About two or three years ago, I was obsessed with finding a Tyrannosaurus specimen that was longer than "Sue." Well, I've found a lot of specimens to compare to "Sue," but even "Sue" surprised me with how big she was:
Therefore, "Sue" lives up to her name as being the longest T.
specimen. At least, as far as being the most complete T.
"Sue" is the champion. Of course, there have been many challengers to her throne. I've found many specimens that have been claimed to of been "larger" than "Sue," so I decided to try and find an accurate size estimate for these specimens.
1. Take new number and subtract it from original number.
2. Take that number and divide it by the original number and multiply by 100.
3. That number will by your percentage increase or decrease if it's negative.
"Stan's" Femur is 130 and has a body length of 12.2 meters. "Wyrex" has a femur length of 132.7 cm.
132.7 - 130 = 2.7.
2.7 divided by (represented by "/") and multiplied by (represented by "*") equals 2.1.
2.1 is your percentage increase, or 2.1% increase.
1. MOR 008:
Gignac and Erickson (2017) gave a length of 116.2 cm, but Mickey Mortimer of the
gave a length of 88 cm for its dentary. I'm going with that length.
Dentary: 88 cm. (
Dentary: 94.0 cm.
Skull: 147.0 cm.
Maxilla: 79 cm.
Femur: 130.0 cm.
91 - 88 = 3% decrease.
12.2. m - 3% = 39 feet (11.8/12.0 meters).
-Top: 28 cm. (I got it twice)
-Top to Bottom: 44 cm.
Left (Plate 4, figure 3, Lateral View):
-Top to Bottom: 38 cm.
"Sue":
Left Squamosal: 44 cm. (Brochu, 2003, pg. 28, "B")
Postorbital (Pg. 27) (Measured on 9/8/19):
Top: 48 cm.
Top to Bottom: 49 cm.
Skull: 163.2 cm.
Body: 13.6 meters.
44 - 49 = 5.
5/49*100 = 10.2% decrease.
13.6 m - 10.2% = 12.2 meters for the body.
163.2 - 10.2% = 146.6 cm for the skull.
"Stan's" Skull: 147 cm.
146.6 - 147 = 0.4.
0.4/147*100 = 0.3% decrease.
12.2 m - 0.3% = 40 feet (12.2 meters).
The body estimates from the squamosal gives a length of 12.7 meters, while the postorbital gives a length of 7.9-12.5 meters. The squamosal measurement for "Sue" was taken from the side, or lateral view. For MOR 008, it was the back or dorsal. The "top" postorbital measurement gives a laughable body size estimate of only 7.9 meters. Therefore, I'll go with the "top to bottom" body length estimate of the postorbital, which is 12.2 meters.
However, I've decided to take another route: The reconstructed skull of MOR 008 is 59 inches (149.9 cm), compared to "Sue's" 55.4-inch (140.7 cm) skull (Hermann, 2006, from Leahy on DML) (Ryan, 2006).
Skull:
-59 inches is 149.9 cm.
- 55.4 inches is 140.7 cm.
149.9 - 140.7 = 9.2.
9.2/140.7*100 = 6.5% increase.
*163.2 cm + 6.5% = 173.8 cm for skull.
Body:
13.6 m + 6.5% = 48 feet (14.5 m).
It seems that MOR 008 is larger than "Sue" after all.
MOR 008's Total Length: 48 feet (14.5 meters).
Skull: 173.8 cm.
Age: 22-26. (Erickson et al., 2006, pg. 14) (Carr, 2020, Figure 12, Number 27)
Links:
MOR's Twitter Page:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MuseumRockies/status/869699990645424128
Previous Pic:
https://twitter.com/morpaleo/status/1012818564565295104Hermann (2006) (From Leahy on DML):
http://dml.cmnh.org/2006Apr/msg00205.html
Ryan (2006):
http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/new-biggest-t-rex-skull.html?m=1
Paleofile. "Tyrannosaurus":
http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Theropods/Tyrannosaurus.asp
Larson (2008) (In Larson and Carpenter, 2008):
http://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/html/A56387B0FF8B707DB0C4FF12944AF60F
Molnar (1991):
https://zenodo.org/record/3251815#.XU8SYLaZP-Y
Link 2:
http://treatment.plazi.org/id/6E4987EAFFEDFF83C269FCFA784991B6
Theropod Database:
http://theropoddatabase.com/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Tyrannosaurusrex
Gignac and Erickson (2017):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5435714/
Carr (2020) (Figure 12):
Onto the next contestant:
2. UCMP 118742:
(Picture from
Paleofile):
Maxilla:
81.0 cm (Theropod Database)
BHI 3033:
Dentary: 94.0 cm.
