Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?
[x]

deviantART

 
©2009 *shartman
:iconshartman:

Artist's Comments

The second in my ongoing revamp of my T. rex skeletal reconstructions. Stan is a ludicrously large-headed animal. To make matters worse it also has the shortest neck of any T. rex specimen.

Stan is about the smallest "adult" specimen published (excepting its skull, of course) so one could speculate that this is a late ontogenetic change, but honestly it may just be oddly proportioned.

Comments


love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconafrovenator:
Could the (relatively) larger head be a male feature? Or at least that could be sexually informative? Or is our sample not large enough to determine this?
:iconshartman:
Honestly the sample isn't large enough to tell. It's an intriguing idea though. On the side of it being a juvenile characteristic, while the skull is clearly T. rex-ish, it's a tad longer and lower than the other specimens, which is what you see in more juvenile tyrannosaurs. Still, Stan would be awfully large to still be showing such ontogenetic features, and as I mentioned already there aren't enough to tell, so I'm just arm-waving about that.
:iconemperordinobot:
He is so different from Sue!
:iconcommander-salamander:
A brute either way!

--
"The Arctic is no respecter of fashion, Vince."
Howard Moon

'Dear Jack,
LOOK BEHIND YOU.
Love :heart: Aku'
:iconkronosaurus82:
Stan is "only" 35/36 feet long, so probably he's not an adult. :)

Anyway, there's a copy of the skeleton in the Milan Natural History Museum, and Stan is AMAZING.

--
Birds are dinosaurs. But dinosaurs are not birds.
:icongorgosaurus:
"He" looks quite different now.

Spike.
:iconshinerai:
very awesome. are there any real images of Stan?

--
You have an extreme grasp of the completely obvious ♥
:iconshartman:
Surely Stan had some growing to do, but even being generous he was still at 80-85% of adult size, so it doesn't seem like the changes should be that large...but perhaps they are.
:iconshartman:
How do you mean real images? There are photos littered across the web. If you mean "correct" life reconstructions then I'd have to say no, not at the moment. That includes the T. rex on my website, which is no longer an acceptable Stan (I could probably pass it off as a generic T. rex). I'll have to get around to redoing that too when I get the chance.

Details

June 7
1.1 MB
67.9 KB
800×601

Statistics

14
38 [who?]
892 (1 today)
0 (0 today)

Share

Link
Embed
Thumb

Site Map