HOME | DD
Franz-Josef73 — Guanlong wucaii Skeleton
Published: 2012-12-04 16:06:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 4929; Favourites: 82; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The skeleton of a nearly complete and articulated, immature specimen about 6 years old, referred to Guanlong wucaii (specimen number is IVPP V14532). I drew this entirely in the computer, from tracings of individual bones made from photographs of the specimen, and as with any restoration of this kind, there are details that are uncertain. The skeletal proportions are correct and the uncertainty arises from bones that needed to be rotated into position or un-deformed. Surprising to me was that Guanlong is usually restored with a fairly large head and robust, tyrannosaur-like neck. The actual specimen has a long, thin neck and a very small skull, giving the animal a strong resemblance to Tanycolagreus and Ornitholestes (which are also Jurassic coelurosaurs).Related content
Comments: 12
That skull looks so inanely small. You're confident this is proportionally accurate?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was very surprised too. Have alook at the specimen: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Huh. The description says you traced images of the fossil skeleton itself, so there's absolutely no possibility that the proportioning is incorrect? Your reconstruction is so unconventional, which is what I like about it. Sometimes the truth can be surprising!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I traced directly from a better photo of the specimen. Absolutes are never absolute, so I won't say there's absolutely no error since slight distortion can occur with lenses, etc. BUT, I will say that this is about as close to the actual proportions as one can achieve without having the specimen available to make direct measurements from.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is a good effort, but unfortunately the juvenile specimen you used is not preserved in a flat plane (the way that say fossils from Solnhofen or Liaoning are). The extremely small skull is an optical illusion due to the fact that the neck not only curves back but also down, and the skull was prepared out and in the photos has been set on an even most distant plane from the camera.
I'm afraid this is a common problem when tracing is employed, and is why direct measurements from specimens are so crucial (I admit this is often easier said than done!).
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Sadly, I had no access to the specimen, so the reconstruction will no doubt need updating once more is published. I'll revise and update when I get better data (published or otherwise).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Really small head.
Are you sure that you didn't use the body of an adult specimen? If not, that's really interesting.
Also, is it me or it didn't have the first little digit on its feet?
Still, great skeletal
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The small head is accurate. The specimen is almost completely articulated and the skull is in direct contact with the cervical which are in direct contact with the dorsals, etc. The American Museum of Natural History has a photo of the specimen on their website and you can find images of it in the publication and on several sites. I started by digitally tracing every bone so that the proportions were as accurate as possible. I'll have to check on the first digit. I didn't see it in amongst the slightly jumbled bones of the feet, so I didn't include it. But you're correct that in life it was there. It's just maybe not visible in the specimen, same as some of the other toes and caudal vertebrae. Thanks for the comments and questions!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks to you for reporting such juicy informations!
By the way, it's always a pleasure
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks to your note, I've added the outline of the 1st toe to avoid any confusion that me leaving it out caused. Good observation!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kind of honoured, thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 0