Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn 1905

• Main Authors: Gignac, Paul M., Erickson, Gregory M.
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2017
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Chordata; Reptilia; Dinosauria; Tyrannosauridae; Tyrannosaurus; Tyrannosaurus rex; Bates; Webb; Moreno; Psi; Lever; Carr; Williamson; Livingstone; Perez; Fosse; Osborn; Fossa; O'Connor; Currie; Rothschild; Dominguez; Canis lupus; Ruff
• Online Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3808818; https://zenodo.org/record/3808818

Results We found that adult T . rex skull lengths in our sample range from 111.5 to 136.5 cm (BHI 4100 and LACM 23844, respectively) (Table 1). Skull widths range from 59.2 to 90.2 cm (BHI 4100 and FMNH PR 2081, respectively) (Table 1). (Notably, FMNH PR 2081 has been reported as the largest specimen for the taxon 37; however, we instead found that LACM 23844 has the longest and, marginally, the second widest skull). Based on the minimum reliable measurement of tooth contact areas (at 1 mm from the crown apex) 8 and the deepest known T . rex tooth mark indentations (~37.5 mm) 15, 17, we determined that maxillary tooth contact areas range from 6.3 to 565.1 mm 2 (right M3 of MOR 980 and left M4 of RTMP 81.6.1, respectively) at minimum and maximum crown heights, respectively (Supplementary Table S2). Estimated bite forces range from up to 8,526 to 17,769 N (1,917 to 3,995 lb) mesially (right P1 of BHI 4100 and right and left P1 of FMNH PR 2081, respectively) and 18,014 N to 34,522 N (4,050 to 7,761 lb) distally (right M12 of BHI 4100 and right M12 of FMNH PR 2081, respectively) (Table 1). These are among the highest bite forces estimated for any animal (16,414 N [3,690 lb] was directly measured for a bob-tailed, 4.51 m Australian saltwater crocodile [ Crocodylus porosus ] 8, 38). Apical tooth pressures (1 mm crown height) range from 718 to 2,974 MPa (104,137 to 431,342 pounds per square inch [psi]) (left M3 of BHI 4100 and right M5 of MOR 980, respectively) (Supplementary Table S2). The larger values are the highest tooth pressures ever estimated (2,473 MPa [358,678 psi] was deduced for a 2.99 m bob-tailed C . porosus 8). Tyrannosaurus rex tooth pressures exceeded the ultimate shear stress of cortical bone (65–71 MPa 4, 39 [9,427–10,298 psi]) for at least 25 mm of crown height in nearly all maxillary teeth. One of the largest T . rex individuals (FMNH PR 2081) maintained such pressures up to (and presumably beyond) the 37 mm indentation maximum utilized in this study 15. Analysis of dental-arcade configurations from T . rex skulls shows that its palatal and dental anatomy would have promoted: (1) fractures during biting that spanned between the mesial and distal carinae of adjacent teeth due to localized stress concentrations (Fig. 3); and (2) numerous three- and four-point loading configurationsclassic means by which the tensional and shear weaknesses of beams (including bones) are exploited in mechanical and orthopaedic engineering with non-opposing loading points 4, 5, 40. Three-point arrangements likely occurred: (1) between consecutive, large teeth along the dental arcade and the opposing tooth crown (Fig. 4A); and (2) between the lateral teeth and the anterior region of the bony palate, consisting of the right and left maxillae and an expanded portion of the fused vomers at the midline (see Fig. 4B), as can occur in other carnivores with reinforced palates such as crocodylians (P.M.G. and G.M.E., personal observations). Four-point loading likely occurred to bones spanning across both left and right upper and lower tooth rows (Fig. 4C). Discussion Our findings, coupled with evidence of T . rex carcass utilization from bite marks, explain how this taxon along with other large North American tyrannosaurids comminuted bone in the absence of dental occlusion. The maximum adult T . rex bite forces (18,014–34,522 N; 4,050–7,761 lb) reported here for seven specimens spanning the adult size range for the taxon (see Table 1) are each moderately