Talk:Albertosaurus

Taxobox image that of Gorgosaurus?

As FunkMonk pointed out above, we have to be very careful about images of Albertosaurus as most of them seem to be in fact of Gorgosaurus. Now, reading Tanke's "A History of Albertosaurus-related Popular Culture Events and Activities in Canada", I get the distinct impression that the famous "Albertosaurus" mount in the Royall Tyrell Museum:

Gorgosaurus cast?

is in fact a cast of Gorgosaurus specimen ROM 1247. There even seems to have been a bit of a scandal about it.--MWAK (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, any onlince sources mention this? I'm also unsure about the last image in the article, Flickr page says it was Albertosaurus, but in spite of the foreshortening of the skull, it looks too long. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the skull, at least, is ROM 1247. Compare with the cast here: [1] MMartyniuk (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's no cast. It's a model sculpted by some artist. Some parts are good, other parts are bad — such as the back of the skull, where the anatomy was misunderstood. We have a picture of ROM 1247 here:

ROM 1247

Tanke's paper can be read here: http://tyrrellmuseum.academia.edu/DarrenTanke/Papers/744683/A_history_of_Albertosaurus-related_popular_culture_events_and_activities_in_Canada He mentions that the "Lillian" sculpture, which is also pictured on the mural behind the skeleton mount, is based on ROM 1247 and another specimen found at Trochu, TMP 1981.010.0001, but this later exemplar was only prepared in 1984. Tanke & Currie state of it in their 2010 article A history of Albertosaurus discoveries in Alberta, Canada: "It was panel-mounted from the left side in the same pose as the running Albertosaurus logo of the Tyrrell Museum, but it did not go on display and was soon dismantled". Also they give a picture of this specimen in a mounted and restored condition and it seems clearly different from the present mount. Furthermore, its skull was not complete, missing the snout tip. Of course it is possible some cast parts of it were used. But the restored skull looks much like this image of a cast apparently exhibited in France under the name of Albertosaurus:

Restored TMP 1981.010.0001 skull?

It might be the only correct image we have of any recent find, because the last image, that of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences mount, also seems to depict some ROM 1247 copy, sharing the lack of a postorbital process on the posterior eye socket rim, which was caused by damage to the original specimen.--MWAK (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So, basically, it's neither Albertosaurus nor Gorgosaurus, just a generic albertosaurine based on both. If the skull anatomy is incorrect or done by sculptos who thought they were the same thing, it would be a blend of both--or lack diagnostic features of either. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I took this photo in a Danish geology museum[2], what does it show? The caption says Albertosaurus. Looks like the French skull cast... FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That it is either a mix or simply ROM 1247 seems the most plausible interpretation. As regards the skull photographed by FunkMonk, it does look very similar, doesn't it? The easiest way to keep Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus skulls apart is the way the nasals are connected to the frontals, but this isn't visible in the pictures we have. The French/Danish casts however, seem to show a dorsal emargination of the fossa antorbitalis below the fenestra maxillaris, a steep ventral margin of the front quadratojugal ramus and a rugose ridge behind the postorbital boss and thus are likely to be Albertosaurus. Also they don't seem to have thirteen maxillary tooth positions, the minimum with Gorgosaurus. Then again, I use the word "seem" a lot: all these traits are rather vague or hard to determine on a picture of a cast.--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Skull cast in Japan

Interesting, is there a place one can see an image of the actual TMP 1981.010.0001 specimen for comparison? And by the way, what's the status of the following image? FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article image is here: http://www.google.nl/imgres?q=%22Ville+Sinkkonen%22+Albertosaurus&hl=nl&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&channel=np&biw=1704&bih=936&tbm=isch&tbnid=Z18egTyAjfDJrM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/E10-057&docid=BFT9qZo-wDei9M&imgurl=http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/nrc/journals/content/cjes/2010/cjes4709/e10-057/production/images/small/e10-057f6.gif&w=92&h=120&ei=0ZSXT-D4Cc3f8QPI-8GuBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=338&vpy=355&dur=2209&hovh=96&hovw=73&tx=85&ty=69&sig=109334834270228608814&page=1&tbnh=96&tbnw=73&start=0&ndsp=41&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0,i:85 Easier to see would be Ville Sinkkonen's posting here: http://dinomaniac.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=24

I've wondered about the Japanese cast too :o). Such casts are all likely to be Gorgosaurus but I have to admit I can't point out any clear traits, except perhaps the form of the postorbital rim. Again the frontal-nasal suture is not adequately visible.--MWAK (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Darn, I just noticed the high circular hornlet on the postorbital. This would indicate that the Japanese cast would be of Daspletosaurus! (which nicely explains the lack of a postorbital process) It might be a, somewhat "restored", cast of FMNH PR308. This specimen was long thought to have been Albertosaurus until Carr reassigned it in 1999, so that would explain the wrong museum caption. Picture of FMNH PR308 here:

FMNH PR308

So, another Albertosaurus image beats the dust.--MWAK (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahah, darn! I could upload that Danish cast if we can somehow figure out what it is. Then we'll at least have two images apart from the fragmentary holotype. There are also these two images on Commons[3][4], but I guess they're also Gorgosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The skull of the first image is probably not a direct cast from a fossil but of some sculpture. The skeleton of the second image is hard to identify because the picture is of insufficient sharpness. It stands in the RTM and that is the place to look for real Albertosaurus specimens. This institution is visited by hundreds of thousands of people each year, many of whom take photographs. So with a little help of the general public this issue should be solved in no time (warning: lethal level of optimism). But do add the Danish skull. It is better to have uploaded and lost than never to have uploaded at all.--MWAK (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Albertosaurus skull cast at the Geological Museum in Copenhagen

¨Here's a better image of the RTM skeleton[5], and here's the Danish cast (some glare at the snout, but that would be sculpted anyway). Found another angle of the French one[6], and they do look identical. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll put it in the Dutch article immediately.--MWAK (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what these images show?[7][8] Also just Gorgosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered that all the other Canadian dinosaur casts at the Danish museum are made after Royal Tyrrell Museum specimens, so this one probably is too. Does that help identify it further? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to help this issue. I've been to the RTM 2 times and have plenty of photos. Those commons images are of Gorgosaurus.Reid,iain james (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to upload if you have better images! FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do but most are just a different angle of the ones already uploaded. Reid,iain james (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Found a photo that shows the entire skeleton in Paris, not great, but better than what we had.FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
• Found another photo and added it under Life history, is it correctly classified, MWAK? And the new infobox image? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a really good image for the taxobox, but I did a little swap so the image isn't so long and foreshortened. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple distinguishing method for mounts that are either ROM 1247 or use parts of 1247; ROM 1247 is a subadult with a broken left fibula. The break takes the form of a bony callous about two-thirds down the bone. An excellent example is the taxbox image for this page; that mount is indeed 1247, a libratus, and should be removed as synonymy between Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus is not the definite, and definitely not palaeontological consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoneSharpe (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well thats good to know, I guess we'll have to replace it then. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it's wrongly labelled on Commons. So I guess we should go back to the white background image again? FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I'll try and see if I have anything from the RTMP thats actual Alberto, but until then its our best image. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I did the change. Seems that skeleton cast was wrongly labelled at the museum, as can be seen here:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Another new image on commons it appears, and the plaque labels it as Albertosaurus sarcophagus. It doesn't have the casted pathology of the Gorgosaurus specimens above, but I'm still unsure what taxon it truly represents. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty new exhibit I think, so the identity is probably safe. Not sure how good the image itself is, though... FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Northern Montana

The two sources cited for the idea labertosaurus had no presence in montana are one by philip currie and one by Holtz for the dinosauria. The one by philip currie does not mention the topic, the one by the dinosauria has problems (mainly the fact it states that only place to find fossils of albertasaurus is in on formation in Alberta the horeshoe formation, even though there are some credible bones from the Scollard Formation of alberta). The author of that segment in dinosauria thomas holtz actually went later on to say Albertosaurus did live in Montana in he's book the dinosaurs, the most complete and up to date encylopedia for all ages. Further more in northern montana (near the border with alberta) fossils of Albertosaurus that are not listed under cf are found. --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Citations: https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=14492, https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=11898, On reptilian remains from the Cretaceous of north-western Canada. The Ottawa Naturalis, https://www.gbif.org/species/143849057,https://books.google.com/books?id=au2oDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=NMC+5601&source=bl&ots=oMwoVQ_Uav&sig=ACfU3U1MAV3WGsV-_VZDJVOcu0CLqcNCSg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzsObsM3qAhXhJzQIHSLCA_QQ6AEwBXoECA8QAQ#v=onepage&q=NMC%205601&f=false

Shouldn't Gorgosaurus be listed as a possible synonym?

from what I see, the debate of whether or not Gorgosaurus is a species of Albertosaurus is still going on and it's possible that it still could be. so shouldn't it be acknowledged in the infobox? Crylophosaurus (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)