Zhuchengtyrannus strikes

Well you knew it was coming right? Yes Zhucheng does now meature a mounted Zhuchengtyrannus. Or rather inevitably, more accurately, it features a T. rex mount with the maxilla and dentary replaced with cases of the holotype. This is quite clear on the photos below as the added parts are of rather better quality and have been pained a little differently too. OK, so otherwise this is basically just another rex mount but forgive me for liking it. And it is in the process of absolutely mashing a juvenile Shantungosaurus, so what’s not to like?

17 Responses to “Zhuchengtyrannus strikes”


  1. 1 mattvr 08/07/2011 at 8:38 am

    Was the use of the word ‘meature’ intentional Dave? (it does suit the subject as the Shantungosaurus is about to be meat)
    It’s a cool concept, though both dinosaurs seem a bit static?

    What am I saying? It’s a Zhuchengtyrannus munching a hadrosaur, it’s cool!

  2. 3 Dave Howlett 08/07/2011 at 11:17 am

    A random query – morphologically, was the Zhuchengtyrannus holotype closer to the equivalent bones in Tarbosaurus or to those in Tyrannosaurus? Obviously it wouldn’t be a foolproof way of determining the better mount to modify, but if it was skewed more towards one than the other, you’d think that would be the one they would choose.

    Of course, it is likely to be a moot question, as I daresay they chose to modify a Tyrannosaurus mount purely because there are more of those around, compared to Tarbosaurus!

    • 4 David Hone 08/07/2011 at 11:33 am

      Yes I think the moust choice is 100% availability. In terms of differences, in the paper we reported more differences to Tarbosaurus than T.rex but that’s in part becuase we went looking for them. Rexy is a few thousand miles away on another continent so no chance of confusion there, and Tarbo is in nearly the same time and place. As I recall though in terms of total differences it was as distant from one as the other.

  3. 5 Zhen 10/07/2011 at 3:36 am

    Oh man, I was JUST thinking about asking you when/if we’ll ever see a Zhuchengtyrannus mount the other day! That’s just freaking awesome.

    Any chance we can get a picture of you standing under it for size comparison? I always love photos of people standing next to a dinosaur for size comparison.

  4. 7 Zhen 10/07/2011 at 3:41 am

    Darn, I forgot to ask. Are we any closer to figuring out whether the jumble of bones contain more fragments of Zhuchengtyrannus?

    • 8 David Hone 10/07/2011 at 8:24 am

      No and we never will be for waht we have right now. ZT is defined exclusively from the skull, so with the presence of a second taxon there is no reason at all to refer any given element to one species or the other, unless it is associated with diagnostic skull remains. That’s not true for anyhting we have right now, so it’s all ‘unknown’.

  5. 9 12 year old 11/07/2011 at 9:14 pm

    i just wish mother nature would leave us a little more of what we would like to have

  6. 12 Dave Godfrey 15/07/2011 at 11:59 am

    Where do you stand on the Raptorex is really a juvenile Tarbosaurus debate so far? Could it, in fact be a Zuchengtyrannus? Or your new undescribed animal?

    • 13 David Hone 15/07/2011 at 1:20 pm

      Well I’m rather ambivalent until I’ve seen the material (which with luck will actually happen on Monday….).

      I guess in theory it could be, but I generally doubt it. Whatever the issues over it’s exact provenance, it’s not from anywhere near Zhucheng so (based on our current knowldge) there’s no reason to think it could be.

      • 14 12 year old 15/07/2011 at 7:11 pm

        it could be possible because t-rex stretched from canada to mexico and from coast to coast but it still is pretty doubtful to me but i cant wait to find out

  7. 15 Zhen 16/07/2011 at 4:17 am

    BTW, who’s skull is Zhuchengtyrannus modeled after? I know the maxilla and dentary are from ZM, but the rest is based on T.rex, Judging from the shape… is the AMNH T.rex?

    I do wonder if ZM actually had further pointing eyes with binocular vision. It would be awesome if it did.

  8. 17 NN 27/12/2013 at 4:49 am

    Indeed, I think the skull are AMNH 5027. I am interested of the forelimb elements – they are not like the those in the AMNH mount (AMHN 5027 fossil preserves no forelimb elements). And it is so appalalingly they cannot put the scapulae/coracoids as close together as they should!


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 346 other followers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 346 other followers

%d bloggers like this: