Re: Sue's Family

[Dave Sorochty <scarletfire@erols.com>]

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:

> > From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Dave Sorochty
>
> [in reference multiple specimens of _T. rex_ at the same site]:
>
> > Aren't there several specimens at the "Rigby" site?  BTW how many
> > were there?
> > Was it two or three?
>
> This site nor its specimens has NOT been described in any detail yet: please
> give Rigby the chance to actually do his research, and write it up, and
> disseminate it!!
>
> I, too, have heard the *rumor* that evidence of more than one individual was
> found there, but that is all it is: a rumor.  Until we have some good hard
> descriptions, we'll have to wait.
>
> Patience IS a virtue, after all.
>



Yes it is a virtue!  If the excavation is still ongoing or if the findings are
still being prepared and studied - that's fine.   Actually I had no idea at all
what the current situation was and was just asking what people knew about it.
If there is info that is already in the public domain then I'd like to know, but
if not - then let him finish.   All good things in all good time.



> On a related topic, Betty Cunningham [bettyc@flyinggoat.com] wrote:
> >These other T rexes aren't Sue.
> >Were they seized by the FBI along with Sue?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Are they part of the whole Sue-auction-purchase package?
>
> Yes.
>

Cool!  At least its all together.


> Remember, the case was about the collection of fossils (plural) on that
> particular patch of land, NOT about who should get the largest _T. rex_
> specimen in the world (despite the way it sometimes seemed).
>

Yes - absolutely.


> >These particular questions are hardly ICZN-conflicting
>
> Not ICZN, but for someone who is engaged on *contract work* on a certain
> specimen for whom legal issues are a problem, caution is strongly advised.

> >considering the
> >amount of media paperwork already out on the Sue-herself-ownership
> >circus.
>
> However, they were remains of smaller individuals and thus not worthy of
> media attention... :-S

> >Anybody remember the filthy details on these other T rexes?
>
> Well, as someone NOT engaged in contract work on a certain specimen, and
> having seen the collection prior to the auction, I can say a few things.
>
> There are not multiple skeletons from the Sue site.  Or, if they are, they
> have only been discovered subsequent to the FMNH preparation of the bones.
>
> There are, at best, a few isolated bones indicating the presence of the
> corpses of smaller _T. rex_ individuals at that site.  There are a couple of
> limb bones, a great lacrimal, maybe a few other bits & pieces.  (And a
> turtle, and some other non-dinosaurian reptiles, too).
>
> That's it: fragments only.  NO extra skeletons, NO particular evidence that
> this was a family group (my first guess, given that I haven't seen the field
> maps, is that the smaller tyrannosaur bones were washed in from rotten
> corpses upstream, and became lodged against Sue's body post mortem).
>



This is just what I wanted to know.   I had not seen any specific info like this
on the other bones in the archives of the list or elsewhere.


Thanks,

Dave Sorochty