1,721,033 research outputs found
A king-sized theropod coprolite
No full textKaren Chin, Timothy T. Tokaryk, Gregory M. Erickson, Lewis C. Calk (1998): A king-sized theropod coprolite. Nature 393: 680-682, DOI: 10.1038/3146
Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs
No full textGregory M. Erickson, Peter J. Makovicky, Philip J. Currie, Mark A. Norell, Scott A. Yerby, Christopher A. Brochu (2004): Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature 430: 772-775, DOI: 10.1038/nature0269
Correction: Corrigendum: Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs
No full textGregory M. Erickson, Peter J. Makovicky, Philip J. Currie, Mark A. Norell, Scott A. Yerby, Christopher A. Brochu (2016): Corrigendum: Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature 531: 538, DOI: 10.1038/nature1648
Figure 3 in The Biomechanics Behind Extreme Osteophagy in Tyrannosaurus rex
No full textFigure 3. Tyrannosaurus rex dental functional morphology. (A) Exemplar tooth pressures along the distal 37 mm of the left M5 of BHI 3033 (warmer colours indicate higher pressures), illustrating bone-penetrating shear stresses (>65 MPa4, 39) for almost 25 mm of indentation depth. (B) Mesial and distal facing carinae (white arrows) helped direct pathways of bone fracture towards adjacent maxillary teeth (C) (ventral view of BHI 3033) that were also engaged during indentation, illustrating how the most procumbent maxillary tooth crowns collectively form a fracture arcade (pink arrows) due to pressures generated when biting. (Figure element in (A) derived from digital scan by Virtual Surfaces, Inc).Published as part of Paul M. Gignac & Gregory M. Erickson, 2017, The Biomechanics Behind Extreme Osteophagy in Tyrannosaurus rex, pp. 2012 in Scientific Reports 7 on page 4, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02161-w, http://zenodo.org/record/374893
Figure 4 in The Biomechanics Behind Extreme Osteophagy in Tyrannosaurus rex
No full textFigure 4. Jaw models of Tyrannosaurus rex paired with idealized beam diagrams, illustrating three- (A) (lateral view), (B) (anterior view) and four-point ((C), anterior view) loading configurations that allowed T. rex to promote failure stresses and fracture rigid structures (e.g., bone) without the aid of occluding dentitions. Teeth (cones) and the osseus palate, composed of the right and left maxillae and an anterior expansion of the vomer (rectangle), are shown as contact points in pink; original beam shapes are dark blue; and idealized plastic deformations (exaggerated) are light blue.Published as part of Paul M. Gignac & Gregory M. Erickson, 2017, The Biomechanics Behind Extreme Osteophagy in Tyrannosaurus rex, pp. 2012 in Scientific Reports 7 on page 5, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02161-w, http://zenodo.org/record/374893
Figure 3 in A king-sized theropod coprolite
No full textFigure 3 Photomicrograph of a thin section of the theropod coprolite, showing associated bone fragments that indicate digestive degradation. Digestive acids and enzymes probably infiltrated the interior of the bone through vascular canals. Scale bar, 100 m.Published as part of Karen Chin, Timothy T. Tokaryk, Gregory M. Erickson & Lewis C. Calk, 1998, Nature 393 on pages 680-682, DOI: 10.1038/31461, http://zenodo.org/record/394314
Figure 1 in A king-sized theropod coprolite
No full textFigure 1 Large, bone-bearing theropod coprolite with some of the broken pieces that had eroded downslope. This specimen was found in Chamberry Coulee in the Frenchman River Valley, roughly 11.5 m below the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. Scale bar,10 cm.Published as part of Karen Chin, Timothy T. Tokaryk, Gregory M. Erickson & Lewis C. Calk, 1998, Nature 393 on pages 680-682, DOI: 10.1038/31461, http://zenodo.org/record/394314
Figure 1 in Cannibalism in Tyrannosaurus rex
No full textFigure 1. Tooth marks made by Tyrannosaurus rex. Aı hadrosaurid metatarsal (UCMP uncatalogued) and closeup of tooth marks on distal articular surface. Bı fragment of hadrosaurid pubis (CM 105) showing tooth marks on prepubic process. Cı ceratopsid? frill element (TMP 1998.102.2) showing tooth mark. Dı Triceratops right squamosal (YPM 53263) showing tooth marks on edge. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013419.g001Published as part of Nicholas R. Longrich, John R. Horner, Gregory M. Erickson & Philip J. Currie, 2010, Cannibalism in Tyrannosaurus rex, pp. e13419 in PLoS ONE 5 on page 3, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013419, http://zenodo.org/record/389899
Figure 2 in A king-sized theropod coprolite
No full textFigure 2 Photomicrograph of a thin section of the theropod coprolite, showing sand- to pebble-sized bone clasts within a microcrystalline phosphatic ground mass.The elemental composition of the ground mass is similar to that of the bone fragments, indicating that it is probably largely composed of reprecipitated bone apatite infiltrated by clay minerals from the host sediment (Table 1). The large bone fragment in the upper left portion of the image exhibits a fibrolamellar pattern, with osteocyte lacunae concentrically arranged around the vascular canals. Probe measurements of the interior of bone lacunae revealed that many of these channels are at least partially empty, whereas others exhibit variable element distributions, with generally lower concentrations of calcium and phosphorus, and higher silicon and aluminium levels (Table 2). Scale bar, 400 m.Published as part of Karen Chin, Timothy T. Tokaryk, Gregory M. Erickson & Lewis C. Calk, 1998, Nature 393 on pages 680-682, DOI: 10.1038/31461, http://zenodo.org/record/394314
Figure 2 in Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs
No full textFigure 2 Logistic growth curves for Tyrannosaurus and three related tyrannosaurids.Note that the exponential stages (the regions of maximal slope) are similar in duration but differ in slope (that is, growth rates). Regression equations (mass in kg, age in years) are as follows: T. rex, mass = {5,551/[1 + e‾0.57(age ‾ 16.1)]} + 5, r 2 = 0.953; D. torosus, mass = {1,728/[1 + e‾0.44(age ‾ 12.1)]} + 5, r 2 = 0.992; G. libratus, mass = {1,234/[1 + e‾0.38(age ‾ 12.4)]} + 5, r 2 = 0.950; A. sarcophagus, mass = {1,218/[1 + e‾0.43(age ‾ 14.1)]} + 5; r 2 = 0.985.Published as part of Gregory M. Erickson, Peter J. Makovicky, Philip J. Currie, Mark A. Norell, Scott A. Yerby & Christopher A. Brochu, 2004, Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs, pp. 772-775 in Nature 430 on page 774, DOI: 10.1038/nature02699, http://zenodo.org/record/373647
- …