to considerably lower than previous estimates (35,000–300,984 N 28, 29, 31; 7,869–67,667 lb). We suspect the differences stem primarily from previous models not implementing archosaurian-specific, jaw-closing musculature and force generation as well as not utilizing experimentally validated neontological models 35. Nonetheless, the values we estimate are still prodigious. Adductor forces introduced tooth pressures substantially higher than the ultimate shear stress of cortical bone, even at great depth, allowing deep penetration of impacted bones. Tooth penetration served to drive open cracks (engendered first by localized fractures at tooth contact points), using broadly expanding tooth crowns 41. Carinae accentuated these stresses and directed crack propagation towards adjacent teeth, resulting in high-pressure fracture arcades as cracks from the broadest and most procumbent teeth intersected during biting (Fig. 3). Together the dental and palatal anatomy also provided for three- and four-point loading configurations that facilitated localized and whole-element bone shear (Fig. 4). (Although not testable in our modelling, catastrophic explosion of some bones, particularly smaller elements or those with thin cortices, may have also occurred due to the introduction of strain energy densities exceeding the limits of bone 4). Following fracture, repetitive and localized carnivoran-like biting (evidenced from bite marks; Fig. 1) served to accentuate fine-scale fragmentation, expose bone surfaces, and liberate marrow for rapid digestion by low pH stomach acids 22. The few osteophagous reptiles capable of driving cracks through bones, such as adult crocodylians 8, 33 and tyrannosaurids, have force-resistant, thecodont dentitions. However, because of their characteristically offset dental rows, reptiles tend to generate a mechanical couple while biting (e.g., opposing but equal forces acting in parallel around a single axis; for an illustration see pages 19–20 in Cochran 5), which can rotate isolated bones or those within carcasses and, potentially, load tooth crowns in unexpected ways. Such loads may induce reaction forces that can cause permanent structural failure 41 – 43. Unexpected loads are counteracted by possessing semi-conical crowns with high, transverse-plane area moments of inertia. Such teeth are capable of sustaining comparable loads from any direction 30, 33, 44, prolonging their functionality until replacement (e.g., over a year for large adult crocodylians 24, 45 and ~777 days for T . rex 24) in these polyphodont taxa 24. Taken together with the aforementioned prodigious bite forces, tooth pressures, localized biting, and absence of mammal-like, precise dental occlusion, our findings indicate that the extensive fragmentation of bone practiced by large tyrannosaurids was directly facilitated by their elongate, semi-conical, carinated, rooted, and polyphyodont dental arcades. It is intriguing that the maximum tooth pressures shown here for T . rex overlap tightly with those reported for large adult crocodylians (e.g., A . mississippiensis , C . porosus ) that are also capable of fracturing bone during feeding 8, 33 (although not sequentially). Even though extant crocodylians are considerably smaller than adults of T . rex , both groups generate bone-failing pressures (e.g., crocodylian and T . rex tooth pressures at the distal crown of the most procumbent crushing teeth range from 309–2,473 MPa 8, 33 [44,817–358,678 psi] and 718–2,974 MPa [104,137–431,342 psi] [Supplementary Table S2], respectively), using teeth with relatively thin enamel shells 16, 46 (e.g., A . mississippiensis and T . rex mean ± standard error of enamel thicknesses sampled along the crown are 237 ± 6 and 223 ± 30 microns, respectively; GME unpublished data). In the case of crocodylians, the enamel shell is only slightly stronger than the tooth pressures that are typically endured during feeding (e.g., tooth safety factors—how mechanically overbuilt a structure is versus its function 4 —range from 1.0– 1.48, 33), and