Skull: 147.0 cm.
Maxilla: 79 cm.
Femur: 130.0 cm.
Length: 40 feet (12.2 meters).
79 - 81 = 2% increase.
12.2 m + 2% = 12.4 meters.
UCMP's Total Size: 41 feet (12.4 meters).
Age: 16 years old (Erickson et al., 2006):
Estimated Adult Age: 43 feet (13.0 meters).
Age 18.
Update (9/5-8/19): Maxilla measurements:
1. Molnar (1991): 71 cm. (Measured on 9/5/19)
2. Cast (
WitmerLab) (On the left):
Length: 78 cm. (Measured on 9/5/19)
I'll go with the
WitmerLab length.
MB.R.91216 ("Tristan Otto"):
Maxilla: 77.
Body: 12.4 meters.
77 - 78 = 1.
1/77*100 = 1.3% increase.
12.4 m + 1.3% = 12.6 meters.
Update (3/18/21): Maxilla from Porter and Witmer (2019) (Figure 6):Length: 87.5 cm (Measured twice on 3/18/21 using 7 and 8 cm).
"Sue":
Maxilla: 86 cm.
Body: 13.6 m.
86 - 87.5 = 1.5.
1.5/86*100 = 1.7% increase.
13.6 m + 1.7% = 13.8 meters.
Next:
3. RGM 792.000 ("Trix"):
I've noticed that "Trix" has been given the same measurements that "Sue" has:
"Sue":
Body Length: 12.5/13.0 ("Larson, 1994") (Ibrahim et al., 2014) to 13.0 meters (Brusatte et al., 2010) (Gignac and Erickson, 2017) (
Reuters, 2017)
Skull: 1.50 meters. ("A Tyrannosaurus Rex Named Sue," 2001) (
Field Museum, 2008)
"Trix":
Body Length: 12.5/13.0 (
Business Wire, 2016) to 13.0 meters (
Daily Mail, 2016).
Skull: 1.50 (Reims et al., 2016) to 2.0 meters. (
TCT Magazine, 2017)
I think "Trix's" skull is the same length as 'Sue's," making her real body length 42 feet (12.8/13.0 meters) instead of 12.5 meters. Therefore, "Trix" and "Sue" were the same size.
Update (8/23/19): I've FINALLY found some of "Trix's" bones to measure!
Skull: 152.4 cm (60 inches) (Not including the partial dentary). (Measured on 8/25/19)
Maxilla: 33 inches (83.8 cm). (Measured on 5/10/20. Stop at the point under the lacrimal horn)
Trix's Skull:
*Tibia: 119.5 cm. (Measured on 5/10/20).
Trix's Tibia:
"Sue":
Maxilla: 86 cm.
Skull: 163.2 cm.
Tibia: 124 cm.
Body: 13.6 meters.
Tibia:
119.5 - 124 = 4.5.
4.5/124*100 = 3.6% decrease.
13.6 m - 3.6% = 43 feet (13.1 meters).
Skull:
83.8 - 86 = 2.2.
2.2/86*100 = 2.6% decrease.
163.2 cm - 2.6% = 159 cm.
"Trix's" Total Length: 43 feet (13.1 meters).
Tibia: 119.5 cm.
Skull (Complete): 159 cm.
Maxilla: 83 cm.
Was "Trix" bigger than "Sue?" No, but she wasn't small either.
Links:
"Trix:"
Skull:
Picture/Website:
Reims et al., (2016):
TCT Magazine (2017):
Body:
2016:
Next contestant:
4. MOR 980 ("Peck's Rex," "Rigby Rex," "T.
rex imperator"):
I had a hard time trying to come up with an accurate size for this specimen. It always seemed to be neck-and-neck with "Sue." When "Sue" was given 12.5/13.0 meters in length (Larson, 1994, pg. 142), MOR 980 was 12.4 meters long (
DinoCasts.com). Then it was given 12.8/13.0 meters, along with "Sue" (
Theropod Database). Then it was given 12.3 meters, alongside "Sue" (Deak and McKenzie, 2016) (
Siebel Dinosaur Complex). Then paleontologist Peter Makovicky stated that both it, "Sue," and "Scotty" had the same femur widths (
Chicago Tribune, 2019).
I tried to find a bone to measure MOR 980 against other T.rex specimens, but it was not easy. Here's what I got:
Humerus: 36.2 cm. (Larson and Carpenter, 2008)
Dentary:
*Dentary Tooth Row: 58.0 cm (lateral view).
Note: "Sue's" is 56 cm (my measurement from Brochu, 2003, pg. 41, right dentary, D medial and C lateral).
"Sue":
Dentary Tooth Row: 56 cm (medial and lateral).
Body: 13.6 m.
58 - 56 = 2.
2/56*100 = 3.6% increase.
13.6 m + 3.6% = 46 feet (14.1 meters).
"Scotty":
Dentary Tooth Row (my measurement): 57.3 cm (medial).
Body: 14.1 meters.
Based on "Sue," tooth row length is usually the same in both lateral and medial views.
57.3 - 58 = 0.7.
0.7/57.3*100 = 1.2% increase.
14.1 m + 1.2% = 47 feet (14.3 meters).
*Pubes:
CM 9380: 1.25 meters. (Osborn, 1905) (
Theropod Database)
132.0 - 125.0 = 7% increase.
12.2 m + 7% = 13.1 meters for MOR 980.
The only accurate bone that I can measure for this specimen are its pubes. Therefore, I'll go with that length.
Extra Notes:-Gignac and Erickson (2017) gave MOR 980 a longer skull length (128.2 cm) than "Sue" (127.5 cm).
Update (8/26/19): I was able to come up with two measurements for MOR 980's humerus and incomplete dentary that I showed above:
Humerus (Cast In Black):
Length: 36.4 cm. (
RMDRC paleo lab) (8/26/19)
Width: 11.5 cm. (
RMDRC paleo lab) (8/26/19)
Dentary:
Incomplete Length: 85 cm.
My Estimated Complete Dentary Length: 98.5 cm. (I had to draw what I thought the missing portion of the dentary looked like)
Update (9/2/19):
MOR 980:
Humerus: 36.4 cm.
*(?)Dentary: 98.5 cm. (My estimated total length)
(?)Body: 42 feet:
12.9 m (Compared to "Hank's" humerus)
*12.7 m (Compared to "Sue's" dentary)
Update 9/7/19: So after I got the 12.9-meter estimate for CM 9380, I remembered this picture I found of CM 9380's and MOR 980's skeletons:
MOR 980 (Left) and CM 9380 (Right):
Judging from this picture, MOR 980 would have to be the same size as "Sue" AT LEAST! Judging by this picture, it would have to have been a foot taller (and longer?) than CM 9380. Also, Gignac and Erickson (2017) gave MOR 980 a longer skull length (128.5 cm) than "Sue" (127.5). This would make MOR 980 0.8% longer than "Sue."
Also, Paleontologist Peter Makovicky said that MOR 980 has about the same femur width as "Sue" as well (Johnson
, 2019). This means that MOR 980 would have weighed about the same as "Sue."
However, I want to have some kind of bone to measure. I don't really trust the "complete dentary length" that I gave earlier, so I'm going back to a nagging pain that's been stuck in my head for a long time now: the pubic bone length.
Pubis length:
1. 52 inches (132 cm) ("At least"). (
Science Daily, 1997) (
Los Angeles Times, 1997) (
Theropod Database)
2. 52.4 inches (133 cm). (
Mike Taylor, 2003) (Barnes-Svarney and Svarney, 2010, pg. 134) (
Ebrary.net, 2014) (
Paleofile)
Since there are more (and recent) sources claiming the 133-cm length, I'll go with that length.
"Sue":
Pubis: 132 cm. (Measured on 9/7/19 in Brochu, 2003, pg. 106) (I got it three times)
Body: 13.6 meters.
133 - 132 = 1.
1/132*100 = 0.8% increase.
13.6 m + 0.8% = 45 feet (13.7 meters).
Welp, just like the skull length provided by Gignac and Erickson (2017), MOR 980 seems to have been 0.8% longer than "Sue..."
I've been trying my HARDEST to get a size estimate for this specimen, and I always come back to using its pubic bone length. I have to honestly come to the conclusion that perhaps MOR 980 was
slightly longer than "Sue..."
One of the (perhaps) largest Mapusaurus specimen had a pubic bone shaft about 10% larger than the Giganotosaurus holotype specimen MUCPv-Ch 1's (Coria and Currie, 2006, pg. 101). That would make that Mapusaurus specimen 43 feet long (13.2 meters). Therefore, if that Mapusaurus specimen is considered to be that big based on its pubic bone shaft alone, then why not MOR 980?
I've been trying to slim down MOR 980, but then I remembered something: "Scotty" was once considered to have been smaller than "Sue," but now we know that she was bigger. Therefore, perhaps it's time to consider that maybe MOR 980 was also
slightly longer than "Sue." However, "Sue" is
clearly heavier than MOR 980.
Update (3/19-6/19/21): The dentary tooth row length makes MOR 980 even bigger, so I'll go with that length.
MOR 980's Total Length: 47 feet (13.7-14.3 meters).
Dentary Tooth Row: 58 cm.
Was MOR 980 bigger than "Sue?"
Yes. In fact, it could have been about two feet longer than "Sue!"
Links:
Gignac and Erickson (2017):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02161-w/tables/1
Johnson
(2019):
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/museums/ct-ent-largest-t-rex-scotty-sue-0329-story.html
Pubic Bone:
Theropod Database:
http://theropoddatabase.com/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Tyrannosaurusrex
Paleofile:
http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Theropods/Tyrannosaurus.asp
Ebrary.net (2014):
https://ebrary.net/3948/history/dinosaur_sie
Mike Taylor (2003):
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-size/predator/index.html
Barnes-Svarney and Svarney (2010) (pg. 134):
https://books.google.com/books?id=w7gYJZ6qQRcC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=t.rex+pubic+bone+52.4+inches&source=bl&ots=oFqY-il5CK&sig=ACfU3U1z91QrrCIzmr1NLVxvyc9XAtFoIQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN0tnei8DkAhXtzVkKHddOCRYQ6AEwEnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=t.rex%20pubic%20bone%2052.4%20inches&f=false
Science Daily (1997):
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970917060320.htm
Los Angeles Times:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-sep-21-mn-34603-story.html
Coria and Currie (2006) (pg. 101):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228655543_A_new_carcharodontosaurid_Dinosauria_Theropoda_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Argentina
So now, we have three specimens that are larger than "Sue" in size. Are there any others?
5. SDSM 12047 ("Mud Butte Rex"):
(Picture from
Paleofile):
The skull is bent/crushed (Carpenter, 1991), so I'm going to measure its mandible.
SDSM 12047 Skull (Carpenter, 1991) (Scale bar is 10 cm):
Dentary Tooth Row: 56 cm. (Carpenter, 1991)
Dentary Length: 103 cm. (Carpenter, 1991) (I got it twice on 8/21/19 and once on *8/23/19*)
Mandible Length: 149 cm. (Carpenter, 1991) (I got it twice)
Maxilla (Crushed): 83 cm. (Carpenter, 1991) (I got it twice) (Accurately reconstructed, it might be longer than "Sue's" maxilla which is 86 cm)
"Sue":
Dentary: 101 cm.
Body: 13.6 cm.
103 - 101 = 2.
2/101*100 = 2% increase.
13.6 m + 2% = 46 feet (13.9 meters).
I could only get a length estimate of this specimen from Carpenter (1991). My only apprehension is that it's based on a drawing. But like I've said, this is the only way I could get a size estimate, so I'm going to go along with it.
SDSM 12047's Total Length: 46 feet (13.9 meters).
Dentary: 103 cm.
Links:
Carpenter (1991):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295458205_Variation_in_Tyrannosaurus_rex
Specimen Info:
https://sdaos.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/2010/249.pdf
Skull Picture:
http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Theropods/Tyrannosaurus.asp
Was this specimen longer than "Sue?"
I'll say yes for now. I might find a better picture of its bones someday that might give me a better size estimate, but for now, it's bigger than "Sue."
Now we have four specimens that definitely rival "Sue" in size. However, there's another more complete specimen that we have that definitely exceeds "Sue" in size.
6. RSM 2523.8 ("Scotty"):
It's become kind of difficult to find an accurate size for this "Scotty," as of late. Originally, I gave her 40 feet (12.1 meters), based on her femur length, but it was kind of difficult to get an accurate length. This was due to how the photo of the femur was taken. Then I used her dentary (from Thomas Carr's blog), and I got 12.8/13.0 meters for "Scotty." Then it turns out that "Scotty" was way bigger than previously estimated.
A new paper came out examining her bones (Persons IV et al., 2019), giving more pre use estimates of her bones. Persons IV et al., (2019) gave her femur a length of 133.0-133.3 meters, compared to "Sue's" 132.1-cm femur from Brochu (2003). Unfortunately, I couldn't get an accurate estimate of the femur, so I looked at her dentary and right pedal phalanx IV-1.
"Scotty's" and "Sue's" Measurements (Persons IV et al., 2019):
"Scotty":
Right Pedal Phalanx IV-1:
18.4 cm. (Persons IV et al., 2019)
My Length (Top and side of bone): 22 cm.
Dentary Tooth Row:
-59.5 cm. (Persons IV et al., 2019)
My Length (Right Dentary):
-57 cm. (Persons IV et al., 2019, Figure 18 B, medial).
-*57.3 cm (at maximum) (Measured on 3/20/21 in Figure 18 B, medial).
Femur Width: 21.0 cm. (Persons IV et al., 2019) (
The Guardian, 2019 reports a width of 20.3 cm)
Right Fibula: 120 cm. (My measurement)
"Scotty's" Dentaries (I measured from the tip of the jaw to the 14th-marked alveoli):
"Scotty's" Right Fibula ("C"):
"Sue":
Right Pedal Phalanx IV-1: 16 cm (my measurement from Brochu, 2003).
Dentary Tooth Row:
58.5 cm. (Persons IV et al., 2019)
My Length (Right Dentary): 56 cm (Brochu, 2003, pg. 41, right dentary, "D," medial)
Femur Width: 20 cm. (Brochu, 2003, pg. 112, "A")
Fibula Length: 120.0 cm.
Update (8/23/19): "Scotty" is larger than I thought! I had some trouble trying to get a length of her femur, but I've FINALLY found a good pick of her femur that gave me an accurate length. It's longer than 138 cm...
Femur (Cast) from the Royal Saskatchewan Museum's Twitter Page:
(I measured the top picture, not the drawing)
Lengths:
140 cm (Straight side).
142.5 cm (Other side with femoral head).
148.5 cm (Total length from femoral head to tip of longest end). (Measured on 9/8/19)
I'm going to go with the 140-cm length.
"Sue":
Femur: 137 cm.
Body: 13.0 meters.
140 - 137 = 3.
3/137*100 = 2.2% increase.
13.0 m + 2.2% = 13.3 meters.
Update (9/8/19): I've decided to go with the total femur length.
"Sue":
Femur (Total Length): 143 cm.
Body: 13.6 meters.
148.5 - 143 = 5.5.
5.5/143*100 = 3.9% increase.
13.6 m + 3.9% = 46 feet (14.1 meters).
RSM 2523.8's Total Length: 46 feet (14.1 meters).
Femur Length: 148.5 cm.
Fragmentary Remains:
Now, there are some fragmentary remains of Tyrannosaurus that have been publicized as being "larger than "Sue." Here are the famous contenders:
7. NMMNH P-1013-1/NMMNH P-3698 ("Elephant Butte T-Rex"):
This specimen of T-Rex was found in New Mexico. Supposedly, a left dentary comes from the 1.56-meter skull. "Sue's" skull is 1.53 meters long (Larson, 1994).
153.0 cm - 156.0 cm = 3% increase.
12.8 m + 3% = 43 feet (13.2 meters).
Now, I got 98.0 cm for the incomplete dentary (Larson and Carpenter, 2008, pg. 42) (Sullivan and Lucas, 2015, pg. 114). The complete dentary would probably have been 102 cm long, based on my best guess in trying to create the outline of the missing end.
This is MY best guess though! "Sue's" skull is also 1.54 meters long.
NMMNH P-3698/"Elephant Butte T-Rex" from Sullivan and Lucas (2015) (pg. 114) ("B"):
NMMNH P-3698/"Elephant Butte T-Rex" in Larson and Carpenter (2008) (pg. 42):
Incomplete Dentary: 98 cm. (Measured from both Larson and Carpenter, 2008 and Sullivan and Lucas, 2015)
Complete Dentary (Estimated): 102 cm (at best). (Measured in Sullivan and Lucas, 2015) (I got it twice on 8/21/19)
Tooth Row Length: 75.5 cm (Measured on 3/20/21 from Larson and Carpenter, 2008).
"Sue":
Dentary: 101 cm.
Dentary Tooth Row: 56 cm.
Skull: 153 cm.
Body: 13.6 meters.
LACM 23844:
Dentary: 97 cm.
Body: 13.0 meters.
Incomplete Dentary:
"Sue":
101 - 98 = 3.
3/101*100 = 3% decrease.
13.6 m - 3% = 13.2 meters.
LACM 23844:
97 - 98 = 1.
1/97*100 = 1% increase.
13.0 m + 1% = 13.1 meters.*
Complete(?) Dentary:
"Sue":
101 - 102 = 1.
1/101*100 = 1% increase.
13.6 m + 1% = 13.7 meters.
Dentary Tooth Row:
"Sue":
56 - 75.5 = 19.5.
19.5/56*100 = 34.8% increase.
13.6 m + 34.8% = 60 feet (18.3 meters).
101 cm + 34.8% = (?)136.2-cm dentary.
MOR 980:
Dentary Tooth Row: 58 cm.
Body: 14.3 meters.
58 - 75.5 = 17.5.
17.5/58*100 = 30.2% increase.
14.3 m + 30.2% =
61 feet (18.6 meters).
It looks like the "Elephant Butte Rex" might have been larger than "Sue" after all. Of course, this is based on my estimation of what the complete dentary length might have been. Based on the 98-cm incomplete dentary, it was already 43 feet long (13.1 meters). Depending on how long the full dentary might have been, this specimen could have been the same size as "Sue" at least. However, I did manage to estimate 102 cm from Sullivan and Lucas (2015) twice, so I'll keep that estimate.
NMMNH P-3698's Total Length: 61 feet (18.6 meters).
Links:
Sullivan and Lucas (2015) (Pg. 114):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299592501_Cretaceous_vertebrates_of_New_Mexico
Larson and Carpenter (2008) (pg. 42):
https://books.google.com/books?id=5WH9RnfKco4C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=t.rex+celeste+rex+femur&source=bl&ots=089KX-0MNr&sig=ACfU3U0yOHbiAUuVKUshtBor_JS_CHxmrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjehLDSuorjAhWwY98KHf6yDc0Q6AEwGnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=t.rex%20celeste%20rex%20femur&f=false
Specimen Info:
Link 1:
http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/online-exhibits/new-mexico-tyrannosaur-state
Link 2:
https://dinoanimals.com/dinosaurs/huge-dinosaurs-youve-never-heard-of/
Link 3:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IJ9nBUq_hKkC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=tyrannosaurus+NMMNH+P-1013-1&source=bl&ots=Or9TzWUoGW&sig=6ujJededLcc1OSttWpn0mguvWMc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie2orhvZnfAhVLmlkKHSIrAT4Q6AEwDXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=tyrannosaurus%20NMMNH%20P-1013-1&f=false
Was the "Elephant Butte Rex" bigger than "Sue?" Yes!
Was UCMP 137538 bigger than "Sue?" Maybe. However, this specimen is based only on a toe bone, so I'll take its size estimate with a grain of salt.
