Tyrannosaurus rex maquette

[Agent0028]

Dang these pics are awesome. I'm tempted, soooo tempted. This piece is growing on me the more I look at it.

Give in to the temptation. You'll be happy you did.

 

[Scar]

Terrific reviews and piccies everyone

I have added them to the Review section so there is easy access to them, so you can view at your leisure:

https://www.sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65039

x

We can always rely on you as the mod to show Dinosauria some love, Shell!

 

[dansdinosaurs]

Hey Scar, I'm having a small debate with a friend about the flexibility of tyrannosaur tails. Nerdy, no? But I figured I'd ask you, how much do we know about the rigidity of this creature's tail, particularly toward the end? This statue obviously has some good curly action, but it's not supposed to be as rigid as a dromaeosaur's tail, of course. Any idea what the current line of thought might be?

Oh, and in related news...

Oh Em Gee? Who could this be?

 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Hey Scar, I'm having a small debate with a friend about the flexibility of tyrannosaur tails. Nerdy, no? But I figured I'd ask you, how much do we know about the rigidity of this creature's tail, particularly toward the end? This statue obviously has some good curly action, but it's not supposed to be as rigid as a dromaeosaur's tail, of course. Any idea what the current line of thought might be?

Oh, and in related news...

Oh Em Gee? Who could this be?

If it is a Dinosauria piece..maybe Basilisaurus ? Neat..but really into mammals you know .. ? :/

I first thought Mosasaur..but the head doesn't look rexactly right.

 

[Scar]

It's a fine debate, and perhaps extant animals illustrate best. For example, cheetahs today have much more rigid tails than lions. Cheetahs are distance hunters that pursue their prey in prolonged sprints, using their tails as rudders essentially to guide themselves more efficiently in pursuit of prey. Conversely lions are ambush predators that make relatively little use of their supple tails when hunting. Now to take the example to an animal a little closer to the point; large monitor lizards have extremely flexible tails which they don't utilize particularly for hunting; again, these are ambush hunters that needn't be swift-footed in order to obtain their prey considering their tactics. Most monitors are built to dismantle their prey bodily once their obtain them, as is T.rex. Dromaeosaurs, conversely, are built to run down any and all prey items regardless of how skillfully evasive they might be, latch on, and bleed them out. Comparably, from what we know of T.rex currently, the origins and insertions of the muscles wouldn't engender a rigid tail for pursuit; it's another nail in the coffin for T.rex being a particularly fast animal, though like monitors it needn't have relied upon speed to obtain prey. Lions, large monitors such as the ora, and T.rex, all creatures with more flexible tails, scavenge much more frequently than they predate upon reaching adulthood; and with the ora and T.rex the tail serves for balance more so than navigation and deft maneuvering. More likely to have a rigid tail is Raptorex, the relatively recently discovered ancestor of T.rex which has provided a great measure of evolutionary insight into tyrannosaurids, though it was much more gracile and capable of attaining greater speeds given the relative length of the femur to the tibia and fibula. Hope that helps!

 

[Scar]

Oh, and in related news...

Oh Em Gee? Who could this be?

Interesting. I can think of a number of candidates here. Can't wait to see more revealed!

 

[dansdinosaurs]

Interesting, thanks. I remember hearing about Raptorex, and seeing that reconstruction by... who was it, Marshall? Anyway, I'll assume you consider the Rex Maquette to be fairly acceptable, at least in its tail. Far more convincing than the JP Rex, though obviously not a fair comparison.

So I've got at least one person who thinks the new piece looks like a Stegosaur. My problem with that is the jawline, as you can see. It extends way back, beyond the eye, whereas modern stegosaur reconstructions lend the animal a powerful cheek for holding ground vegetation, capped off by a powerful beak. So I think we're seeing something else. Pterosaur?

 

[Dyscrasia]

That pic looks pretty interesting indeed.

If it is an upcoming product for the dinosauria line, then I think the sculpt on the pic is still at early development and the 'jawline' might not be a 'jawline' at all. Just a wild guess though...

I hope it gets revealed soon.