apical tip spalls 43 are structurally similarly to those documented previously in T . rex 16. In the context of our integrative analysis, this functional convergence suggests that: (1) the performance capacities elucidated by this study are realistic; and (2) T . rex tooth crowns would be unlikely to sustain bite forces that are substantially greater 28, 29 than those reported here. Notably, juvenile crocodylians with smaller and less robust dentitions are incapable of rupturing large bones 33, which is also consistent with crown morphologies and bite marks from juvenile T . rex that similarly do not show evidence of bone removal. Instead these consist of only shallow punctures and scores 20. Expansion of our protocol throughout ontogeny will help to elucidate at what size and age 25, 47 this taxon’s capacity for bone fragmentation first occurred. The collective results of this taxon’s biomechanical and physiological feeding capacities allowed these large-bodied theropods to uniquely exploit large bones from dinosaur carcasses—known to include giant horned-dinosaurs (e.g., Triceratops 17, 18), duck-billed hadrosaurids (e.g., Edmontosaurus 15, 19) and even other T . rex 20 —that could not be consumed otherwise by contemporary carnivores. Tyrannosaurus rex , therefore, was able to derive sustenance from bones of prey 15 and scavenged carcasses 27, much like extant grey wolves 1 – 3 and spotted hyenas 1, 3, 48. Overall, our study shows how meaningful understanding of unusual behaviours and physical capacities not seen together in living animals can be determined through multifaceted, cross-disciplinary approaches. This research adds to a growing body of literature 49 – 51 that illustrates how sophisticated feeding capacities—analogous to those of modern mammals and their immediate ancestors—were first achieved in Mesozoic archosaurs. Methods Specimen Examination. We examined fossil specimens, high-resolution museum-grade casts, computed tomography (CT) data, and professional photographs of the skulls, jaws, and dentitions of seven adult T. rex specimens (BHI 3033 [skull, cast, and CT], BHI 4100 [skull and cast], FMNH PR 2081 [cast], LACM 23844 [cast], MOR 008 [cast], MOR 980 [cast], RTMP 81.6.1 [skull and cast] at the AMNH and BHI). Adulthood in these individuals is based on corroborating information from craniofacial osteology 52, overall size, and a mass-age growth curve 47. We documented variation in head size using measures (linear distance to the nearest millimetre [mm; here and throughout our protocol]) of head width across the quadrates and head length from the anterior surface of the premaxillae to the posterior superior margin of the parietal bones. Individual variation in the lever mechanics of each skull was accounted for by measuring the linear distances between the quadrate-articular joint, and (1) the anteroposterior midpoint for osteological correlates of each jaw adductor muscle insertion along the lower jaw (i.e., “anatomical in-levers,” sensu 35); and (2) the midpoints for the first premaxillary alveolus (P1), the third, fourth, and fifth maxillary alveoli (M3, M4, M5, respectively), and the most distal maxillary alveolus (variably M11 or M12) on the left and right sides of the skulls (out-levers). Characterization of Tooth Contact Areas. Moulds were made of M3, M4, and M5 using fast-set silicon moulding putty (Knead-a-Mold°, Townsend Atelier, Chattanooga, TN, USA) on the right and left sides of all specimens for which teeth were fully erupted (the right M5 of BHI 4100 and left M4 of MOR 980 were not fully erupted and not used). These tooth crowns are the longest in the T . rex jaw and would, therefore, be the first to engage tissues in isolation during biting (and were determined to be responsible for the bite marks modelled previously 17, 25). When present, M5 is typically the longest although either M3 or M4 may act to initiate tooth indentation when M5 is missing, broken, or beginning to erupt. High-resolution epoxy replicas of the teeth were then made (Epoxyset #145–20005, Allied High Tech Products, Inc., Rancho Dominguez, California, USA). Crown heights and cross-sectional areas along each cast from the tooth apex towards the root of the crown were measured following 8, 33. Cross-sectional measurements of conical and lenticular tooth crowns can serve as surrogates for realized tooth contact area (as demonstrated by Gignac and Erickson 33), which sums the total indenter surface area that is in contact with indented tissues and perpendicular to the application of bite force through the long axis of the tooth. These measurements were ultimately used for estimating pressures generated along each tooth crown (see below) 8, 33. 3-D Muscle Reconstruction. The actual, fully-articulated cranium, stereolithography files of individual skull bones (provided by BHI), and an articulated, high-resolution 14.45% scale replica rendered from the CT scans of T . rex specimen BHI 3033 were examined for making adductor muscle reconstructions. To further examine the adductor chambers and relationships of muscle attachment points, a micro-CT (µCT) scan of the articulated replica was undertaken at the Microscopy and Imaging Facility of the AMNH (2010 GE phoenix v|tome|x s240 high-resolution microfocus CT system; General Electric, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA). A standard X-ray scout image was obtained prior to scanning to confirm specimen orientation and define the scan volume. The scan was performed at 170 kilovolts [kV] and 145 micro-amps [µA], using a 0.1mm copper filter, air as the background medium, and a tungsten target. The specimen was scanned at an isometric voxel size of 111.97 micrometres [µm] (= 774.88 µm at life-sized dimensions), and slices were assembled on an HP z800 workstation (Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, California, USA) running VG Studio Max (Volume Graphics GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany). The specimen image stack was imported into Avizo Lite 9.0 (FEI Co., Hillsboro, Oregon, USA), where the skull and lower jaw were reconstructed separately. The lower jaw was abducted from the skull around the quadrate-articular joint to a standardized gape of 20° (measured from the anteroinferior margin of the premaxilla to the center of the quadrate-articular joint to the anterosuperior margin of the dentary). The skull and lower jaw were then resampled into one volume as a single material at an effective voxel size of 2.3513 mm (2,351.3 µm) to reduce file size and memory consumption for adductor muscle model generation as well as to scale the digital model to life-size dimensions. Although coarser, this abducted model retained bone-surface details necessary for use as an osteological scaffolding to reconstruct the jaw adductor musculature in three dimensions. The eight adductor muscles ( Musculus adductor mandibulae externus medialis , M. adductor mandibulae externus profundus , M. adductor mandibulae externus superficialis , M. adductor mandibulae posterior , M. pseudotemporalis complex, M. intramandibularis , M. pterygoideus dorsalis , and M. pterygoideus ventralis ) that make up the archosaur jaw-closing system, based on extant Crocodylia and Aves 34, 35, were rendered on both right and left sides (see Fig. 2). Based on comparisons to gross dissections 35 and diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced CT (diceCT) specimens 53, 54, the adductor muscle origins and insertions listed in Holliday 55 (see Table 4 and in-text discussion) for the above jaw-closing muscles were regionalized in BHI 3033, and polygon volumes connecting those regions were rendered in Avizo Lite. Deviations in our model from the muscle attachments discussed by Holliday 55 include the following: the two portions of M. pseudotemporalis were represented as a single muscle belly for model simplification that originated along the anteromedial, medial, and posterior portions of the upper temporal fenestra 35, laterosphenoid 35, 55 and epipterygoid 55; M. add. mand. ext. profundus originated along the anterolateral, lateral, and