HOME | DD
Franoys β Tyrannosaurus rex skeletal diagram (BHI 3033)
#3033 #anatomy #bhi #big #black #bones #carnivorous #comparison #complete #diagram #dinosaur #dinosauria #fosilized #fossils #giant #gigantism #hills #human #institute #large #largest #male #measurements #paleontology #predator #predatory #recon #restoration #rex #schematic #schematics #sk #skeletal #skeleton #specimen #stan #theropod #theropoda #tyrannosaur #tyrannosaurid #tyrannosaurus #osteology #tyrannosauridae #gracile #paleozoology #tyrannosauroidea #paleobiology
Published: 2017-12-06 10:04:41 +0000 UTC; Views: 45108; Favourites: 311; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Nicknamed Stan, it was excavated by the Black hills institute team in 1992. It is the second specimen that the BHI found, while all the problems with Sue were alredy happening. It is one of the most complete specimens, over 63% complete by bone count. It is the most replicated specimen of the world, casts of it are avaiable for purchase at the BHI site. Over 30 casts of Stan are presents on museums worldwide. It is also one of the most studied ones, appearing in several studies made on Tyrannosaurus, like Bates 2009, Hutchinson 2011, and most recently, Sellers 2017, in which it was used to determine the speed of Tyrannosaurus rex. While no detailed description of the whole skeleton is published (only the skull) photographs of casts of bones are avialable around the web (including the whole torso with scale bars) as well as 3 different scans and several measurements, along with good pictures of the material and the specimen, allow a good skeletal restoration. The specimen is 11.78 m long as measured in Hutchinson 2011 (measurement that I managed to replicate). Stan has several patologies, including a broken neck, which is also short when compared to those of other Tyrannosaurus specimens. It's tail is remarkably complete, being the only specimen preserving caudals beyond Cd35.Body mass estimates for this specimen appear in Bates 2009 , (7.65 t), Sellers 2017 (7.2+-0.2 t), and Hutchinson 2011 (5.9-10.8 t).Β
Missing portions were restored using the more complete skeleton of Sue (FMNH PR 2081).
Update 7/12/2017: Rooted the teeth deeper in their sockets, reared down the torso, slimmed down the quantity of soft tissue in certain areas, removed the hyoid, enlarged the scapulae, based on cross scaling with other specimens (BHI 3033 doesn't preserve a scapula).
Update 29/12/2017: Reduced the torso length and size of the last dorsal, reorganized the vertebrae, changed hindlimb posture, reduced soft tissue, added rigorous skeletal showing the preserved elements.
Update 11/08/2018: Added dorsal view constructed after Larson (2008) and Bates et al (2009). Added mass obtained via graphical double integration. The volume matches exactly that obtained in Bates 2009, although the mass is slightly higher due to the different distribution of body density.
Related content
Comments: 83
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 2 β©: 0
Nice job as always! This is easily my favourite rex specimen.
There's just something really attractive about the proportions and the skull shape (for me anyway ). If I ever model a full rex skeleton I'd prefer to do 'Stan' but I'd probably end up going for 'Sue' as the photo reference is just so good in Brochu (2003). I notice in your reply below you hope to update from better reference, that will be interesting.
π: 0 β©: 0
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but it looks like you were influenced by Stuart Pond's model as published in Sellers et al. 2017, especially across the neural spines of the dorsals. As this was a model used to test appendicular locomotion, the trunk is actually highly simplified. As long as everything is correct in overall proportion, there's no real need to ensure absolutely perfect detailed morphology in the trunk when only simulating appendicular movement. While it's great for its intended purpose, the model is perhaps less suitable as a reference for such a beautifully rendered and detailed skeletal drawing such as this one. In the actual specimen, the neural spines are far less uniformally rectangular, looking pretty much like what you'd expect in a typical Tyrannosaurus.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
You are not mistaken. I am aware of this and have been wanting to update the skeletal for a long time. I now got better photographs of the dorsals from Pete Larsson.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, that's great! I look forward to seeing the update.
π: 0 β©: 0
You are not mistaken. I am aware of this and have been wanting to update the skeletal for a long time. I now got better photographs of the dorsals from Pete Larsson.
π: 0 β©: 0
amazing, also quick question was stan a full grown adult or sub adult, when he died?
π: 0 β©: 1
He was 18 years old according to Erickson 2006 supplementary data, so a young adult. Mostly grown, alredy probably in a very slowed down growth stage. Perhaps it could have grown slightly larger had it lived longer.
π: 1 β©: 1
ahhh thankyou very much bro!