 

[Scar]

Interesting, thanks. I remember hearing about Raptorex, and seeing that reconstruction by... who was it, Marshall? Anyway, I'll assume you consider the Rex Maquette to be fairly acceptable, at least in its tail. Far more convincing than the JP Rex, though obviously not a fair comparison.

So I've got at least one person who thinks the new piece looks like a Stegosaur. My problem with that is the jawline, as you can see. It extends way back, beyond the eye, whereas modern stegosaur reconstructions lend the animal a powerful cheek for holding ground vegetation, capped off by a powerful beak. So I think we're seeing something else. Pterosaur?

I understand where they got Stegosaurus, but my mind immediately went to Edmontosaurus, Anatotitan, or some other large-bodied hadrosaur. Depending on whether or not you consider that mass in the background to be a body or wing, and whether that's the cheek bone or not, it could be any number of animals.

 

[Adoptedscot]

We can always rely on you as the mod to show Dinosauria some love, Shell!

You know it buddy
x

 

[Vrolokus]

Hey Scar, I'm having a small debate with a friend about the flexibility of tyrannosaur tails. Nerdy, no?...

It's a fine debate, and perhaps extant animals illustrate best. For example, cheetahs today have much more rigid tails than lions. Cheetahs are distance hunters that pursue their prey in prolonged sprints, using their tails as rudders essentially to guide themselves more efficiently in pursuit of prey. Conversely lions are ambush predators that make relatively little use of their supple tails when hunting. Now to take the example to an animal a little closer to the point; large monitor lizards have extremely flexible tails which they don't utilize particularly for hunting; again, these are ambush hunters that needn't be swift-footed in order to obtain their prey considering their tactics

Mind if another nerd elbows his way in here?

The problem of using extant animals to try and make deductions about a dinosaur's behavior is - and I don't mean to sound glib - extant animals aren't dinosaurs. Cheetahs are cheetahs, and T-rexes are T-rexes. While they're both animals, both animals on Earth, both animals affected by things like gravity... they are distinct creatures, and the differences can't be glossed over. It's a trap I'm familiar with from studying physical anthropology: often you see people - even scientists who should know better! - trying to describe early hominids in terms of how they were like chimpanzees (or some other ape). The problem is that australopithecines weren't chimps, australopithecines were australopithecines... and trying to fill in gaps in your knowledge with extant examples is a shortcut - certainly to instant satisfaction, and rarely real knowledge.

T-rex's (or any other theropod's) tail served a purpose that, off the top of my head, doesn't directly correlate to any existing animal - certainly not in magnitude of function - that being counterbalance, keeping rex from helplessly tipping nose-first into the dirt every time he tried to stand up. If we look at rex with an eye towards form following function, he probably didn't have a very flexible tail because flexibility wouldn't make his tail better for balancing (arguably, flexibility would make it worse: if you're walking a tightrope, do you want a 10-foot rigid pole or a 10-foot long water balloon?).

As Scar pointed out, T-rex probably wasn't the fastest of animals, and of course there are lots who believe he was more of a uberscavenger than hunter, for all sorts of reasons. To me though the most compelling argument that rex was more of a scavenger/ambusher/thief than sprinter is the basic physical peril involved in a creature that big - with virtually no front limbs - running. We're talking basic physics here: if a rex in a full run is just a smidge not as surefooted as it thinks, or steps on some loose gravel, or trips over a log or whatever - the resultant fall could easily cripple or kill the animal: take 6-8 tons of meat and bone, exponentially adjust it by the momentum, and bring it all down on the rex's head, with effectively no forelimbs to slow him down. And all of this ignores the basic question of "how does something that big sneak up on anything?"

So anyway, my feeling is that a rex having a tail it can curl and twirl like a house cat is pretty unlikely. Scar uses the example of cheetahs to point out that rigid tails usually mean rudders for sharp turns while running... though I'd go back to the apples & oranges topic I opened with, pointing out that a cheetah is a quadruped, about 100 pounds, and from an entirely different evolutionary line than a T-rex (which by comparison is a biped and about 14,000 pounds). I'm picturing something closer to an alligator's tail, but even more inflexible (as alligators 1) are also quadrupeds and don't rely on their tails for balance as much as a rex would, and 2) use their tail to swim).

 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Interesting. I can think of a number of candidates here. Can't wait to see more revealed!

Yeah, it's a really good general image...I tried sketching it out and came up with marine animals, sauropods, and hadrosaurs among others.

The ear is pretty far back though it's sort of hard to make out the skull...the eye says marine to me..or hebivore. The skin isn't even detailed really...unless that smooth appearence further means it's a marine animal.

Def has me guessing..

 

[Scar]

The problem of using extant animals to try and make deductions about a dinosaur's behavior is - and I don't mean to sound glib - extant animals aren't dinosaurs. Cheetahs are cheetahs, and T-rexes are T-rexes. While they're both animals, both animals on Earth, both animals affected by things like gravity... they are distinct creatures, and the differences can't be glossed over. It's a trap I'm familiar with from studying physical anthropology: often you see people - even scientists who should know better! - trying to describe early hominids in terms of how they were like chimpanzees (or some other ape). The problem is that australopithecines weren't chimps, australopithecines were australopithecines... and trying to fill in gaps in your knowledge with extant examples is a shortcut - certainly to instant satisfaction, and rarely real knowledge.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. As someone who works with vertebrate biology, vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology, and animal behavior on a daily basis, paging through journal articles all day most days, to say those scientists who draw inferences by looking at phylogenetically close taxa aren't practicing real science is a mind-boggling statement to assert and seems very myopic; I'll have to mention that to Dr. Holtz when I make the trip to see him this December and get his thoughts.

Making extinct animals comparable to extant animals cannot lead to genuine knowledge? It's impossible to arrive at any meaningful behavioral deductions for extinct creatures without combining fossil evidence with what we see in creatures which share similarities in body plan, diet, environment, and/or preferably evolutionary history.

Should we resign ourselves to looking solely at the fossils and must mentally divorce ourselves from all knowledge of behavior in living creatures? Is that practicing real science? One thing that you learn in studying ethology is that, while animals are certainly individuals and manifest personalities, they aren't behaviorally complicated. You can expect creatures of a certain anatomical build and with a certain evolutionary history to behave in a given fashion when presented with a specific stimulus. Humans included. The use of cats in this instance is entirely applicable, not because they share a close phylogenetic relationship with theropods which obviously they do not, but to illustrate the diverse use of the tail in the animal kingdom today. Extant avian raptors use their tails to navigate through the air, and we see much less rigid caudal feathers and vertebrae in species that hunt small songbirds capable of deft maneuvering in flight, as opposed to raptors which hunt hares and can often execute a quick kill without ever being seen or having to adjust their flight path in a power dive, often smashing into prey in excess of 100 miles per hour to drive talons through tissue and bone, killing without much struggle. Hell, there have been arguments as to speciation in Peregrin falcons across North America for this same exact reason; some of said falcons have much more rigid caudal feathers than others in an entirely different region, reason being that the prey of the smaller falcons with the more rigid caudal feathers and vertebrae were traditionally small songbirds, whereas those with more pliable caudal features utilize them considerably less in the hunt and take on largely Blue jays. THESE are creatures with a close phylogenetic relationship to extinct theropods, and using them as a comparable example is entirely relevant. Dromaeosaurs have extremely rigid caudal features, opposite T.rex which likely would not have. We can look at the skeletons and deduce the origins and insertions of the muscle groups to deduce well enough where certain attachments would have been and how ductile a tail would have been. We can compare that tail to the rest of the body plan and arrive at patterns. Large birds of prey with traditionally large prey demonstrate significantly less rigidity than small birds of prey with either small or fast-moving prey. Looking at the tail of T.rex and the animals it predated upon, why is it in the slightest bit illogical to draw behavioral or physiological inferences from these creatures? I'm not sure exactly how you're looking at the issue but it has to be in starkly different terms than I. I'm not saying that since T.rex had claws on its forelimbs, which house cats are also possessed of, that it means T.rex was an adept climber. I'm not saying that since Deinonychus and felines have retractable claws, it means that both must cache their food and do so in exactly the same fashion. What I am saying is that dromaeosaurs, relatively small, light-weight theropods with a capable arsenal of weapons and a rigid tail likely used that tail for locomotive purposes similar to what we see in all distance-pursuing predators today. What I am saying is that the massive Wedge-tailed eagle of Australia which typically kills and devours kangaroos is an ambush predator with supple caudal features not actively utilized in the hunt, so it makes a good measure of sense to infer T.rex, also a presumed ambush predator with a pliable tail, likely did not use it when hunting considering it likely took its well-armored, slow-moving prey by surprise rather than needing a rudder to turn and pivot quickly over good distances.

