HOME | DD
Franoys — Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (CM 9380)
#amnh #anatomy #big #biggest #bones #carnivor #carnivorous #cm #cmnh #comparison #cranium #diagram #dinosaur #dinosauria #drawing #enormous #human #man #paleontology #predator #predatory #restoration #rex #size #skeletal #skeleton #skull #study #teeth #theropod
Published: 2017-04-26 02:11:23 +0000 UTC; Views: 40553; Favourites: 289; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The rigurous and fully restored skeletals of CM 9380, originally labeled as AMNH 973 and described by Osborn in 1905 and 1906. It was sold to CM during second world war, in fear that a japanese attack to New York could destroy all Tyrannosaurus specimens. It is the holotypic specimen , so it is the one the species was named after and Tyrannosaurus rex by definition, all of the other specimens are referred to the species. The mounted skeleton is based to a great degree in AMNH 5027, and carries several innacuracies from the time it was assambled that are very hard to correct. It is exhibited at the Carnegie museum of Natural history.Including GDI with top view of FMNH PR 2981 scaled down to match the measurements reported for CM 9380 in Osborn 1915.
12/11/2018: Updated basically everything. Mass will probably need to be tweaked in the future.
01/07/2020: Updated the dorsal series neural arches to be in line with detail shown in other reconstructions; same goes for the pelvic girdle. Added furcula and hyoid.
References:
H.F. Osborn (1905) TYRANNOSAURUS AND OTHER CRETACEOUS CARNIVOROUS DINOSAURS. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History. Vol XXl.
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
Bates KT, Manning PL, Hodgetts D, Sellers WI (2009) Estimating Mass Properties of Dinosaurs Using Laser Imaging and 3D Computer Modelling. PLoS ONE4(2): e4532. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0… .
J.R Hutchinson , K.T Bates , J.Molnar , V. Allen , P.J Makovicky. (2011) A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26037.Related content
Comments: 75
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Good restoration, haven't seen your first version so I can't compare. Some similarities to Sue and I guess that's appropriate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A lot of changes to the skull. The previous version much more resembled the mounted skeleton.
I realize the skull is fairly incomplete, but why these changes specifically?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay - saw the reply below, so never mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
great update Franoys (: and what a heavy animal this was are you updating anymore of your diagrams ?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Thank you; and yes. One just never stops learning and updating stuff
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
You're very welcome, my dude!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for the much needed update! I might have one question, it's the contact between the femur and the tibia/fibula. Would there be a bit more space between the bone, thanks to cartilage so the bones would not break eachother?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The tibiae and the femora are definately separated by a gap which would have been filled with cartilague in life. The proximal end of the fibulae obscures a bit the view of the fibular condyle of the femora, but it is not in direct contact, there is mediolateral spacing. I leave a bit more space than other authors in fact. Could this space have been bigger (after all chickens seem to have a good bit of cartilague in their joints)? Potentially; but for that I would prefer to examine avian bodies in person; will probably be able to do so soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the detailed explanation and good luck on avian skeleton studies!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Also is it just me or are the condyles a little wonky? (Also you forgot to detail most of the dorsal neural spines lmao otherwise great, don't get me wrong!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The condyles are right, read the osteology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What inspired you to make changes to the overall skull reconstruction? Great update by the way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I found the maxilla to be better ilustrated in Osborn 1912,as oposed to how it was in Osborn 1906. I also used another specimen to restore the missing portions of the head now (AMNH 5027), previously I had used my first version of Sue's head; but it involved heavy speculation because of how damaged the fossil was. I had since then updated Sue's skull, but not the holotype's. I changed some decissions that I made as to how to scale certain stuff, for example the squamosal of CM 9380 is rather big in general but specially very tall. Before I had scaled the depth of the posterior region of the head to match the height of the squamosal; but this time I simple adapted it to it's length and left the single bone proportionally tall.
And thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting thanks for your response
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've always liked this skeleton - I call it 'Gwangi' because this was the skeleton that Charles R. Knight's famous mural was based on - the one where, due to concurrently incomplete remains, the eye was placed too far forward on the head - and it was this iconic painting that, not only Ray Harryhausen's (and Willis O'Brien's) Gwangi was based on, but the King Kong T. rex (reflected also in Peter Jackson's 2005 Vastatosaurus rex), as well as the Rhedosaurus from the Beast From Twenty-Thousand Fathoms.
So... sort of a celebrity T. rex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Great reconstruction, if I may ask what’s the estimated dull length of the holotype?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Couldn't expect less from the type specimen!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
so this is the holotype?
does it have a name like stan & sue or is it just known as T.Rex holotyoe
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
that real?
or is this a rick and morty joke with the 2 conjoined chefs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i wanted to say the rick and morty one but after looking that up it turned out to be picheal not bicheal
so i will assume the one that wasn't that option
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bicheal is another meme.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mike = Michael, Bike = Bichael
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It’s just known by its ID number, CM 9380
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that is a shame
well i think i'll call it Osborn as it said that Osborn described this one, i am open to other name suggestions
my other name is Tygan as it seems fitting for a Tyrannosaurus
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or Andrew since it’s at the Carnegie
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that works too
i am cool with anything that isn't CM 9380
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Calling it "the T.rex holotype" is pretty much it's name if you don't want to use the specimen number.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok then, my guess was that the name would be Osborn after the discoverer but holotype works still, and it shows it's the original
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Carnegie is the nick name for it according to this study.
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
carnegie?
i think holotype sounds better than that
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is GREAT! I wish I had found this sooner!
Wasn't this the specimen that Michael Crichton based his Jurassic Park T-rex skeleton off of or am I remembering the wrong skeleton?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed it is; along AMNH 5027. Most of the look is provided by AMNH 5027 in fact; CM 9380 added the information on the hindlimbs, arms and feet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cool to know! I was not aware that he referred to two specimens! I thank you greatly for the info (and again for drawing such a good Rex)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice T. rex, it would be a shame if someone were to use it as reference and then credit the creator for it
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tyrannosaurus rex has the most robust hindlimbs of any member of theropoda, the mid-shaft femur circumference of the largest specimens is only matched by Deinocheirus mirificus specimen MPC-D 100/127, which with a femoral circumference of 560 mm, matches those of Tyrannosaurus specimens RTMP 81.12 1 and Samson (560 mm), but still outsized by those of RSM 2523.8 (570 mm) MOR 1128 (580 mm), and FMNH PR 2080 (580 mm).
The tibia also have the biggest circumferences of any member of theropoda, and they are also the longest. Femoral and tibial circumferences have allometric physical correlations with body mass since they are weight bearing bones, meaning this could be further indication of Tyrannosaurus having the most massive theropod specimens within it (as indicated by Campione et al 2014).The femoral tibial and fibular condyles are very wide and robust, and so is the femoral head, therefore the joints were adapted to withstand a lot of stress. Tyrannosaurus also has the longest ilia registered in theropoda, meaning the ischiotibialis was very wide and massive, the forth trochanter is very well developed so the legs were powered by big muscles as well and they were the most massive between those of it's kind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's very interesting to read. I knew Tyrannosaurus had a more robust femur than did other giant theropods, but I wasn't so sure about the distal limb bones (like the tibia), as I knew they were longer than those of the others. If they were correspondingly thicker, I think that would make up for greater length.
I say "make up for" because I imagine Tyrannosaurus as a very strong wrestler of giant prey animals, using its very robust skull/teeth and absurdly muscular neck to subdue them. Having longer legs that aren't thicker would be disadvantageous for this task (they would take more stress). But since Tyrannosaurus' tibia was also thicker with what I assume are also wider and more robust joints, I think it'd still be just as strong as the short, stocky tibiae of say, carnosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>