HOME | DD

Franoys — Tarbosaurus bataar adults skeletal diagrams

#anatomy #asian #big #biggest #carnivore #carnivorous #coelurosaur #comparison #diagram #dinosaur #draw #drawing #enormous #formation #giant #mongolia #paleontology #predator #predatory #rex #schematic #science #skeleton #tarbosaurus #theropod #tyrannosaur #tyrannosaurid #tyrannosauroid #tyrannosaurus #bataar #osteology #tyrannosauridae #coelurosauria #nemegt #paleozoology #tetanurae #tetanuran #tyrannosauroidea #tyrannosaurinae #paleobiology #dinosaurology
Published: 2018-07-05 02:53:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 25634; Favourites: 211; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description Tarbosaurus bataar was a species of very large Tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur that was originally described as a species of the pre existing genus Tyrannosaurus, of which it is sister taxon. It lived in what today is Mongolia (Nemegt formation) , at the late Cretaceous period (Maastrichtian epoch), 68 myA. After that several other Nemegt Tyrannosaurid specimens were described and given their own generic names; but were later discovered to be growth stages of the same taxon. 

Theese diagrams are mostly based on the specimen PIN 551-2, which was one of theese specimens that was originally described as it's own genus; Tarbosaurus efremovi (Maleev 1955b). It consists of a mostly complete specimen leaving aside the posterior caudal vertebrae; although not all of it's bones are ilustrated in Maleev 1974; thus other specimens had to be used to portray the look of the bones.In the case of ZPAL MgD 107/2, ilustrations of the skull and the limb bones were used in order to adapt the skeleton to it's appereance; even if most of the material is still undescribed. It is scaled to the measurements reported in the scientific literature; as the 122 cm skull, the 112 cm femora, and the 28.5 cm humerus.

The skull of PIN 551-3 is usually attributted to PIN 551-2 by some authors but this is not correct as PIN 551-2 preserves it's own skull material (as reflected in Maleev 1974) that suggest a smaller skull than PIN 551-3, mainly going by the size of the lower jaw; which is described and ilustrated, and therefore the animal ends up big headed but not as big headed as in other restorations like that of Paul. This is corroborated by the proportions that ZPAL MgD 107/2 seems to have, going by the measurements that are reported in the literature and photographs of the specimen.

PIN 551-2 doesn't represent the maximum size the taxon can archieve; but it was chosen as a base for most of the bones because of it being the best documented well preserved specimen in the literature. There are reports of remains between a 15% and a 24% larger than the corresponding bones in PIN 551-2, like those of the original Tyrannosaurus bataar holotype (PIN 551-1) or ZPAL MgD 107/2, between others, meaning the taxon could archieve between 10-11 meters in length. As ilustrated here; ZPAL MgD 107/2 would reach just about 10 m, and PIN 551-1 would be the largest specimen described so far according to the impressive size of the cranial material, the largest yet reported of the species.

Tarbosaurus is completely known by a lot of specimens (>30) that include cranial and postcranial material of various ontogenic stages; from very young to adult. (Raptorex kriengsteni ,Shanshanosaurus hyoyanensis, Gorgosaurus novojilovi, Gorgosaurus lancinator, and Tarbosaurus efremovi are all T.bataar synonims).

The original designation; Tyrannosaurus bataar; is defended as more accurate by several experts; like Thomas Carr or Kenneth Carpenter. Tarbosaurus bataar was erected as a combination of the original designation and the more recent (and synonimous) taxon Tarbosaurus efremovi; as Rozhdestvensky (1965) considered the differences between the two taxa to justify the generic separation.

References:
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1955). «Giant carnivorous dinosaurs of Mongolia». Doklady, Academy of Sciences USSR 104(4): 634-637.
Rozhdestvensky, Anatoly K. (1965). «Growth changes in Asian dinosaurs and some problems of their taxonomy». Paleontological Journal 3: 95-109.
Maleev, Evgeny A. (1974). «Gigantic carnosaurs of the family Tyrannosauridae». The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Paleontological Expedition Transactions 1: 132-191.
Carpenter, Ken. (1992). «Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America». En Mateer, Niall J.; and Chen Peiji (eds.). Aspects of Nonmarine Cretaceous Geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. pp. 250-268. 
J.H.Hurum, K.Sabath (2003)Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared.
Related content
Comments: 37

01202020 [2022-05-20 16:59:19 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KostasGamer [2021-08-16 14:44:52 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ultros8 [2020-11-26 20:00:35 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

PeteriDish [2019-10-07 22:05:14 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

KostasGamer In reply to PeteriDish [2021-06-24 16:50:43 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Wolfman3200 [2019-09-22 03:02:43 +0000 UTC]

I went back to the National History Museum in my state today and I realized that the skeleton I thought was T.rex as kid, is actually Tabosaurus Bataar. Though, one thing that was wrong about it is that they claim it was 45 feet long, but that is an exaggeration just by looking at the skeleton itself and researching the actual size of Tarbosaurus itself. It just annoys me that many books, some misinformation, and the Weird, N Wild Creatures card make Tarbosaurus larger than T.rex, although the evidence we have says otherwise. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

biggiggaboi In reply to Wolfman3200 [2020-01-19 20:47:43 +0000 UTC]

👍: 2 ⏩: 1

egde104 In reply to biggiggaboi [2021-07-10 17:33:51 +0000 UTC]

👍: 2 ⏩: 0

MigaraTaurus [2019-06-14 17:51:22 +0000 UTC]

You vs the apex predator she tells you not to worry about

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Hater3D [2019-03-17 17:08:42 +0000 UTC]

those are not tarbosaurus,those are tyrannosaurus,tarbosaurus were a lot small

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Pendragon276 In reply to Hater3D [2019-04-15 03:38:54 +0000 UTC]

Remember I’m not trying to be rude here but he pretty much discusses it in the description and even a basic search on google would give you an idea on the kind of animal Tarbosaurus is.