It doesn't make sense to draw sweeping inferences for which there is little to no correlation, but when we actually make deductions, it's ludicrous to assert extant creatures must be taken off the table with paleontological theorizing. Absolutely ludicrous. I'm sorry, but I must admit I have taken offense by my daily activities, my job which I heartily enjoy, being deemed faux science due to a tried and true methodology.

T-rex's (or any other theropod's) tail served a purpose that, off the top of my head, doesn't directly correlate to any existing animal - certainly not in magnitude of function - that being counterbalance, keeping rex from helplessly tipping nose-first into the dirt every time he tried to stand up. If we look at rex with an eye towards form following function, he probably didn't have a very flexible tail because flexibility wouldn't make his tail better for balancing (arguably, flexibility would make it worse: if you're walking a tightrope, do you want a 10-foot rigid pole or a 10-foot long water balloon?).

This takes me back to Raptorex. In this recent discovery of an ancestor of T.rex, we see an animal wherein the arms were staggeringly small and the tail quite lengthy, both of these preceding a comparatively gigantic skull, the likes of which we see in T.rex. The skull begins to strengthen, but if you look at the size of the tibia and fibula in comparison to the femur, this animal most definitely hunted in active pursuit.

This image illustrates that we have to reevaluate the existing theories for the evolution of T.rex anatomy. The evolutionary path that T.rex took was completely different from, say, Saurophaganax, which was perhaps one of the most successful and gigantic generalist theropods known. While Saurophaganax wasn't as heavily built, it was possessed of a wider arsenal of weapons; obviously I'm referring to the massive claws it sports on its forelimbs. The recurved claws would have anchored like meat hooks into prey, at which point the upper jaw could have been driven through flesh to carve a massive bleeding gash. Raptorex would surely have been able to pursue fast-moving prey, but its weapon of choice, opposite Saurophaganax, was its jaws, which even at this small size would likely have been capable of removing and pulverizing bone in small animals. As the prey became larger, slower, and more heavily-armored, so did the predators. T.rex followed its prey up the evolutionary ladder. And the only reason we can make these deductions, we look at extant animals so see behaviors not of which they are capable but in which they engage.

As Scar pointed out, T-rex probably wasn't the fastest of animals, and of course there are lots who believe he was more of a uberscavenger than hunter, for all sorts of reasons. To me though the most compelling argument that rex was more of a scavenger/ambusher/thief than sprinter is the basic physical peril involved in a creature that big - with virtually no front limbs - running. We're talking basic physics here: if a rex in a full run is just a smidge not as surefooted as it thinks, or steps on some loose gravel, or trips over a log or whatever - the resultant fall could easily cripple or kill the animal: take 6-8 tons of meat and bone, exponentially adjust it by the momentum, and bring it all down on the rex's head, with effectively no forelimbs to slow him down. And all of this ignores the basic question of "how does something that big sneak up on anything?"

So based on T.rex anatomy we can argue it was an opportunistic predator based on what? Again, not just fossil evidence, but prey, environment, anatomy and physiology, and phylogenetically close relatives or those with similarities in any of the aforementioned areas. If T.rex fell when pursuing in excess of 40 miles per hour, tripping would have easily resulted in fractures throughout the legs and chest, but every floating rib would have been driven upward into deep tissue.

