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
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
RickCharlesOfficial [2012-01-18 20:40:24 +0000 UTC]
Intraspecific variation in allosaurs. I like that.
👍: 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