|
MariusRomanus@aol.com wrote-
> Okay dokie...... Ossified then. That's still sterna to
me. So I guess what you are saying is that Mr.
> Paul's restorations of a rex with a sternum of
some sort, which I take as being cartilaginous, is
> completely wrong. Okay dokie. (Unless he has updated his
restoration and I missed it.)
Why do you assume the sternum on Paul's Tyrannosaurus is
cartilaginous? It's true he sometimes adds cartilaginous sterna (or parts
of them) to his reconstructions (as seen in Archaeopteryx and ornithomimids),
but he puts ossified ones there if they are known. You can't tell from a
Paul skeletal reconstruction whether a sternum was ossified or not, so I'm
certainly not saying it's wrong. I'm not sure whether sterna have been
found for Tyrannosaurus rex itself.
Mickey Mortimer
|