Re: tyrannosaurus eggs

[NEIL CLARK <NCLARK@museum.gla.ac.uk>]

> there is no proof that the referred unnamed elongoolithid eggs from 
> China are those of Tyrannosaurus.  Peter Larson has suggested 
that, but 
> embryonic bones have not yet been described.  The eggs are about 
40+cm 
> long, 16+cm wide and have a coarse 
linerartuberculate-ramotuberculate 
> sculpture.
> 
> 

Sounds similar to what, until recently, was considered to be the egg 
of a _Protoceratops_ only much larger.  I think I am right in saying 
that not all the eggs identified as _Protoceratops_ eggs are now 
considered as _Oviraptor_ eggs?  Is it not possible that rather than 
being the eggs of a _T. rex_ (or similar), the eggs could represent 
some larger ceratopian dinosaur.  I guess calling them tyrannosaur 
eggs increases their value to the collector?  I have one of these eggs 
too and it appears unhatched, but I don't think that the embryo was at 
a sufficiently advanced state of development to produce bones.  In 
fact it may be an infertile egg.  Oh, well....back to square one.

Neil 


Neil Clark
Curator of Palaeontology
Hunterian Museum
University of Glasgow
email: NCLARK@museum.gla.ac.uk

Mountains are found in erogenous zones.
(Geological Howlers - ed. WDI Rolfe)