π: 0 β©: 1
quick question, wasnt the specimen fsac kk 11888 17+2 years old, roughly the same age as stan. you might remember me asking how big fsac kk 11888 would have grown to be, you then awnsered you couldnt know and spinosaurus might have needed longer to fully grow(which already kinda awnsers my question)
and with you saying this individual wouldnt have grown to be much larger woudlnt that have counted for fsac kk 11888 aswell?
and is there a possibility of fsac kk 11888 belonging to another spinosaurid like sigilmassasaurus as it was found in the kem kem beds? just curious as some one once told me fsac kk 11888 might not actually belong to spinosaurus, which seems wierd to me as i would have thought we could just see to which one it belonged as we have enough remains to tell to which one it belonged seeing how we found some vertabre of sigilmassasaurus and found vertabre in the specimen of 2013 aswell. but maybe he's stating something completely inaccurate and im looking like a fool here
π: 0 β©: 1
FSAC kk 11888 is one of the specimens that has the least posibilities to belong to another taxon that is not S.aegyptiacus. FSAC kk 11888 overlaps with IPHG 1912 (Stromer's specimen, the type of S.aegyptiacus) in the dorsal vertebrae and shares derived characters with it in the neural spines and the centra. It could be that theese characters were synapomorphies of a bigger taxonomical unit than Spinosaurus aegyptiacus or even Spinosaurus but as of right now only S.aegyptiacus is diagnosed to have them. Both the destroyed specimen and FSAC kk 11888 share theese characters: a flared and wide base of the dorsal neural spines, and dorsal neural spine height over 10 times as tall as the dorsal centra; and no other theropod specimen in existance does. Therefore, they must be either the same taxon or extremely closely related (therefore, they are always necessary to reconstruct each other, because in the absense of specimens from the same species, the most closely related species has to be used to reconstruct the animal).Β
As per the growth issue, each animal has it's own ontogeny (growth process), and it is no way extrapolable to other animals, not even it's closest relative, because extreme heterochronies can happen within the same genus and even within the same species. I don't want to fill this answer too much with dense science, but growth rates and curves and conclussions related to how the growth happens in each taxon are based on histological analysis; you cut a sample of bone and examine how it has grown over time. Bones grow in a peculiar manner, in some ways similar to how a tree does. When talking about the diaphysis of long bones, the internal surface of the layer gets destroyed by osteoclasts while new layers of tissue deposit around the periostium, due to the action of osteocites and osteoblasts. There are time periods within the year in which the bone tissue material is deposited more rapidly, and more slowly, forming an arrangement of more compact (darker) and more loose (lighter) rings. The spacing between dark rings indicates how fast growth has been in each life period. When the growth is more rapid, more spacing between the rings is visible, and when it slows down the spacing between rings becomes smaller and smaller, until there stops being any, and form an external fundamental system(basically a final layer of densely packed rings of compact bone impedes the bone to get any larger). We know how T.rex grew because we have a big amount of bones from different life stages, and we have been able to study the histology of the bones of several specimens. T.rex grew to almost maximum size at age 18, the period in which it grows the fastest being 11-17 years old. Once over 18, it enters a phase of slow growth, and the function describing it meets an horizontal asymptote that makes it so the older it gets from 18, the slower it grows, and impedes it to grow further than a certain limit. This is why I know Stan wouldn't have grown much larger, even if I don't know the exact number. In the case of Spinosaurus, we lack data and specimens , we also lack histological studies done in juveniles and fully grown adults (no long bones of theese life stages have ever been found). Therefore the answer I gave you the last time is the accurate one, we don't know how much FSAC kk 11888 would have grown because we don't know anything about Spinosaurus growth strategy.
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks for replying, this is very helpful.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are welcome, and that was my intention.
π: 0 β©: 0
Would it be alright if I used a few of your skeletals as a reference for a large reconstruction I'll use for a video? Sorry for the run-on sentence
π: 0 β©: 1
It is alright, you can use them.
π: 0 β©: 0
Stan was only 18 years old when it died, give it another 10 years and for its massive proportion, would probably outweigh Sue.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Hm, narrower ribcage. Still doesn't make Stan look somehow less massive than Sue, even when standing next to her. It's probably due to the massive head, neck and shoulder/chest region, Stan looks much more masculine than Sue (and many other specimems for that matter)
π: 0 β©: 1
The interesting thing is that 'Stan' seems wider in the belly and pelvic area - a trait that seems consistent with 'gracile' specimens - and I wonder if this relates to dimorphism.Β Chris Brochu pointed out that female birds - larger or smaller - are not 'robust', but gracile - allowing for a 'roomier' torso for egg-laying females.Β
'Robust' isn't about sheer size - the robustΒ type specimen (CM 9380) is smaller than a number of gracile specimens, after all - like Peck's rex.
Of course, it still could simply be a factor of age - is CM 9380 an older rex?
