HOME | DD

pilsator — The Many Faces of Allosaurus fragilis by-nc-nd

Published: 2012-01-18 11:56:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 4489; Favourites: 81; Downloads: 164
Redirect to original
Description Allosaurus fragilis is one of the best known non-bird theropods - plus, it has the very "classic" appeal of a non-coelurosaur tetanuran, with its deep, narrow hatchet-head, powerful hind limbs, and strongly clawed arms. Known from a multitude of specimens, we see what we would see in probably any dinosaur were it known from a multitude of specimens - a good degree of intraspecific variation.

That is, individual allosaurs were quite a bit different. From the short-snouted AMNH 600 on the right, with its conspicuous lacrimal horns and tall nasal ridges atop its snout, over posterchild specimen UUVP 6000 (middle) to the long-snouted AMNH 666 with rather shallow ridges on its nasal bones, there are several Allosaurus fragilis specimens that span a continuum between these extremes. There have been attempts to consider these different species - a common long-snouted one (exemplified by UUVP 6000) and a rare short-snouted (exemplified by USNM 4734), but this has been more or less refuted, as mass death sites contain animals of both "types", and that the famous triangular, big-horned skull of USNM 4734 was misreconstructed.

I originally wanted to include USNM 4734 as well, but the above reasons ruled that out; "Big Al Two" had to go as well, as Scott Hartman informed me that it rather belongs to the earlier undescribed Allosaurus species from Dan Chure's doctoral thesis. All of the specimens are drawn to scale, with - measured in basal skull length - AMNH 666 the biggest. Oh, and Dracontes did something very similar some time ago.

Expect a digital version of my previous allosaur soon-ish, courtesy of a fellow deviant very dear to me.

//Edit: Oh, here's a WIP of that - do go and check it out!
Related content
Comments: 12

Floyatoy [2012-09-15 03:49:58 +0000 UTC]

I don't know how much of it is intraspecific as different specimens are found in different layers of the Morrison.

Poor reconstruction accounts for some of it, so does individual variation but I'd say at a guess that there are at least three species that are known under the 'Allosaurus' banner in the US.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pilsator In reply to Floyatoy [2012-09-16 20:06:16 +0000 UTC]

Well, I certainly won't dispute this, as all I have to go with is the literature, and I have zero first-hand experience with any of the Allosaurus material.

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of different (chrono)species from different quarries of different ages, as the Morrison spans a vast amount of time compared to the usual longevity of non-avialan dinosaur species. In addition to a continuum of intraspecific variation - visible due to the large sample of allosaur remains - I would be surprised if there's not some stratigraphy-related "trend" among distinct populations, maybe an anagenetic lineage that can be more precisely worked out than with the "jimmadseni"-fragilis dichotomy. I'm primarily following the work of Dan Chure's dissertation here, and hope to see more revisions of the Morrison allosaur material. May I ask you what makes you assume the presence of at least 3 allosaur taxa (dunno if you count Saurophaganax among them already)?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AndreaCau [2012-03-08 16:42:29 +0000 UTC]

I suggest a more marked overbite (the mandible is shorter than the skull and partially overlapped by the latter when the mouth is closed).

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

pilsator In reply to AndreaCau [2012-07-24 08:04:36 +0000 UTC]

Dear Andrea,

I changed the lack of a wrap-around overbite for UUVP 6000 in this drawing. Took me ages and it's not been an effort at all, but thought you might want to know I finally updated it according to your critique.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pilsator In reply to AndreaCau [2012-03-08 23:24:23 +0000 UTC]

Thanks a lot, Andrea - constructive critiques are always a good thing!

I actually was perplexed that the typically theropod "wrap-around overbite" wasn't as strong in that drawing (guess you're speaking of UUVP 6000 specifically), but more or less ignored it. Hope the drawing still exists, if it does I'd be glad to fix it (although I based it off of various interpretations of that specimen's skull).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TyrannosaurusPrime [2012-01-20 13:19:15 +0000 UTC]

Cool, so like T. rex, Allosaurus did have some form of intraspecific variation. BTW how was USNM 4734 misreconstructed? Was it's snout misreconstructed?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pilsator In reply to TyrannosaurusPrime [2012-01-20 16:36:08 +0000 UTC]

Quoting Mickey Mortimer:

"Regarding the supposedly shorter skull of A. fragilis, Chure (2000) notes the only short skull known is that of USNM 4734, which was found disarticulated. When it was reconstructed by Gilmore (1920), he had to "comprimise in regard to the exact articulation of the elements". There are large plaster filled gaps in the specimen, the contact between the maxilla, jugal and lacrimal is missing, the dentary is from another specimen (USNM 8335), the other mandible is plaster, the palate is fragmentary, and the postorbital regions are distorted judging by their asymmetry. Chure notes the maxilla is reconstructed too far posteriorly, as the lacrimal articulation of the dorsal process is projecting into the antorbital fenestra. The angle between the maxillary body and its dorsal process is similar to other Allosaurus specimens, which wouldn't make sense if the snout were shorter. Similarily, the angle between the anterior and ventral lacrimal processes is in the middle of the range Allosaurus exhibits, with Cleveland-Lloyd 'A.atrox' specimens showing marked variation. The nasal of USNM 4734 is broken and the anterior part moved dorsally and rotated ventrally."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TyrannosaurusPrime In reply to pilsator [2012-01-21 02:32:57 +0000 UTC]

Ok thanks

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RickCharlesOfficial [2012-01-18 20:40:24 +0000 UTC]

Intraspecific variation in allosaurs. I like that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pilsator In reply to RickCharlesOfficial [2012-01-18 21:03:47 +0000 UTC]

So do I

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

E-Smaniotto [2012-01-18 12:51:33 +0000 UTC]

Gorgeous as always. Never seen such a weird nostrils for theropods and I must say that's a good thing.
Love it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pilsator In reply to E-Smaniotto [2012-01-18 12:52:32 +0000 UTC]

Thanks a lot! I'd say those on AMNH 666 and UUVP 6000 have still too much of the fleshy overblown Rey thing to them, though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0