9. MOR 1126 ("Celeste Rex") ("C.rex"):
(Photo from Smith, 2000):
Named after Paleontologist Celeste Horner, this specimen is said to have been longer than "Sue" (Smith, 2000) (Celeste Horner Resume) (Hogard, 2000), and is estimated to have been 10-13 tons in weight (Hogard, 2000). However, the only bone that I could measure for this specimen was a toe bone provided in Longrich (2010). The bone didn't have a size given for it in the paper, so I had to measure it myself.
"Celeste Rex's" Pedal Phalanx II-2 (Longrich et al., 2010):
Length: 23.0 centimeters (My measurement).
Brochu (2003) gave 15.2 cm for "Sue's" pedal phalanx II-2 (pg. 138). However, I got 16 cm for it (Brochu, 2003) (pg. 123).
"Sue":
Pedal Phalanx II-2: 16 cm. (Brochu, 2003, pg. 123)
Body: 13.6 meters.
23 cm - 16 cm = 7.
7/16*100 = 43.8% increase.
13.6 m + 43.8% = 64 feet (19.6 meters).
MOR 1126's Total Length: 64 feet (19.6 meters)(?).
Links:
Info. on Specimen:
Smith (2000):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/965609.stm
Celeste Horner Resume:
http://celestehorner.com/resume.html
Hogard (2000):
https://www.factmonster.com/jack-horner
"Celeste Rex's" Pedal Phalanx II-2:
Longrich et al., (2010):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013419#pone-0013419-g002%20https://www.researchgate.net/figure/47545561_fig2_A1-A2-UCMP-137538-pedal-phalanx-in-dorsal-view-B1-B2-Pedal-phalanx-MOR-1126
"Sue's" Pedal Phalanx II-2:
Brochu (2003) (pg. 123) (The first set on the right, 2nd bone):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249022959_Osteology_of_Tyrannosaurus_rex_Insights_from_a_Nearly_Complete_Skeleton_and_High-Resolution_Computed_Tomographic_Analysis_of_the_Skull
Was "Celeste Rex" larger than "Sue?" Maybe. I can't find another other bones to measure for this specimen so, just like UCMP 137538, I'll take its size estimate with a grain of salt. By the way, I'm starting to sense a pattern here that the largest specimens of T.rex, or any dinosaur for that matter, are based on fragmentary material.
Extra:
Here's a couple of specimens from private collections.
10. 19-Inch Humerus (Partial):
Length: 48.3 cm (19 inches at best) (incomplete).
"Sue":
Humerus: 39 cm.
Body: 13.6 meters.
48.3 - 39 = 9.3.
9.3/39*100 = 23.9% increase.
13.6 m + 23.9% = 53 feet (16.1 meters).
19-Inch Humerus' Total Length: 56 feet (16.9 meters).
Link:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/fossil-dinosaur-rex-humerus-montana-478255471
Picture:
https://images.app.goo.gl/gANBmwS6CjN41pF37
Was this specimen longer than "Sue?" Yes. What's even better is that this is a humerus, one of the two specific bones that Paleontologists use to extrapolate dinosaur sizes and weight. (The other bone would be the femur)
Oh, but that specimen isn't the best one:
11. T.
rex Humerus (Bonhams #1023 or Lot 1148):
Length: 24 inches (60.96 or 61 cm).
Width (Large End): 17.8 cm (7 inches).
"Sue":
Humerus:
Length: 39.0 cm.
Width (Large End): 14 cm.
Body: 13.6 meters.
Weight: 9.3 tons.
Length:
61 - 39.0 = 22.
22/39*100 = 56.4% increase.
13.6 m + 56.4% = 70 feet (21.3 meters).
Now, according to the Bonhams website, this
is a T.rex humerus. However, it's extremely long. I don't know if this is actually a T.rex humerus or a misidentified bone to another dinosaur, but Bonhams says that it belongs to a T.rex. I was also thinking that the bone was given a huge length by mistake. However, Bonhams gave an accurate length for "Stan's" skull (1.47 meters), so then the size of the humerus might not be a mistake.