π: 0 β©: 1
Here's a write-up I did a few years ago - it's a bit dated, but it's got some good clear views of a variety of T. rex skeletal mounts.
www.deviantart.com/jes86/art/Tβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
Substantially narrower in proportion than in Sue, indeed.
π: 0 β©: 1
T.rexes had an impressive individual diversity, they never look quite the same.
π: 0 β©: 1
Probably the result of their genus' two million year span. Wouldn't surprise me if they underwent anagenesis much like Triceratops or Edmontosaurus.
π: 0 β©: 1
Shid how come I never took that into consideration, thank you brother
π: 0 β©: 0
775 mm according to Larson 2008. 790 mm according to Hurum & Sabath 2003.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you, much appreciated
π: 0 β©: 0
Is it just me or did the eyes get bigger and the mouth get wider?
π: 0 β©: 1
Several things changed yes; although the only change made to the mouth was opening it more. I should probably list them in the description.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hi Franoys.
Do you remember how you told me that Stan had an abnormally small femur circumference compared to other Tyrannosaurus specimens? I noticed at least a few times in mounted dinosaur skeletons that bones like the femur can seem unreasonably gracile for their owners, and it seems as if they didn't bother to restore it to a more life-like shape.
Here's Β the Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai skeleton from the Royal Tyrell Museum. Look at how long and thin that femur is. Looking at it I doubt that that's what the femur was actually like in life.
Here's Β a mounted Styracosaurus skeleton. It looks like we can see the same thing for its femur (although, to a lesser extent than my previous example).
Do you think this is the result of some strange taphonomic process and that it could have happened to Stan after it died?
π: 0 β©: 1
What is the circumference of Stan's femur?
π: 0 β©: 0
These are really excellent reconstructions - easily on par with Paul or Hartman's - maybe superior.Β You have really captured the nuanced differences between the individual specimens - who all have their own 'faces' - just like a person does.
I hope you attempt some of the less commonly reproduced skeletons - like MOR 555, or perhaps some of the newer ones - like 'Trix' or 'Peck's Rex' - which no one else seems to touch.
My only criticism - and it's really just a quibble is the pose - I understand all the problems Greg Paul created - and I don't have any real suggestions (since there are really only a few staged poses in any animal's walk/run cycle) - although I think I prefer the pose you gave Stan as opposed to Sue's (which looks like its figure skating).
Also, you might try dating your updates.
Otherwise, really awesome work.Β I look forward to more.
Β
π: 0 β©: 2
That's interesting - I would have thought MOR 555 would be one of the better researched skeletons.Β It's gotten fairly wide distribution as far as public viewings - a cast of the skeleton was one of three that made it through our local museum (along with Sue and Samson).
Anyway - great stuff.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you very much for the kind words, I'm honoured. I'm afraid i don't have nearly enough information to try to make a MOR 555 restoration, there is a reason why theese specimens (Sue, Holotype, AMNH 5027, Stan) are the most portrayed, and it is that they are those that are the best documented, specially Sue, which is the only one with an acceptable monograph by today's standards. I update the skeletals frequently, whenever I notice something should change, and sometimes I date those, but sometimes I forget. About the pose, I changed it for the last update (that I did today) Most of the skeletals have postures that are seen in struthioniforms, at least at some point of the walk or run cycle, but it is hard to get one that looks good. I have been doing theese kind of skeletals for barely more than a year, so the style is not fixated yet (unlike GSP or Hartman who have been doing them for decades); although I'm slowly developping one, and of course the posture is prone to change, for once I need to unify all of them, since not all have the same posture.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Can you link what you based them on?
And why does the shoulder girdle look different from your other rexes.
π: 0 β©: 1
The shoulder girdle looks different because the BHI restored it differently; I'm changing it. I sent what they are based on on discord, note that those are the first 12 dorsals however.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why is the 13th dorsal so huge then?
π: 0 β©: 1
The image that has 12 dorsals is the one with the yard bar, but the scans allows you to crosscale them with the 13th dorsal. For this, I used the image from Sellers 2017. Also, the last dorsal is the largest of the series in Tyrannosaurus. You can check in Osborn 1906 and Brochu 2003 if you want.
π: 0 β©: 0
Its belly looks different than Sue's. Very nice!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes; i need to update the gastralia of the other two specimens. And thank you!
π: 0 β©: 1
By the way, I've been comparing your skeletals to Scott Hartman's, and I noticed that they have different poses. Even the animals both of you reconstructed differ in hip height, the Tyrannosaurus for one. Do your skeletals intend to depict the animal in an "alert" posture and his are more like crouching or walking? Or do you actually thinkΒ that theropods had a different posture from what Scott depicts, like less flexed and stuff?
π: 0 β©: 1
I just chose to give them a different posture. His are doing a longer stride, and mine a shorter one. There's not much more to it really.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>