Tiny Tarbosaurus

By now I’m sure most readers will have picked up on the new paper describing the skull of a tiny Tarbosaurus. It’s estimated to have been just 2 years old when it died and was around 2 m in length – that’s rather smaller than the 10-12m long adults! A few images of this hit the news when the specimen was first announced around three years ago and can be hunted down if you look. There is one above of me with a cast of the specimen as it was when discovered (it’s now been fully prepared out) which gives you a pretty good idea of just how small it was.

While above is just the cast, I was lucky enough to see some of the material while it was undergoing preparation. Even better I was allowed to take some pictures for my own research and have been told I can show off a couple of them here now that the paper is finally out. My thanks for this to Mahito Watabe and his team for this generosity. Though perhaps inevitably with Larry Witmer on the team, there are even better pictures and 3D animated scans of the skull out there too!

This is post is (a little) more than just a couple of photos though as the paper itself has some interesting things to say about tyrannosaur ontogeny. This is the smallest / youngest tyrannosaur we have and coming from an especially big genus makes the size discrepancy even greater. This is pretty handy as there are a variety of problematic tyrannosaurs specimens out there that may or may not represent distinct taxa but being known only from juveniles make this hard to work out. However, if you have a really good handle on how some characters do (or do not) change as individuals get older and bigger then you know what you can and cannot rely on when looking for unique characters in other juveniles.

For me the most interesting characteristic was that of the number of teeth. While there is a little intraspecific variation in tooth numbers, there are also some discreet differences between taxa too – the big tyrannosaurines like Tarbosaurs and Tyrannosaurus have fewer teeth than do smaller ones like Daspletosaurs or Alioramus. In the past it’s been suggested that this number actually changed during ontogeny with the number starting relatively high and the number of teeth reducing as the animal got bigger. However this little guy has exactly the same number of teeth as an adult Tarbosaurus. While this doesn’t exactly disprove the hypothesis, it does at least show that at best it’s not always true, and so a smaller tyrannosaurine skull with lots of teeth could grow into a big adult with lots too.

All in all a very revealing paper (and superbly illustrated I should add) and with more to come on the postcranium, this is going to be an important specimen for many a long year. Sadly, it’s parent institution may not be able to say the same as I will talk about tomorrow.

5 Responses to “Tiny Tarbosaurus”


  1. 1 Josephine 17/05/2011 at 8:14 am

    The first thing I saw on the top picture was the “no photography” sign — which makes for a very unique photo indeed!

    But honestly, I had no idea (until I started following this blog) that fossils came out of the ground crushed. It makes sense now, thinking about it, but never the less, I am always as surprised to see them from the side; flat.

    However, the question I meant to ask is: did the adults of this species have a sclerotic ring supporting the eye as well, or was it lost as the animal matured?

    • 2 David Hone 17/05/2011 at 8:23 am

      You’re not the only one. But I did get permission to take than and then to put these up, don’t worry!

      And yeah, they would have had one too. But in general sclerotic rings are pretty rare, they are very thin plates of bone that can easily degrade, or be lost or damaged, so it’s rare that we get one like this.

  2. 3 Tim Donovan 17/05/2011 at 11:52 am

    Nemegtosaurus had a sclerotic ring, as did hadrosaurs, so it wouldn’t be surprising if T. bataar had them too. Reminds me of the old admonition given to U-boat commanders: “He who sees first, has won!” :)
    Despite the abundance of juvenile material, the local taphonomy didn’t favor preservation of very small specimens. Too bad; we’d probably have a hatchling T. bataar by now.


  1. 1 The end of the Hayashibara? « Dave Hone's Archosaur Musings Trackback on 18/05/2011 at 8:37 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




@Dave_Hone on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 318 other followers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 318 other followers

%d bloggers like this: