RE: Anatomically correct T. rex?

["Christian Darkin" <christian@darkin.demon.co.uk>]

Ah, yes, but they make it look evil.

There's a definite leaning towards making predatory reconstructions look
mean.  It's difficult when modeling to say what doesn't look right
because it doesn't fit with what you know, and what doesn't look right
because it doesn't fit with what you imagine - given that reconstructing
is as much an artistic enterprise as anything else.

I'm sure if we reconstructed a killer whale from the evidence of its
bones, we wouldn't give it pretty black and white patterned skin, gentle
eyes, and a big friendly smile...

Christian Darkin

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf
Of Mark Hallett
Sent: 05 August 2003 21:47
To: Apollo@Mlink.net
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Anatomically correct T. rex?

Dear James,

Since you've asked for general comments, mine is that
there is no foundation for the huge, laterally
projecting orbital "horns" on the BMNH rex. There were
rugosities over the orbital area that indeed probably
supported keratinous extensions, either as a series of
scales (a la Paul) or as a single mass, but these were
broad and more or less vertically oriented, not
laterally, as in Carnotaurus. Other non carnotaurine
abelisaurids are more like what you see in T. rex,
such as Rugops and the new Rajasaurus. Another flaw is
the lack of external tooth flaps (artfully avoiding
the term "lips")which terrestrial dinosaurs and other
tetrapods needed to avoid dessication of the mouth
tissues and to help discourage ectoparasites. Even
with these the upper teeth would have protruded below
this line, but you wouldn't see these to the extent
they are shown.

--Mark Hallett
--- JAMES ARONIS <Apollo@Mlink.net> wrote:
> With the recent spate of posts concerning
> anatomically correct 
> theropods, specifically Tyrannosaurs, I was
> wondering if a striking 
> restoration I have recently come across at CNN's
> site is anatomically 
> correct. The restoration in question is of a _T.
> rex_ and can be viewed 
> (head only) on this page:
> 
>
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/08/01/offbeat.trex.dinosaur.reu
t/index.html
> 
> My curiosity mainly lies in the accuracy of the
> restoration's rather 
> large orbital 'horns', its dentition the longest of
> which appear longer 
> than I imagined and the somewhat high position of
> the nasal openings. I 
> won't inquire about the 'lips' factor since that
> already occupies space 
> in another thread, but anyone can comment on that if
> they wish. With 
> what we currently know of _T. rex_, how accurate is
> this restoration?
> 
> Thanks to anyone who can answer my inquiry.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com