HOME | DD
Algoroth — Ride That Hoss
Published: 2011-07-10 00:21:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 2038; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 98
Redirect to original
Description
A piece I had started a long time ago. This one is being worked on, and is not finished, which I hope to be doing soon. Any thoughts are appreciated.This is a scene from a story I wrote years ago. The little Troodon on the Triceratops is in a lot of trouble. Both the ceratopsian and tyrannosaur are supposed to be young specimens. No, I don't believe Jane is a young T-rex, so this youth does not look like Jane.
Yes, this piece is related to the sketch with tyrannosaurs attacking a herd of Triceratops. Kuby, the Troodon, is in that one too.
Related content
Comments: 18
Thanks! Visit my journal and get ready to throw bricks in my direction!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice scene! The concept looks very Bakkerian
I'd have to say that Jane IS a young T. rex. Nanotyrannus isn't. They're clearly two different animals, yet there's so much confusion about them. Where things get really annoying is when professionals confuse Jane with Nano or assume they're the same species, then they lump that into T. rex as a juvenile, when in fact Jane and Nano have totally different skull shape and anatomy, not to mention braincase shape. Show me any skull cast of Jane and any skull cast of Nano, and I can tell them apart instantly. Looking at Jane (and I've seen a cast in person) I'm fine with considering it as a young T. rex, it's got the skull construction of a juvenile animal and all the right features for a realistic amount of ontogenic change to turn it into an adult T. rex. But Nano - forget about it.
I suspect that Maleevosaurus also is not a young Tarbosaurus, much like Nano is not a T. rex. Looking at the different growth stages of Tarbosaurus specimens, none of them (not even the juveniles) have a skull shape like Maleevosaurus. It seems dwarf tyrannosaurs were present on both continents. Of course it depends what you mean by "young". Stan is young compared to Sue or Wankel. And this T. rex does look a lot more like Stan than Jane, so it counts as a young T. rex in the sense of a young adult or a subadult, not a "kid" T. rex like Jane....
I think paleontologists should start ranking specimens into different age stages. Juveniles, teenagers and adults, each with three age sub-classes. This way we don't confuse a baby T. rex with something like Stan which is pretty big though not fully grown. Terms like "young" and "immature" get thrown around a lot, but are pretty confusing when you don't have additional data.
For example the most complete Argyrosaurus specimen (and the only one that's actually complete enough to guess the animal's proportions) is PVL 4628, an "immature" specimen since its shoulder sutures are not fused, and it's around 25% smaller than the largest Argyrosaurus specimens. But it's not a "juvenile" because its vertebrae are fully formed, and their midline sutures ARE completely fused. This is no baby - it was roughly 70 feet long and would have rivaled or exceeded the Berlin Giraffatitan in mass! That Giraffatitan specimen is also not fully grown, BTW. It's around 75 ft. long, the adults were more like 90 ft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think there is more than one T-rex species. Sue's skull looks very different from the specimen in the AMNH, which I have seen in person, as well as casts of both skulls, right in front of me, though at different times/locations. To me, Jane looks like a young Sue, not a Stan. And yes, I saw the cast of Sue's entire skeleton too, right there in front of me, years ago.
I could be wrong...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmm cool.... I think you could be right. Rather than separate species I would keep them as separate subspecies, since they're not different enough IMO... but then again it's hard to tell how much ontogenic variation within a T .rex subspecies is normal. There aren't too many similar animals to compare them to, even though many modern animals show barely any skeletal differences between species. And we don't have many good T. rex specimens so the full range of variation is unknown.
Currently I see 3 T. rex subspecies.
1. The AMNH rex and similar morphs perhaps including Stan - big head, gracile build, rounded postorbital horns
2. The type specimen and possibly Peck's rex - more prominent chins than other T. rexes and other "chiseled" skull features, different vertebrae shape
3. The giant morphs: Sue, Wankel, and B. rex - more forward-pointing nasal arch, large size, very rugose nasal ridge, eye sockets heavily reinforced and overgrown. Geographically limited to the badlands of Montana. Jane could very well be a young member of this population.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All of that sounds good to me, Nima. from what I've seen, those claims are good bets.
I have a question for you. How far back could a Tyrannosaurus rex have its upper legs? I am planning to do a drawing or a few on how a T-rex might have gotten up after a fall, so that info will be helpful. I'm thinking they scarcely used their arms at all, for anything. Unlike allosaurs, their shoulder blades were mere straps in basic form and their arms, though well muscled, were comparatively thin. But the shoulders were another matter. Why be so strong in the neck and shoulders? I think they used their heads for a lot more than eating and bitching about the President. I think their jaws, neck, and skull were their hands and fingers, so-to-speak.
I think of tyrannosaurids and abelisaurids especially as giant, flightless birds in their manner of operation, quite different in that respect from dromaeosaurs, spinosaurs, allosaurs and neovenatorids. The jury is out on ceratosaurs, since I don't know very much about them. Probably bird-like, with their small arms.
I'm thinking: if a tyrannosaur fell and was not crippled outright, how could it rise again? And I don't think outright crippling or death was likely. The forest floor can be more forgiving than an asphalt road. Been in forests, seen the conditions, so I'll stand by my claims. When a T-rex rested, it likely got down on its haunches, like an ostrich. But if it fell, it would likely land on its side and might roll over on its back. How would it right itself from that position? Saying it never happened is ridiculous; young bipedal animals fall all the time, so I doubt T-rex was any different. It HAD to have a method or several methods, and I think the neck and head are the keys to getting it in position to stand on its legs again.
If the legs could not reach back past femur/spine vertical, (perpendicular) then that clues me in on possible methods. If they could, which Paul denies, then there are more possibilities opened up. You know more about their skeletons than I do, and I'd appreciate it if you can clue me in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I wonder if I can put that scene up here? The text from the story, I mean. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On the artist's comments, yes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tnks!!!! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll see what I can do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1