I also compared it to "Jane's" humerus. "Jane" is a juvenile T.rex, so maybe the humerus belonged to a youngster. Perhaps T.rex humerus' shrunk as they matured. However, "Jane's" humerus was 28 cm long (
Theropod Database), so it looks like this humerus belonged to an adult T.rex. Based on its size and width, this specimen would have been 70 feet long (21.3 meters) and weighed 11.8 tons, based on "Sue." This might be the largest specimen of T.rex ever! What's even better is that this is a humerus, not a toe bone. This size estimate is more plausible than measuring a toe bone.
We can even measure this specimen agains a "12.3-meter" "Sue":
61 - 39.0 = 22.
22/39*100 = 56.4% increase.
13.3 m + 56.4% = 63 feet (19.2 meters).
Either way, this specimen was GINORMOUS!
Bonhams #1023's Total Length: 70 feet (21.3 meters).
Links:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/17502/lot/1148/
Page 18:
https://images2.bonhams.com/original?src=Images/live/2013-10/23/S-21076-0-1.pdf
Bonhams' Measurement of "Stan's" Skull:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/19429/lot/1081/
BHI's Measurement of "Stan's" Skull:
http://www.bhigr.com/store/product.php?productid=49&cat=2&page=1
Link 2:
http://www.bhigr.com/store/product.php?productid=48&cat=2&page=1
Is this specimen larger than "Sue?" YES! It's a humerus, and it's the largest T.rex humerus that I've ever found. Heck, this is THE largest specimen of T. rex period.
Update (3/21/21): We have a new challenger!
12. LACM 23844:
Left Dentary (Slightly incomplete) (Molnar, 1991, Plate 12) (Scale bar is 10 cm):
2 (Lateral View):
Length:
-97 cm.
-99.5 cm (at best) (Remeasured on 3/21/21).
Dentary Tooth Row: 57 cm (at maximum).
*1 (Medial View):
Length: 101 cm (at best).
Dentary Tooth Row: 58 cm (at best).
Dentary seems to be incomplete on the "posteroventral angle" (pp. 154-155). The tooth row seems to support this on the medial side.
Dentary Length (Lateral View):
AMNH 5027:
Dentary: 94 cm.
Body: 12.6 meters.
99.5 - 94 = 5.5.
5.5/94*100 = 5.9% increase.
12.6 m + 5.9% = 44 feet (13.3 meters).
"Stan":
Dentary: 91 cm.
Body: 12.2 meters.
99.5 - 91 = 8.5.
8.5/91*100 = 9.3% increase.
12.2 m + 9.3% = 44 feet (13.3 meters).
Dentary Length (Medial):
Based on "Sue": 13.6 meters.
Dentary Tooth Row (Lateral View):
"Scotty":
Dentary Tooth Row: 57.3 cm.
Body: 14.1 m.
57 - 57.3 = 0.3.
0.3/57.3*100. = 0.5% decrease.
14.1 m - 0.5% = 46 feet (14.0 meters).
Dentary Tooth Row (Medial):
Based on MOR 980: 47 feet (14.3 meters).
Notes:
-Gignac and Erickson (2017) gave LACM the largest skull length (136.5 cm) compared to "Sue" (127.5 cm) (Table 1).
-Carr (2020) gave LACM the same skull length (premaxilla-quadrate) as "Sue" and MOR 008 (140 cm) (Materials and Methods: Size, para. 1; Table 15).
LACM 23844's Total Length: 47 feet (14.3 meters).
Dentary (Incomplete): 101 cm (medial).
Dentary Tooth Row: 58 cm (medial).
T. rex Specimens Larger than "Sue":
1. Bonhams #1023: 70 feet (21.3 meters).
2. NMMNH P-3698: 61 feet (18.6 meters).
3. 19-Inch Humerus: 56 feet (16.9 meters).
4. LACM 23844 and MOR 980: 47 feet (14.3 meters).
5. RSM 2523.8: 46 feet (14.1 meters).
6. SDSM 12047's Total Length: 46 feet (13.9 meters).
7. UCMP 118742: 45 feet (13.8 meters).
Maybe:
9. MOR 1126: 64 feet (19.6 meters)(?).
10. UCMP 137538: 59 feet (17.5 meters)(?).
T.rex's Maximum Total Length: 45-70 feet (13.6-21.3 meters).
