RPGTopia

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/10/1 ... osaur.html

Meh...I really don't think this could be true. But thats just me...

Its a discovery aritcle, its probably true.

If its Trex, then its AWESOME.

But it COULD be another dino completely. A relative to Trex, maybe.

Thats what I thought. T-Rex has been proved to have two fingers...right?

No it hasn't. EVERYTHING is open for correction. Alberto could have had four, we don't know for sure.

now THIS would be an interestring discovery...but i personally have a theory [be it a very weak one]:

it's an abnormality. a defect. like how you sometimes find people with 6 fully functional fingers on one hand instead of 5.

and as for the picture, im not gonna say that IS the find, because if it was, it'd be rather ridiculous. that isn't a Tyrannosaur's skull. ESPECIALLY not Rex's. maybe an Allo, but definately not the Rex. of course that's the 3d model, so it's not neccesarily based on the dino, and instead only using it's arm as an example...

My *** the Trex had 3 fingers, i doubt that everytime they found a fossil of a trex skeleton that a finger was missing on both hands.

Heres something else.

As you can see, the Rex hands have only 2 slots for claws.



As you can see here, I don't see where a third claw could even fit.

That is how we asembled it is all. If you moved the bones around just a bit you could fit a third finger in there.

I think it most liekly had three fingers, I mean, two fingers is just stupid. In terms of evolution, its absaloutly useless to have two fingers unless they are pincers of some sort

In the pic, by the longest claw, there is a buldge. Move the claw over and you might get a bone slot

hmm...Yea i just noticed that.

But all tyrannosaurids had two fingers Doc. If all of a sudden we foud out that Rex had 3, ALL tyrannosaurids would have to need 3.

I stand by my theory: unless we start finding a crapload of Tyrannosaurids with 3 fingers on BOTH hands, i say that this is an anomaly. a defect. just like how you sometimes find people with an extra finger that, at times, can be fully functional.

Correction Stallo, MOST tyrannosaurids had small hands. And some of the hands haven't even been discovered, so we estimated that they had two fingers like the Tyrannosaurus did, the fingers are small bones, it would be difficult to find them all on the first discovery.

WE have found mroe then one trex and i doubt that 1 finger would be missing conveniantly of each hand everytime.

Maybe Vastosaurus Rex do exsit @_@



joke...

DN: WHo is to say Rex skeletons have hands found at all? It's a small part of the body, it probably could easily erode or disapear.

On EVERY fossil?

DUde, we are lucky to have even found an arm at all. Do you know the ratio of how complete Tyrannosaur skeletons can be? Generally people find less than 50% of the entire skeleton (if memory serves) Witch probably consists of spinal bones, neck bones, ribs, I don't know, the bigger stuff, the erodes less frequently. And because two fingers were on one skeletal finding doesn't mean they were on all. Three fingers makes more sence. It could lift heavier things, clutch them to it's chest and all.

We have also found more then one trex hand and hands of other Tyrannosaurids, and they ALL had 2 fingers or less

key word "LESS"
finding one finger is likely, two finges would be a rarer find, and then all three fingers would need a completely undamaged hand, so very rare. As they said in the article, there was already evidense to suggest a missing finger.