👍: 2 ⏩: 0

Pendragon276 In reply to Hater3D [2019-04-15 03:37:27 +0000 UTC]

Wrong these are Tarbosaurus skeletals my dude not T.rex, Tarbosaurus was not a small theropod at all. T.bataar could grow up to 5 tons in weight not sure where you picked up the idea they were “small”.

👍: 2 ⏩: 0

tarbano [2018-12-18 07:56:24 +0000 UTC]

Any idea why the snout shapes differ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KostasGamer In reply to tarbano [2021-08-01 15:37:07 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tarbano [2018-09-11 06:37:46 +0000 UTC]

At Ol' Bataar, my favorite. What would you gander be the average and maximum mass for this species and would you rank it above or below the comparably sized Zhuchengtyrannus in length/mass?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Franoys In reply to tarbano [2018-09-11 14:57:53 +0000 UTC]

Average mass... I can not say with the few material that we have, the mass of the largest specimen here is about 5000 kg based on GDI analysis. Zuchengtyrannus measurements are smaller than those of PIN 551-1 on average (I have it scaled here:  ) Asuming a similar body plan as suggested per taxonomic studies, Zuchengtyrannus should be lighter, with a body mass of about 4.3 t.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tarbano In reply to Franoys [2018-09-12 04:00:25 +0000 UTC]

And what would you give for a maximum mass for Tarbosaurus bataar? Any off the top of your head hypothesizing why Tyrannosaurus rex was so much wider and bulkier when even at a reasonably comparable length (so a large T.bataar and average size T.rex)?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Majestic-Colossus [2018-08-25 15:25:43 +0000 UTC]

I'd love to see your take on Deinocheirus mirificus. Have you ever considered doing a skeletal restoration of it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Franoys In reply to Majestic-Colossus [2018-08-26 00:01:11 +0000 UTC]

I have considered it yes. I have worked with it a bit alredy but never did a fully drawn skeletal. Maybe for when I have a bit more of free time; I have a lot of work to do right now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TKWTH [2018-08-01 08:12:00 +0000 UTC]

The top one's skull looks really weird! Did you account for distortion?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Franoys In reply to TKWTH [2018-08-01 08:52:49 +0000 UTC]

Yes

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Dontknowwhattodraw94 [2018-07-13 13:42:18 +0000 UTC]

That variation tho...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Shaochilong66 [2018-07-11 21:28:20 +0000 UTC]

i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n 

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Paleonerd01 [2018-07-07 11:19:30 +0000 UTC]

Great reconstructions, if possible could you please provide a maxilla Length for PIN 551-2 ZPAL MgD I/4 and ZPAL MgD  107/2? I’d greatly appreciate it. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

youB5566 In reply to Paleonerd01 [2024-05-13 06:40:16 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Evodolka [2018-07-05 22:10:48 +0000 UTC]

these are amazing

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Franoys In reply to Evodolka [2018-07-06 04:08:10 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Evodolka In reply to Franoys [2018-07-06 12:02:42 +0000 UTC]

your welcome

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KaprosuchusDragon [2018-07-05 09:49:47 +0000 UTC]

PIN 551-1 looks like a gorgosaurus on steroids

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Cl1ff [2018-07-05 04:29:39 +0000 UTC]

Incredible job! I’ve always loved Tarbosaurus. The variation between individuals is striking. I haven’t drawn anything in a while, but your skeletals have convinced me to start practicing again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Franoys In reply to Cl1ff [2018-07-06 04:11:37 +0000 UTC]

Indeed, if you add more crania it is even more striking. Theese two skulls have both issues with preservation ( ZPAL MgD-107/2 has the surface of the bone very deteriorated and is a bit warped, as well as missing part of the nassals); PIN 551-1 is missing the posterior region and the premaxilla, and is a bit low in depth in comparison to other skulls. I tried to correct geological distortion but sticking as much as I could to the preserved fossils; maybe if I speculated a bit more they could have ended slightly more similar (but not much). Tyrannosaurus rex also shows some interesting variation between it's referred specimens.

Also that's nice to hear!. And thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cl1ff In reply to Franoys [2018-07-06 21:25:43 +0000 UTC]

I think you’ve done a stellar job with the distortion. I can imagine it’s pretty tough trying to fix something that’s original shape is unknown.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IsoSobek [2018-07-05 04:07:46 +0000 UTC]

Are you planning on doing a dorsal view of Tarbosaurus by chance?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Franoys In reply to IsoSobek [2018-07-05 04:08:42 +0000 UTC]

Yes

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

IsoSobek In reply to Franoys [2018-07-05 04:09:57 +0000 UTC]

Okay, can't wait hehe

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

105697 [2018-07-05 03:15:35 +0000 UTC]

Nice!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Franoys In reply to 105697 [2018-07-05 03:20:30 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0