So anyway, my feeling is that a rex having a tail it can curl and twirl like a house cat is pretty unlikely. Scar uses the example of cheetahs to point out that rigid tails usually mean rudders for sharp turns while running... though I'd go back to the apples & oranges topic I opened with, pointing out that a cheetah is a quadruped, about 100 pounds, and from an entirely different evolutionary line than a T-rex (which by comparison is a biped and about 14,000 pounds). I'm picturing something closer to an alligator's tail, but even more inflexible (as alligators 1) are also quadrupeds and don't rely on their tails for balance as much as a rex would, and 2) use their tail to swim).

Bats and birds evolved flight independently, but that does not preclude us from drawing relevant inferences between the two when it comes to pursuit strategies for prey that the two share, as well as bodily features actively incorporated into this activity.

Crocodilians most certainly do rely upon their tails for balance on land; ever seen a crocodilian actually pursue prey on land? They're not the sluggish, useless creatures outside of water that most of the public thinks. I once saw a Nile crocodile leap from the water and stride more than 200 yards to tackle a warthog. Without the tail to add balance this exercise would have been impossible. The crocodilian tail is a multi-purpose tool in the truest sense of the phrase. Swimming and balance on land aside, the crocodilian tail is crucial to the process of mastication. Without their tails, said animals wouldn't be able to generate enough torque to execute a death roll and tear off chunks of prey. For animals possessed of dentition which lack serrations and which obtain large-bodied prey with extremely tough hide, the ability to rip off massive chunks is absolutely essential and removes a low cap from crocodilian size by incorporating this feature. Aside from balance on land, the crocodilian tail has little comparative use when trying to infer the use of a Tyrannosaur's tail.

Wow, I'm worked up. I need a drink.

 

[Vrolokus]

Oh boy. To be continued!

 

[Scar]

Sorry. In hindsight, that all came off a bit more acrimonious that I intended.

 

[dansdinosaurs]

Epic lulz.

 

[Vrolokus]

Sorry. In hindsight, that all came off a bit more acrimonious that I intended.

I fully intend to reply to this. I just need to clear 2 or 3 hours first. ;p

I will say this first, though, since it's easy: for pete's sake don't take personal or professional offense over my musings about T-rex, I certainly meant none. And don't let it drive you to drink. Just think of this as good-natured academic discussion...

 

[Scar]

I didn't take offense to that, I took offense over the comment that using extant organisms comparably to arrive at behavioral conclusions for extinct organisms cannot lead one to genuine knowledge. Comments like that are specious. Good-natured academic discussion respects the academic discipline in question and how that discipline conducts its research, which is as I stated a tried and true methodology.

Looking at extant birds and reptiles anatomically and discerning which anatomical traits serve what functions behaviorally, then uncovering, not surprisingly, anatomical similarities in dinosaurs and concluding likely similar behavioral patterns is practicing not only ethology but logic. They are simple conditional correlations in many instances, but we can't draw any inferences without first having fossil evidence to build upon. I'm not sure whether our discrepancy lies in that one must only deduce theories based on fossils, divorcing ourselves from knowledge of extant fauna which is a literal impossibility and all the more so since a great number of paleontologists have other higher academic degrees such as ornithology or herpetology complimentarily which speaks highly as to the comparative component; or if you simply didn't find the rudimentary example of the cheetah and lion sufficient being that taxonomically they're not comparable to extinct theropods. I hold to that example such that it well illustrates how a tool such as that is present among the most successful terrestrial carnivores on the African continent today, and one shared by avian raptors. It's not a great leap but a sensible step toward looking at theropods and drawing a conclusion. I'm thinking it's the latter wherein our difference lies, and in which case that's fine and I understand what you were trying to say, though respectfully disagree and wish perhaps that you had phrased it a bit differently to avoid this acrimony.

 

[Amanaman]

I agree 100% with you Scar, on looking at extant animals for a better understanding an extinct animal. Comparing is done in science all the time. Unless we had a time machine to go back and observe the T-Rex, comparing to related and extant species is the next best thing.

 

[hardstyle lover]

Oh Em Gee? Who could this be?

plz let it be a velociraptor