posterolateral surfaces of the upper temporal fenestra; and M. pterygoideus dorsalis did not extend anteriorly past the orbits, as is the case for most birds 34 but not for modern crocodylians 34, 35, 55. In addition, the presence of a crocodylian-like, distinct M. intramandibularis in T. rex is unclear because it is hypothesized to have been fused to the M. pseudotemporalis musculature during the evolution of Avemetatarsalia (see Holliday 55 for a detailed assessment). In this scenario the cartilaginous sesamoid (i.e., cartilago transiliens) that joined M. pseudotemporalis to M. intramandibularis was lost, resulting in a continuous muscle belly where there had once been two. In crocodylians the cartilago transiliens leaves a shallow fossa along the superiomedial surface of the mandible, adjacent to the pterygoid flange. Particularly well-preserved T. rex specimens such as FMNH PR 2081 (e.g., right mandible) may show faint evidence of such a depression (P.M.G., personal observation). Regardless, musculature attaching to the lower jaw and mandibular fossa in the position of the crocodylian M. intramandibularis and inferior avian M. pseudotemporalis 34, 55 was necessary for jaw adduction. Here we retained the crocodylian muscle topology based on trace evidence of this sesamoid cartilage. Lastly, M. pterygoideus ventralis was interpreted to wrap around the posteroinferior margin of the mandible and insert along the lateral surface of the lower jaw, inferior to the dorsolateral crest of the surangular (as depicted in Fig. 7C, left of Holliday 55; also see Fig. 2C). Estimated Muscle Forces. Contractile forces for each adductor muscle were derived for BHI 3033 following a validated, free-body model analogue developed by Gignac and Erickson 35 for A. mississippiensis . All muscles were assumed to have negligible pennation 55, following the common fascicle configurations of both crocodylian 35 and bird 34 jaw adductor muscles. The exception to this is the uniquely pennate M . pterygoideus ventralis of crocodylians. The evolution of this muscle in eusuchians 56 for high bite-force generation at the expense of adductor mandibulae and temporalis musculature (e.g., primary force generators in birds and other terrestrial amniotes) 34, 55 promoted stealthy prey-capture behaviors at the water’s edge 35. Modern crocodylians utilize this jaw adductor configuration for a substantially different feeding strategy than that inferred for T . rex . Without an a priori biological reason for assuming crocodylian-like pennation in M . pterygoideus ventralis , we modelled this muscle with a parallel fiber arrangement in T . rex . To estimate physiological cross-sectional areas (PCSA) left- and right-side volumes for each muscle were (1) averaged, (2) divided by the density of archosaur skeletal muscle (1.056 gram [g]/cm 3) 35 to estimate mass of the contractile tissues, and (3) further divided by left-right average muscle lengths (see Gignac and Erickson 35 for protocol quantifying 3-D muscle position) (Supplementary Table S1). As demonstrated by Gignac and Erickson 35 muscle length can serve as a proxy for fascicle length in parallel-fibered muscles when statically modelled. Length measurements (Supplementary Table S1) were made as the 3-D linear distance between the centroids of each muscle’s origin and insertion. Each muscle was assigned an archosaur-specific muscle stress of 32.4 N/cm 2 that was empirically determined from A . missi : 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 pages 3-8, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02161-w, http://zenodo.org/record/3748931 : {"references": ["37. Larson, P. L. Tyrannosaurus Sex in Dino Fest Proceedings, Paleontological Society Special Publ. 7 (eds Rosenberg, G. & Wolberg, D.) 139 - 155 (1994).", "8. Erickson, G. M. et al. Insights into the ecology and evolutionary success of crocodilians revealed through bite-force and toothpressure experimentation. PLoS ONE 7, e 31781, doi: 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0031781 (2012).", "15. DePalma, R. A. II., Burnham, D. A., Martin, L. D., Rothschild, B. M. & Larson, P. L. Physical evidence of predatory behavior in Tyrannosaurus rex. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12560 - 12564, doi: 10.1073 / pnas. 1216534110 (2013).", "17. Erickson, G. M. & Olson, K. H. Bite marks attributable to Tyrannosaurus rex: preliminary description and implications. J. Vert. Paleo 16, 175 - 178, doi: 10.1080 / 02724634.1996.10011297 (1996).", "2. Fosse, P. et al. Bone modification by modern wolf (Canis lupus): A taphonomic study from their natural feeding places. J. Taphon 10, 197 - 217 (2012).", "38. Erickson, G. M., Gignac, P. M., Lappin, A. K., Vliet, K. A. & Webb, G. J. W. A comparative analysis of ontogenetic bite-force scaling among Crocodylia. J. Zool. 292, 48 - 55, doi: 10.1111 / jzo. 12081 (2014).", "4. Carter, D. R. & Beaupre, G. S. Skeletal Function and Form: Mechanobiology of Skeletal Development, Aging, and Regeneration 318 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2001).", "39. Turner, C. H., Wang, T. & Burr, D. B. Shear strength and fatigue properties of human cortical bone determined from pure shear tests. Calcif. Tissue Int. 69, 373 - 378, doi: 10.1007 / s 00223 - 001 - 1006 - 1 (2001).", "5. Cochran, G. V. B. A Primer of Orthopaedic Biomechanics 413 (Churchill Livingstone 1982).", "40. Erickson, G. M., Catanese, J. III & Keaveny, T. Evolution of the biomechanical material properties of the femur. Anat. Rec. 268, 115 - 124, doi: 10.1002 / ar. 10145 (2002).", "28. Meers, M. B. Maximum bite force and prey size of Tyrannosaurus rex and their relationships to the inference of feeding behavior. Hist. Biol 16, 1 - 12, doi: 10.1080 / 0891296021000050755 (2002).", "29. Therrien, F., Henderson, D. M. & Huff, C. B. Bite me: biomechanical models of theropod mandibles and implications for feeding behavior in The Carnivorous Dinosaurs (ed. Carpenter, K.) 179 - 237 (Indiana Univ. Press 2005).", "31. Bates, K. T. & Falkingham, P. L. Estimating maximum bite performance in Tyrannosaurus rex using multi-body dynamics. Biol. Lett. 8, 660 - 664, doi: 10.1098 / rsbl. 2012.0056 (2012).", "35. Gignac, P. M. & Erickson, G. M. Ontogenetic bite-force modeling of Alligator mississippiensis: implications for dietary transitions in a large-bodied vertebrate and the evolution of crocodylian feeding. J. Zool. 299, 229 - 238, doi: 10.1111 / jzo. 12349 (2016).", "41. Lucas, P. W. Dental Functional Morphology: How Teeth Work 335 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2004).", "22. Chin, K., Tokaryk, T. T., Erickson, G. M. & Calk, L. C. A king-sized theropod coprolite. Nature 393, 680 - 682, doi: 10.1038 / 31461 (1998).", "33. Gignac, P. M. & Erickson, G. M. Ontogenetic changes in dental form and tooth pressures facilitate developmental niche shifts in American alligators. J. Zool. 295, 123 - 142, doi: 10.1111 / jzo. 12187 (2015).", "43. Erickson, G. M. Toothlessness in American alligators. Copeia. 1996, 739 - 743, doi: 10.2307 / 1447542 (1996).", "30. Erickson, G. M., Lappin, A. K. & Vliet, K. A. The ontogeny of bite-force performance in American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). J. Zool. Lond 260, 317 - 327, doi: 10.1017 / S 0952836903003819 (2003).", "44. Wainwright, S. A., Biggs, W. D., Currey, J. D. & Gosline, J. M. Mechanical Design in Organisms. pp 423, (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ 1976).", "24. Erickson, G. M. Incremental lines of von Ebner in dinosaurs and the assessment of tooth replacement rates using growth line counts. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 14623 - 14627, doi: 10.1073 / pnas. 93.25.14623 (1996).", "45. Brueggen, J. Crocodilian tooth replacement. Croc. Spec. Grp. Newsl. 25, 17 - 18 (2006).", "16. Farlow, J. O. & Brinkman, D. L. Wear surfaces on the teeth of tyrannosaurs in The Paleontological Society Special Publication (eds Rosenberg, D. L. & Wolberg, D. L.) 165 - 175 (Univ. of Tennessee Dept. Geological Sciences 1994).", "46. Enax, J. et al. Characterization of crocodile teeth: correlation of composition, microstructure, and hardness. J. Struct. Biol. 184, 155 - 163, doi: 10.1016 / j. jsb. 2013.09.018 (2013).", "20. Longrich, N. R., Horner, J. R., Erickson, G. M. & Currie, P. J. Cannibalism in Tyrannosaurus rex. PLoS ONE 5, e 13419, doi: 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0013419 (2010).", "25. Erickson, G. M. et al. Bite-force estimation for Tyrannosaurus rex from tooth-marked bones. Nature 382, 706 - 708, doi: 10.1038 / 382706 a 0 (1996).", "47. Erickson, G. M. et al. Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature 430, 772 - 775, doi: 10.1038 / nature 02699 (2004).", "52. Carr, T. & Williamson, T. E. Diversity of late Maastrichtian Tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from western North America. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 142, 479 - 523, doi: 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.2004.00130. x (2004).", "18. Happ, J. W. Periosteal reaction to injuries of the supraorbital horn and squamosal of an adult Triceratops (Dinosauria: Ceratopsidae). J. Vert. Paleo. Suppl. 3 23, 59 A stable URL: http: // www. jstor. org / stable / 4524374 (2003).", "19. Carpenter, K. Evidence of predatory behavior by carnivorous dinosaurs in Aspects of Theropod Paleobiology (eds Perez-Moreno, B. P., Holtz, T. J., Sanz, J. L. & Mortalla, J.) 135 - 144 (Gaia: Revista de Geosciencias, Museu Nacional de Historia Natural 1998).", "27. Erickson, G. M. Breathing life into T. rex. Sci. Am. 23, 38 - 45, doi: 10.1038 / scientificamericandinosaurs 0514 - 38 (2014).", "1. Biknevicius, A. R. & Ruff, C. B. The structure of the mandibular corpus and its relationship to feeding behaviours in extant carnivorans. J. Zool 228, 479 - 507, doi: 10.1111 / j. 1469 - 7998.1992. tb 04450. x (1992).", "3. Hill, A. P. Early postmortem damage to the remains of some contemporary East African mammals in Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology (eds Behrensmeyer, A. K. & Hill, A. P.) 131 - 152 (Univ. Chicago Press 1980).", "48. Binder, W. J. & Van Valkenburgh, B. Development of bite strength and feeding behavior in juvenile spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). J. Zool. Lond. 252, 273 - 283, doi: 10.1111 / j. 1469 - 7998.2000. tb 00622. x (2000).", "49. O'Connor, P. M. et al. The evolution of mammal-like crocodyliforms in the Cretaceous period of Gondwana. Nature 446, 748 - 751, doi: 10.1038 / nature 09061 (2010).", "51. Erickson, G. M. et al. Wear biomechanics in the slicing dentition of the giant horned dinosaurs Triceratops. Sci. Adv. 1, e 1500055 - e 1500055, doi: 10.1126 / sciadv. 1500055 (2015).", "34. Holliday, C. M. & Witmer, L. M. Archosaur adductor chamber evolution: integration of musculoskeletal and topological criteria in jaw muscle homology. J. Morph 268, 457 - 484, doi: 10.1002 / jmor. 10524 (2007).", "53. Gignac, P. M. & Kley, N. J. Iodine-enhanced micro-CT imaging: methodological refinements for the study of soft-tissue anatomy of post-embryonic vertebrates. J. Exp. Zool. B (Mol. Dev. Evol) 322, 166 - 176, doi: 10.1002 / jez. b. 22561 (2014).", "54. Gignac, P. M. et al. Diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT): an emerging tool for rapid, highresolution, 3 - D imaging of metazoan soft tissues. J. Anat. 228, 889 - 909, doi: 10.1111 / joa. 12449 (2016).", "55. Holliday, C. M. New insights into dinosaur jaw muscle anatomy. Anat. Rec. 292, 1246 - 1264, doi: 10.1002 / ar. 20982 (2009).", "56. Gignac, P. M. & O'Brien, H. D. Suchian feeding success at the interface of ontogeny and macroevolution. Integr. Comp. Biol. 56, 448 - 458, doi: 10.1093 / icb / icw 041 (2016).", "57. Cleuren, J., Aerts, P. & de Vree, F. Bite and joint force analysis in Caiman crocodilus. Belg. J. Zool. 125, 79 - 94 (1995).", "32. Gignac, P. M. Biomechanics and the ontogeny of feeding in the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis): reconciling factors contributing to intraspecific niche differentiation in a large-bodied vertebrate. PhD thesis, Florida State University (2010)."]}