
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Hi Scott,

  One question about the length calculation. I always have doubts how is the "correct" (or better said, most recommended) way to measure the length of a dinosaurs.

 Normally papers do not specify how are the lengths estimates done, although most of times, it is supposed to be along the curvature of the body. In my opinion this method may overestimate the length of the animals (it is like if we measure our height around the curvature of the head, neck...), straight length seems to represent better the size of the animal in my opinion.

I guess you calculate Sue's length along the curvature of the body, that's why the extreme length of 12,3 m. Right?

Crocodiles for example use to be measured in both dimensions. Check the next image, from "Here be a Dragon: Exceptional Size in a Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) from the Philippines"
paper: s817.photobucket.com/user/Guat…

What do you think about?

thanks,
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Hi Asier,

That's a great question, and one people don't think about often enough. The "correct" universal way to measure the length of a terrestrial vertebrate is along the curve of the spine, dating back well over a century. I suspect this stems from the time period when wealthy hunters did a lot of "collecting" for naturalists by bringing in the strangest and largest specimens (you wouldn't want to insult the ego of your benefactor by underestimating how large it was!). This is how the longest sauropod specimens have generally been measured, including Supersaurus and the oversized Seismosaurus model that made it to the Guinness book of world records, and that's how I report measurements from my skeletals.

I've spoken to several other paleontologists about this and more agree, if only for lack of a better universal option. I know at least two people who suggested that a better method for extinct vertebrates would be to measure the curve of the spine through the centra; this has the advantage of not making tall-spined critters longer than short-spined ones, though in most cases this isn't too much of an issue *(though with say Dimetrodon or Spinosaurus it certainly would be). The main downsides are that this would have to be widely adopted, it would make older measurements incompatible with newer ones, and once the switch was made it would stop us from easily comparing extinct animals to extant animals (maybe less of a problem for dinosaurs, but a pretty big deal for mammal workers). 

You are right that one downside of the "along the curve" method is that dinosaurs in life would have always been a bit smaller in life than expected if someone assumes that the measurement is more similar to how people measure their own height. But this was also true of Jumbo over a hundred years ago and that didn't seem to make people any less impressed. You're also right that some groups of animals have been measured both ways - indeed, many domesticated animals have their own historical measurement (e.g. how many "hands" a horse is tall at the shoulders), but for better or worse the "along the curve" method is the only one that gained widespread use.

I should also note that the "straight along the ground" measuring style also has problems with extinct animals - e.g. in a theropod like T. rex with a permanently flexed neck, how much do you straighten it out when you take your measurement? And with animals with arched backs (like hadrosaurs) do you try and squash them down? If so by how much? These aren't really issues with crocodiles, but they would be with many groups of dinosaurs.

So really there's no foolproof method here, so my take is to maximize compatibility with other reported measurements. The most honest way to look at it is that each reported length estimate for an extinct taxa is a hypothesis, the same way reported mass is. But it might be better if we (including me) put down how the animal was measured every time we reported a length.
Reply
:iconasier-larramendi:
Asier-Larramendi Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
Dear Scott,

  Thank you very much for your response. I totally agree with your thoughts. After all, all kind of measurements have subjective implications as you pointed with "straight along the ground" measuring style as well as if we take "along the curvature" measurement from a skeleton or from a skeletal restoration, because the space among vertebrae can not be 100% correctly deduced. So as you pointed, the lengths should be trait as "approximately" and the method used might be indicated.

May be it would be worth to publish a paper on this, revising and standardizing several methods.

Best!
Reply
:iconsurf-by-shootin:
Surf-By-Shootin Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2016
I recently got access to the 1992 monograph on the specimen and noticed that there were some inconsistencies in the scaling of the top and front vs left/right views of the skull and thats even when considering the crushed and warped nature of the skull. Is it due to perspective?

 Christopher A. Brochu (2003) Osteology of Tyrannosaurus Rex: Insights from a nearly complete Skeleton and High-Resolution Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Skull, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 22:sup4, 1-138, DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2003.10010947

The measurements I have made of the references provided from the publications are at most 145 cm from the premaxilla to even the end of the exooccipital when viewed on the right side.

The top measurements can be as much as 1.49 cm

" I was able to leverage newer data to catch some scaling errors I perpetuated from the original monograph"
Could you describe your source? It would be very much appreciated.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
I think it's just due to people not being careful with their digital scale bars. This is a pretty common problem even in peer-reviewed papers, and it's why I prefer tables of measurements if I'm unable to directly measure the skeleton myself. As for Sue, I got direct measurements ;)
Reply
:iconsurf-by-shootin:
Surf-By-Shootin Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2016
Thanks for the response :)

It makes more sense now. May you elaborate on those methods of measurement and was it on the official interpretation (mounted) or the original crushed skull?

Were you able to make conclusions about dimensions such as depth of certain regions of the skull? Brochu's monograph doesnt seem to indicate whether the method of measurement of the skull (Appendix) was through their image references (with its inconsistent scale bars) or manually.

I apologize if I appear to asking 21 questions but I have been trying to fill in gaps of my knowledge because Im working on making a restoration based on Sue with the skull underneath hypothetical soft tissues, Ive somewhat exhausted my search in finding the dimensions of the anatomical parts of the skull since I dont have access to it.
Reply
:iconscotthartman:
ScottHartman Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2016  Professional Digital Artist
I didn't bother with the cast skull. For your own purposes, you know there are CT scan files of the skull, right? That would let you get a better feel for the full shape and deformation of it.
Reply
:iconsurf-by-shootin:
Surf-By-Shootin Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2016
Oh, I cant seem to find any of them, where would I need to look? Ive tried Witmer Lab's resources (only their version of the restoration of the skull is available.)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
200 Purchase Purchased Download Purchase Soon
3.1 MB ZIP File. Includes JPG
A T. rex named Sue 3.0.jpg
6.8 MB
Add Your Rating! Thanks for Rating! Change Your Rating





Details

Submitted on
May 29, 2009
Image Size
6.8 MB
Resolution
9213×6850
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
30,795 (2 today)
Favourites
398 (who?)
Comments
204