Not there

Having touched on mounts for dinosaur skeletons before, it’s about time I dragged out these images from my first visit to China back in 2006. First off here’s a bare metal frame set to have a sauropod skeleton mounted on it. This was obviously custom made for the skeleton / casts to be attached, though I forget which taxon it was now. Each bone had it’s own little cradle that then bolts or crews into the main frame and thus the whole thing can be assembled and taken apart to move it as necessary.

The second photo is of me with a half finished mount of Mamenchisaurus. As you can see some, but far from all, of the bones have been bolted onto some of the frame. Naturally this takes quite a while and on something this scale, getting all of the neck vertebrae and especially the skull in place can be pretty tricky.

Share this Post

7 Responses to “Not there”


  1. 1 Steveoc 16/01/2010 at 5:53 am

    Is this that massive Mamenchisaurus specimen that was mentioned a few months back? If so, do you know how much is actually known?

    http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-sauropod-is-bigger.html

    • 2 David Hone 16/01/2010 at 9:02 am

      Well the taxononmy of Mamenchisaurus is frankly a bit of disaster with a ton of species most of which are very likely to be synonyms and badly needs sorting out. I really don’t know which specimen / species this mount was based on though I suspect it was M. constructus.

  2. 3 Allen Hazen 16/01/2010 at 1:42 pm

    No, as long as they are still working on it it will be a Mamenchisaurus in constructione; only when it is done will it be a Mamenchisaurus constructus.

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist– that specific name (supposedly because the type specimen was discovered on a construction site?) always gets to me.)

    The photo of the bare frame is interesting: thanks for posting it!

  3. 4 Manabu Sakamoto 18/01/2010 at 6:03 pm

    Is this the IVPP warehouse that’s quite out in the countryside?

  4. 6 Mike Taylor 19/01/2010 at 11:33 pm

    That baby (second picture) is a heck of a lot bigger than the M. hochuanensis holotype. It also seems to have anterior dorsals that resemble more posterior dorsals of M. hoch. Not sure what to make of that — it would be good to know more about it.

    Also: to second David’s point, the taxonomy of Mamenchisaurus is extremely wild and crazy right now, with IIRC eight different species referred to that genus. Not only will some probably prove synonymous, as David suggests, but others are not congeneric at all.


Comments are currently closed.



@Dave_Hone on Twitter

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

Join 453 other followers


%d bloggers like this: