Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Three fingers forelimb

I don't know how to fit this in. It seems the Tyrannosaurus did in fact had 3 fingers. T. Rex's Missing 3rd Finger Found --Astrowob 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"The newfound bone is a right metacarpal"

"No previous T. rex remains have ever been found with a third metacarpal"

???--76.8.194.226 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an Allosaurus skeleton in the article. Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.113.220 (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Status of Manospondylus

I lood through http://www.iczn.org/Official_Lists_Indexes_pdfs.htm, and I couldn't find Manospondylus gigas in the 2001 Supplement published by the ICZN. This may mean that the ICZN has not been empowered to reject Manospondylus in favor of Tyrannosaurus. Manospondylus may turn out to be a different type of archosaur in a cladistic analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Fixed. Sheep81 08:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Manospondylus was actively supressed, rather, it become a nomen oblitum via new rules about the amount of time a senior synonym must be out of use before it is automatically supressed. Dinoguy2 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Posture

Does anybody else think that the modern posture looks a lot scarier than the posture in the early 1900s?Colin Reding 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, both Godzilla and Barney are use the old posture, and they're terrifying ;)Dinoguy2 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I know!!!! Barney is terrifying!70.100.165.76 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The old posture looks like a monster, but the new posture looks more like a real animal. It is scarier, though, because the new one looks fast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Could the formatting be changed, to make the two pictures (the "tripod-pose" and the "modern-pase") appear in the same section titled "Posture"? On my browser (ie6) the "tripod-pose" photo is in the "sexual dimorphism" section, which seems wrong. -- rs

Newbie

Anyone else notice a rogue 'was here' comment under the feathers heading? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

It's no doubt unintentional, but it's kind of humorous to be listing the "conservation status" in the infobox for a dinosaur. Somebody feeling energetic might want to remove this, if there's not some good reason for it... Dan Knapp 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No more humorous than listing the conservation status for human... All animal species infoboxes have conservation status at the moment, no matter how obvious ;) Dinoguy2 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Running Speed

I was watching a special last night and read that a new discovery was found on Tyrannosaurus fossils. It's bones were riddled with holes. With this new discovery we find out that the weight of this animal would change drastically! Factoring this in and the other spaces inside of the animal would give it the possibility to run up to 25mph! Also, if the Tyrannosaurus stored energy in it's rigid tail, then it could run for a longer time. Desert Spada 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Size

The size for T-rex in the article is small. A t-rex called C-rex that has been partially uncovered is estimated to be larger than Sue. It is estimated to be 45ft long and weigh 8.5 tons. Could somebody please change the article. guest 1-9-07

C-rex, or specimen MOR 1126, has not been described in the literature, but several reports since it was announced indicate that it is much smaller than Horner initially believed, possilby not as alrge as Sue. Dinoguy2 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Albertosaurus taller?

I've seen that Giganotosaurus was taller than Tyrannosaurus at 5.5 m, but I also a page online which stated that Albertosaurus was roughly 5 m to 5.5 m tall as well. This would make Albertosaurus taller than Tyrannosaurus (I'm not talking about length or weight, just height). Can anyone clarify/confirm this for me? MelicansMatkin 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any serious data on dinosaur height... did it refer to height at the hip? Many sources, including older books, list now-inaccurate height because of old concepts of tyrannosaur body position. The newer, horizontal stances significantly reduce the old "20ft tall" stats for T. rex, for instance. Dinoguy2 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What I did was search "Albertosaurus Height" through Google. I only looked at the blurb, it was I think the fourth option and it was for a website called DinoDictionary. Heres the blurb on the Google Search page:

Height: 18 feet (5.5 meters) Length: 40 feet (12.2 meters) ... A jaw and teeth belonging to an Albertosaurus were identified by Joseph Leidy, who named the ...

MelicansMatkin 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say for certain that a) the mounted (or whatever you call the skeleton on a slab type mount) Albertasuarus at the AMNH is not 18 ft tall, and it's in the old fashioned Godzilla pose and b) the T. rex there used to be 20 ft tall until they corrected its pose. So I think a figure like 18ft is clearly based on an innaccurate, upright posture. The best way to measure dinosaur height is to the hip, especially in bipedal species. This is just a guesstimate, but I think an Albertasuaurs would be around 8 ft tall at the hip, or less. Dinoguy2 16:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the hip height of Sue is usually listed as 13 ft, for comparison. Dinoguy2 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification MelicansMatkin 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

running and falling

Surely we can find a better citation for the running and falling discussion (#54) than a creationist website? J. Spencer 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking. I don't remember that cite being in there a few months ago when we FAd this article. Somehow, someone slipped something in, methinks. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. It appeared on the 12th of September (14:06, 12 September 2006 Mdotley), although I don't know if the editor had anything ulterior in mind. I took care of it, at any rate. J. Spencer 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, J, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in the original link b/c that was the best reference I had. I did NOT, by any means, "slip" it in. I used the usual edit process, and anyone and everyone who chose to do so could check it, ignore it, or edit it, as has been done. I certainly have no objection to replacing it with a reference to the scholarly article that was their source, as long as the information (and citation) is still correct and relevant. Creation magazine is not a journal, by any means, but that does not mean that it is not reliable. The ideal, of course, is to cite the scholarly journal aritcle, regardless of the author's position in the creation-evolution debate, (which we won't take up, here). Mdotley 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, then, for the wording above. We get some Creationist POV pushers who do try to slip in pro-Creationist agendas. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will confess to holding a Creationist POV, but I recognizethe importance of WP:NPOV here, and only try to make sure my POV gets a fair shake. Mdotley 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sue

Does Sue merit her own article? Or does her bit here suffice? Totnesmartin 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not create an article for her; doing so could set a dangerous precedent (articles for each fossil skeleton someone or other has given a name). There are quite a few of them, and my watchlist doesn't need to be any larger than it already is. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree--in fact Jane (dinosaur) should be merged into either here or Nanotyrannus. Dinoguy2 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt Sue might be notable on grounds of size and completeness. Totnesmartin 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sue is certainly notable, and needs to be discussed in an article (currently this one). The problem is that we're starting to get a lot of articles on individual specimens: Homer, Big Al, Jane, Sue, etc. This contrasts with the way the specimens of Archaeopteryx are presented: as a single, cohesive article, where each specimen, no matter how complete (Berlin) or incomplete (the feather), is discussed. Obviously, that can't be done for genera with many specimens, but certainly the more notable ones should be mentioned. Several genus-level articles on dinosaurs are still quite short (Allosaurus was only 12k long). Merging these specimen articles with their correct genus articles also helps solve that problem. The guidelines on WikiProject Dinosaurs indicate consensus is that articles should not get any more specific than genus level, and that individual species (and presumably specimens) should be discussed in the article about the appropriate genus. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the C-rex that Jack Horner found the same animal/fossil as the skull that Montana state university claimed to have found? Or are they two different fossils? And if so, is the skull that Montana State University found bigger than the C-rex? (NewDreams2 04:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I guess its a different one. (NewDreams2 11:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Largest ever?

According to This link [[1]] a Tyrannosaurus nicknamed "Super Rex" found in Glasgow, Montana in 1997 is 20 meters long and the largest Tyrannosaurus ever found. I am posting here because I am not sure whether this deserves a brief mention in the article and would like feedback and approval from others who know more about this than me to make sure that this is true before making such a radical and surprising change. --Jj. hoaakkey 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's still under study as of 2002. That Dinosaur Mailing List thread has several replies and starts out here. J. Spencer 00:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this was referring to Peck's rex discovered in Montana in 1997 by Keith Rigby. At that time, he thought that it was the largest T-rex ever but I do not know where this 20 m length estimate comes from (I guess that's some exageration from the media). The site dedicated to Peck's rex gives a 40-43 ft estimate for the length. ArthurWeasley 00:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. You're right Peck's rex, that description page definately confirms that the subject above really is Keigh Rigby's find, save for the usual extreme exaggeration by the media (Such as when they (BBC) digitally mutated Liopleurodon into a 25 meter (80 foot) long, 165 ton monster). But have you heard about this supposedly similarly stacked up monster here [[2]]. --Jj. hoaakkey 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a monster! Skull is 5ft (1.5 m), so if you use the proportions given by Scott Hartmann's skeletal here that would make a total body length of about 40-43 ft (12-13 m). ArthurWeasley 00:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, and on top of that an estimated 45 foot leviathan found by Jack Horner in Montana in 2000. See here, here and here. In addition South American Paleontologists have found a bonebed of up to nine individuals of an as yet undescribed Carcharodontosaurid that appears to be related to Giganotosaurus but even bigger! right here. --Jj. hoaakkey 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the bonebed carchar Mapusaurus? J. Spencer 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, upon seeing your note I realized just how seriously out of date this press column was (2000). That's why I am not surprised to see that it already has It's own article. Well I problobly wouldn't have known If it wasn't for your message, So Thanks. Cheers! --Jj. hoaakkey 03:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

20 meters = 66 feet. I'd take that particular article with a grain of salt. ; ) Sheep81 09:46, 11 May 2007

It's a scavenger

There was a documentary called "Valley of the T-Rex by Jack Horner, on Discovery Science, that proved that the T-Rex was a Scavenger. Here are some pointers:

• Near useless arms that could not catch anything, or stop it self from landing face first in the ground..
• The eyes were not very good
• the Olfactory lobe was huge, like a vulture.
• the Thigh bone was longer then the shin bone, which meant the t-rex was either a slow-runner or a walker. Vise versa, if the shin bone was longer then the thigh bone, it would then be able to run fast.

Pece Kocovski 08:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't explain the T-rex bite marks in Triceratops pelvis which subsequently healed (i.e. it had attacked a live Triceratops). Don't think crocs see too well either and many hunters have a good sense of smell (Wolves come to mind) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that doesn't rule out the theory that It was both a scavenger and an opportunistic ambush hunter. It wouldn't have to run very fast in order to hide behind a bush or something and attack quickly when the grazing and unsuspecting triceratops got too close without noticing the Tyrannosaur until It was too late. Point is that you don't have to either run very fast or have a lot of stamina to be an effective ambush hunter. Cheers! Sincerely, --Johnny89 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially since the potential prey items always seem to come out as slower than T. rex in speed studies, even if T. rex couldn't run, as I believe is cited in the aricle. Basically, if T. rex was slow and plodding, it wasn't as slow as plodding as Edmontosaurus et al., whcih had femur/tibia ratios completely uncondusive to any kind of fast locomotion. Not to mention young tyrannosaur limb proportions most closely resembled ornithomimids. Dinoguy2 06:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No buff to Jack Horner but that person, who was never a Tyrannosaurid expert to begin with, has devoted a lot of time and effort towards trying to prove that T.rex (and Tyrannosaurids in general) were scavengers with rather questionable methods (media attention, one-sided examples and arguments). A lot of the "weight" his arguments seem to have appear to be coming from the fact that he appears a lot more in the media to give his opinion on this matter and give it a nice spin, and a lot less on them really being logically consistent arguments.

Bizzarely, Jack Horner cites Spinosaurus as the ultimate predator (unfortunately he was the consultant for JP3)... which is strange given a lot of Spinosaurus' features fit his arguments for Tyrannosaurus being a scavenger better then his target animal.

It would be good to balance his talk with the opinions of other paleontologists who are actually real experts on the animal in question... such as Tom Holtz and gang.

On the other hand, it's bizzare that there's even this scavenger/hunter debate. Given we can already tell so little behaviour we can tell from bones and trace fossils... it is odd that one guy can actually make a fringe theory that consists more of selective arguments and appealing to paleontological revolution for the sake of it turn into an actual debate.

In any case the onus of proof is really on the scavenger camp to conclusively prove that Tyrannosaurus rex is a scavenger, given we have had quite a lot of evidence of predatory behavior. A lot of their "evidence" seems to come from stuff that can point either way or at worst twisted to fit their ideas. First it was their contention that it's dental work was too weak to attack prey... when it emerged that it in fact had the strongest bite of any land predator, their tack suddenly flipped flopped to that that dental work was for crushing bones to extract to most nutrition from it. Either way one can always twist the evidence to suit a case, but that might not mean his case is truly supported. Jack Horner has yet to convince me that he has a good case despite all his media apperances... and that's hardly because I like the animal and "prefer" it to have some predatory instinct.

And how Jack Horner sneaked the idea of Tyrannosaurus having poor eyesight past the other opinions on the matter into his pet program in Discovery is a mystery to me (guess Discovery just does not check its stuff)... but a lot of paleontologists would disagree with him. Tyrannosaurus did not exibit typical features for an animal of poor eyesight: It had depth perception (a feature lacking in Allosaurs and co.), and rather big eyes to begin with... which would be odd if it was supposed not to see very well. Truth is, I often wonder where he's drawing this idea that seems to fly in the face of all we know about the animal from... not Jurassic Park I hope. He makes a lot of noise about the relative size of the smell centers of the brain in relation to the visual centers... but actually goes little to prove that the animal really had subpar vision. Of course we then have to realize that having subpar vision (by our standards anyway), has hardly stopped many predators from raking up a kill score.

What exactly is he driving at? Except to raise a point and hope that it catches enough hot air to fly?

The Tyrannosaurids-as-scavenger theory currently deserves more to be filed under the "fringe" theories of paleontology... but you know the media circus whenever it comes to paleontology. They don't really care about if a theory is actually plausible or logically consistent... just if the "expert" can make the best song-and-dance routine on his pet theory.

Rexregum 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that 'fringe theory' is a good description. That suggests that the theory is wacky. I don't know that it is. One could say that it doesn't perfectly fit the evidence, but that doesn't make it entirely implausible. Evidence can often be interpreted in different directions. I'm not sure, but I don't think the scavenger idea began with Jack Horner. I remember reading in the 70s and 80s about the idea. Theories about dinosaurs tend to be fluid. Thirty years ago, sauropods lived in water, and scientists produced the evidence to prove it. Now, the scientists reinterpret the evidence and tell us they lived on dry land. It was for a time fashionable to join Bakker and his like in seeing dinosaurs leaping and running like colossal cheerleaders or ballet dancers. Again, he showed us the evidence to prove it. Now, scientists say that image is probably an exaggeration. What do we know about dinosaurs for a fact? Surprisingly very little. Every new theory based on some evidence is welcome and worthy of note, in my opinion.--Gazzster 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though one might have expected Horner to go about his theory with more scientific intergity as we would expect of him. That said, any theory is worth considering on an open mind, but I if those theories are good theories are another thing entirely. Horner has yet to build a logically consistent case for his scavenger idea and his whole crusade just reeks of the media circus. Not that his entire theory has to be invalid by default but the way it stands the onus of proof to buck up really rests on him... but yet he's putting this spin every time the media gets to him that his ideas are more or less watertight and a sealed coffin. And his dismissal and silence on the rather difficult counter-evidence (evidence of failed predation) to his crusade is another thing that really makes his intergity on this issue suspect.

Of course I guess we got to see several views from the other camp with T.rex getting some licks as a hunter in Walking With Dinosaurs or what have you not, but something really needs to be done about some of the more rabid scavenger theories that fly around more on hot air then fact. Given the public already knows so little, a proper view on such issues really need to get out... but as it stands, for some reason thinking that T.rex has to be a scavenger seems "fashionable"... for what reason I can only guess at.

Rexregum 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard, it's looking pretty likely that a lot of things like hadrosaurs, maybe ornithomimids did actually live in swamps and had some specializations for that environment. What goes around comes around :) Dinoguy2 01:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's so cool! I was sorry that the palaeos took hadrosaurs out of the water!--Gazzster 06:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyenas are scavengers that hunt, for instance. Samsara (talk • 

contribs) 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[In answer to Rexregum] I don't know how much we could discuss the merits of Horner's ideas on this page unless we're going to edit the article. I often wish there was a Wikipedia forum where we could just discuss stuff and argue about ideas for it's own sake. You seem to be 'boned' up (ha,ha) on the predator vs scavenger thing. Perhaps you could write a separate article for it? There's no reason why we can't take theories about particular dinosaurs and expand them into separate articles. And you're right. Theories about dinosaurs tend to be 'fashionable' as you put it, just like theories in any field of research. Savy scientists know how to use the media to advance their ideas, especially if they've got the personality of a Bakker or a Horner. The entire planet assumes that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid. But, despite the popularity of the idea, it has by no means proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the lawyers say. That's media hype for you. Well, this isn't really useful to the article, is it? But I do enjoy discussing stuff. Cheers all! Keep enjoying the Wiki experience.--Gazzster 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Heyna's cannot really be called scavengers to begin with, they are quite capable hunters in their own right. Lions have no problem with scavenging if it comes to it, as do most huge land carnivores.

The failed predation evidence is far more compelling, given the odds of it making it into the fossil record are low, it suggests that such events were extremely common. So if Horner was right and rexy was a scavenger, then our dear rex must really have some strange reason for being a jerk and going about biting animals, including rather dangerous Triceratops, on a rather common basis as well. If rex was really a scavenger as Horner says and went around biting living things for no reason... I must submit that then rexy must be rather badass and that would be cool in a twisted way. I would also suggest that we take this line of "logical" reasoning to it's conclusion and conclude that T.rex must have watched too many John Woo movies as well and hence snaps at other dinosaurs while flying sideways through the air for no apparent reason :)

Apologies if my heavy critique of Horner's ways might be a bit put-offish, I was just worried that his ideas might receive more weight then the scientific community actually gives it in this article. That there was even a mention about the debate on feeding methods of Tyrannosaurus in such a way to begin with in this article is already a sad state of affairs to begin with.

But yup, as G.K Chesterton says about prehistoric science... unlike other sciences it is not quickly self-correcting. An aircraft engineer has no option to ignore his error as his aircraft will show it by crashing itself for him, however the paleontologist is often free to make his errors and carry doing so on a straight line from there until the (unfortunately) rare event that brings him back down to earth again. I wonder how far Horner is now out on Tyrannosaurus.

Rexregum 07:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I love palaeontology, because you can let your imagination go and spout a lot of crap. As long as you use a few long scientific names it sounds good. I'm being flippant of course, but it is cool. I'm not a fan of the scavenger theory meself. I mean, if T-Rex was not a killer, who was the dominant predator of the time? There's no other candidate. Do we suppose that other tyrannosaurids were scavengers as well? If so, who was killing the hadrosaurs and ceratopsians which were providing lunch for them? Dromaeosaurs? I don't think so. It keeps us off the streets, doesn't it?--Gazzster 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a primary scavenger, as far as evidence goes. Horner was on a documentary vs others and looked like a fool. They had CAT scans, X-rays, computer analysis of joints, tendons, sinuses compared to brain centers, etc. Stereo vision, excellent smell (Carcasses reek. You don't need a strong sense of smell for them), gripping jaws like a croc, etc. Horner's refutation? "I think they're missing some things." Yeah, like what, exactly, Jack?

I'm quite sure it would eat anything dead in front of it. But it would be happy to make something not dead, dead, to fit the bill.Mzmadmike 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the question of whether a T-Rex is a scavenger or not. I believe that a T-Rex if much more of a predator. You see one thing that I've noticed about a lot of true scavengers, such as vultures is that they can fly. Scavenging or stealing food from from other carnivores also makes it necessary that the scavenger can cover vast tracks of land quickly, or else the food would have been eaten by faster animals or the original owner of the kill by the time it reaches that location. If T-Rex was indeed not that fast, then it probably would have survived better as an ambush predator than a scavenger, since it would probably be unable to get to the corpse quickly any way. I know that my theory might be flawed. But I truly do not remember any flightless and slow, pure scavenger today.

                                                                                                     Sincerely     
                                                                                                        ADreamer

The real problem is that there are NO land Vertebrates which are PURE scavengers. The closest thing to a pure scavenger are insects (Even a vulture, the textbook example of a scavenger, (which is a flying animal, and so can search a much larger area) is known to kill prey. The closest things to pure scavengers on land are insects such as the burying beetle and blowfly. (Personally, I think T. rex was like a hyena or lion, with both carrion and fresh-killed prey making up significant portions of its diet.) Vultur 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that proves my point. There cannot be a pure land dwelling scavenger that is slow, because in the environment we have today and probably the environment of the past, scavenging also requires speed; the ability to cover great distances quickly.Insects such as burying beetles and blowflies can fly and are far too different in life cycle, way of life and etc to that of a T-Rex. If scavengers don't have that capability most if not all the meat would be gone from the bones of the corpse and even then the original owners of the kill could have already moved their kill piece by piece. Scavengers such as the vultures (as a common example of a scavenger) have the advantage of flight,T-Rex doesn't have that capability. Hence I see that there is only one way of life that T-Rex could have lived, and that would be as an opportunistic hunter.

                                                                                                     ADreamer(NewDreams2 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

It was a scavenger and a hunter. it just ate whatever it could.

I agree! T-Rex was opportunistic. Think about it.... If prey was around T-Rex could hunt like a lion (fast but only for short distances), but if prey wasn't available it could scare the day lights out of the original killer and take control of the food. :) Tyrannosaurus Rex, the lion of the Cretaceous! --Silverstag89 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Leg length

For at least a year, this article has stated in the Description section that the hindlimbs of T. rex were "among the longest in proportion to body size of any theropod". Is there any sort of validation for this? Simply looking at the photos of skeletons on this page (such as that of Sue in the Field Museum) showing the rather short-looking legs, makes me wonder who wrote this statement. I'm fairly sure that other theropods such as the ornithomimids had far longer legs in proportion to their to their body sizes than the relatively ponderous T. rex, making this statement invalid. 209.244.31.53 22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Holtz talked about this quite some time back, I'll try to see what I can recall:

If you account for size (which change as the animal gets bigger), Tyrannosaurids are among one of the most gracile animals around. As it stands their limb proportions are compariable to that of the ornithomimids- in fact Tyrannosaurid limb proportions are what you would expect to see if you scaled ornithomimids up to a similar size, and in the smaller species there is virtually no difference.

Unfortunately, AFAIK there are no T.rex sized ornithominds to measure T.rex up with, and we have to do quite a bit of filling in the curve here. However, the current data points strongly towards T.rex keeping in with the trend, as it's limb proportions fit the curve pretty well.

And the difference becomes even more obvious if you compare the limb proportions of T.rex with that of other equally massive non-Tyrannosaurid theropods. Compared to just about ever other theropod of smiliar size, T.rex limbs are the by far to most gracile of any land based carnivore that we have EVER known off in the fossil record! (Not kidding, those were Holtz's words). And we have not yet counted in speed adaptions in the Tyrannosaurid foot like the distal wedge-like imbrication of the metatarsals, and the smaller and more compact foot to optimize energy and speed in locomoting the foot at the end of the longer leg.

As it stands I think the statement you question is pretty much valid... most experts on Tyrannosaurids with the data would back that up quite quickly.

How fast T.rex was we don't really know... but all the indications point to it being among the faster (if not the fastest) of its size and weight class. I hate to turn this into a soapbox, but once again a lot of the media has gone out to highlight how T.rex has to be slower (no thanks again somewhat to Horner) without considering all of dinosauria into question along with it. As the science stands, we do not know how fast the animal could be, but the evidence seems to point towards it being well adapted for speed for its size.

Rexregum 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rexregum,I thinking that what you had written above regarding the T-Rex proportion in relation to that of the ornithomimids and etc could be placed in the locomotion part of the T-Rex article if you can cite the source.

It's somewhere in the Dinosaur Mailing list from a couple of years back, I'll see if I can dig it up and if nothing has risen in that time to contradict it... and yes, we do need some additions from Tyrannosaurid specialists here to balance out some of the "opinions" in the matter. Rexregum 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah I found it, it's here... adding it to the article. Rexregum 17:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

                                                                                                                   (NewDreams2 17:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Genetic Material

http://www.physorg.com/news95606831.html

"When the researchers compared the collagen sequences to a database that contains existing sequences from modern species, they found that the T. rex sequence had similarities to those of chicken, frog and newt."

So, a decapitated Tyrannosaurus WOULD flop like a chicken. :)Mzmadmike 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been told that animals cant be cloned from extracting DNA from fossils, because DNA degrades. Does the recent find tell something different?

No. No DNA was found, just collagen, which is another kind of protein, and much more durable. Dinoguy2 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Choking T-Rex?...

Random question... I read a long time ago that they found a T-Rex skeleton which had appeared to have choked to death on a bone... I couldn't remember *exactly* where I'd heard that, so I did a google search, but just got a bunch of stuff about T-Rex toys presenting choking hazards for children. xp

• Has* someone found a T-Rex that has choked to death? Or am I thinking of some other find, maybe an Albertosaurus or something? Also, I once heard that Tyrannosaur fossils have shown signs of having gout. Is this true?

Sorry if this isn't the place to ask this, but perhaps it could be useful to the article somehow. Thanks in advance.

K00bine 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was a Cryolophosaurus, not a T.rex

Rexregum 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Choking - no idea. But yes, T. rex suffered from gout - it's interesting that gout in humans can be linked to a diet heavy in red meat. Vultur 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a story of a choking tyrannosaur that I have heard of before. it is on pg 131 of DINO WARS, by Jinny Johnson. It says it is a tyrannosaur but not what species.

Subfamilies and tribes

I agree that they clutter up the taxobox and, in this case, are probably not so important, but they're not "Tyrannosaurid-worshiping minutia..." Most of the oviraptorids, hadrosaurids, etc also use these ranks in the taxobox (though, again, there they refer to widely-recognized splits within the family--ingeniines vs oviraptorines, lambeosaurines vs hadrosaurines, etc.). So, in articles that can afford the extra taxobox length, what's the problem with listing more subfamilial taxonomy? Dinoguy2 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was having a bit of a dig. Not to be taken too seriously. John.Conway 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Warm Bloodedness Section

"Tyrannosaurus has been at the centre of the warm-blooded versus cold-blooded debate ever since its beginnings with the paleontologists John Ostrom and Robert T. Bakker. Like many other theropods, Tyrannosaurus is thought to have been warm-blooded due to its heightened levels of activity. To have been able to capture prey actively for example, it might have been useful to the creature to be warm-blooded. T. rex also has anatomical features distinctly similar to birds, which are warm-blooded."

I think this section is unsatisfactory, but I'm a bit stumped as to how to rework it. I lopped off the rather more questionable end, but it's still not a very scientific view of the subject. I think we need a complete rewrite with bone histology/growth rates for Tyrannosaurus in particular here, not just vague arguments that predators might have a selective advantage if they're warm blooded (Komodo Dragons anyone?). John.Conway 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And there is no mention of the observation by a number of authorities that because of its huge size, there was no advantage in it being warm-blooded. Its sheer bulk ensured it could maintain a constantly efficient metabolism. In fact it may have had difficulty losing heat.--Gazzster 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That argument has been used, but not specifically about Tyrannosaurus as far as I know (which was roughly elephant-sized anyway — and they're warm-blooded). We have papers on the metabolism of T. rex in particular, and we should use them here, rather than have more general points. John.Conway 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if it stays, it needs some specific details. If Ostrom and Bakker used it as an example in arguing for warm-bloodedness, put those in and cite them. Otherwise this section is pretty generic (you could easily paste it into the articles of a dozen other theropods) and not very useful. Dinoguy2 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(RE: T-Rex and elephant) Point taken, but I hardly think you can compare T-Rex with an elephant. An elephant is a herbivore, and produces less energy from food, and more slowly, than a warm-blooded T-Rex would. An elephant is hardly the same size as a full-grown T-Rex. It has large ears for the dissipation of heat. Yes, the point about gigantothermy was I think made for sauropods, but it is still noteworthy for large theropods.--Gazzster 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much point in getting into this, as it's largely original research. But... can't... stop ... from ... arguing... Firstly, I presume a similar-sized elephant and a T. rex of the same metabolism would produce the same amount of energy from their food (the energy they need to keep their body's running). The energy density in meat is higher, but that means carnivores eat less of it. Second point: bull elephants are known to grow up to 11 tonnes, and 7 tonnes isn't unusual; that's a similar-size, if not bigger than T. rex. And finally, T. rex has a large tail and more gracile build to dissipate heat -- find me a ref that show it had a smaller surface/mass ratio than an elephant and I'll eat my top hat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John.Conway (talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Hmmmmmm. Good points. But like you, bless you, I can't stop arguing. I mean, if there is no advantage in a gigantothermic creature being warm-blooded, why should it evolve toward it? I often think dinosaurs are palaeontological status symbols: because they're so cool, they must be warm-blooded. But what about the poor sauropterygians, mosasaurs and ichthyosaurs? Has anyone said they must be warm-blooded? They must have a better claim to it, swimming in the cooler water as they did. I remember an admission of Bakker in the Dinosaur Heresies: he and a senior researcher did experiments to prove that reptilian metabolism was less efficient than mammalian. They discovered the opposite. So what did they do? As I say, upon his own admission, they surpressed the evidence.--Gazzster 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that T. rex, whatever it's metabolic state, evolved from warm-blooded ancestors (the feathered phylogenetic bracket tells us as much). So the question is whether it is advantageous to evolve ectothermy when reaching large sizes. I vote no, based on large mammals retaining their endothermy. But this is all woolly analogy anyhow, I'll take growth rates over that any day of the week.

And I'm pretty sure the "suppression of evidence" with Romer thing was a joke! John.Conway 14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Relating to John.Conway's mention of Komodo dragons, the Komodo dragon has no warm-blooded competitor. The biggest mammal predator are the (relatively small) dogs introduced by humans, no match for this man-eating lizard. Vultur 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in this whole warm-blooded dinosaur debate, we often make the mistake of thinking that cold-blooded = less efficient. It is not that simple. Crocodiles are highly successful and efficient predators that prey on mammals. Likewise the Komodo dragons you mention. In Australia Megalania was the dominant predator of its time until about 10,000 years ago. There are some modern reptiles who can glide and run on two legs. I am not saying that dinosaurs were cold-blooded. Some may have been gigantothermic; others may have been warm-blooded, and yes, they may have all been warm-blooded.What I am saying is let's be careful not to assert warm-bloodedness in dinosaurs as an uncontroverted fact. There are, after all, reasonable problems. For example, if archosaurs were endothermic, why should one group, the Crocodilia, revert back to ectothermy? Do we know that having feathers must indicate endothermy? We only think that, because the only living animals with feathers are birds, and they are warm-blooded. This 'high activity' we often attribute to dinosaurs is often done in the imagination. There are terriffic problems with a galloping brachiosaur or a pole-dancing allosaur, like massive bone collapse. Would there be any particular advantage or necessity for high levels of activity in a brachiosaur? And let's remember too, that warm-bloodness and cold-bloodness are pretty simplistic terms. There are many kinds of temperature regulation on the metabolism spectrum. And if we assert that dinosaurs are warm-blooded because they were successful, what of the highly successful orders of marine reptiles during the Mesozoic? Must they have been warm-blooded as well? --Gazzster 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the Komodo dragon can only exist as an active dry-land predator because of the lack of warm-blooded competitors. Crocodiles are successful because they can wait as ambush predators. A warm-blood could not wait for possibly weeks between meals, as a crocodile or large python can. All large reptile predators that live in areas with mammalian competitors are ambush hunters. This was one of Bakker's arguments, and it seems to still hold true.

I am convinced T. Rex was a largely endothermic homeotherm (since its ancestors were endothermic, and I can't believe it lost endothermy), but its metabolic rate was probably not as high as a modern lion due to mass homeothermy and the very warm climate of the Cretaceous (8-10 Celsius warmer than today).

Also, T. Rex's activity levels were porbably quite high. Even elephants can run 25 miles per holur, and they do not have the runner's build T. Rex did. (Allosaurs would not have many problems doing highly energetic things - A. ferox/atrox were only 1.1 tons or so, about the size of the very largest recorded polar bears.

As for marine reptiles, the Cretaceous seas were not cool. The Cretyaceous was a very warm period, with what would now be considered tropical conditions extending almost to the Arctic and Antarctic circles. Vultur 14:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, the Cretaceous (and Jurassic, for that matter) land was 'very warm'. So one could likewise argue that large land reptiles did not need to be endothermic. About crocodiles being ambush hunters: yes, but that does not mean they are not efficient predators. They obviously are. And that was my point: an ectothermic or gigantothermic metabolism which may have low levels of activity does not necessarily = less efficient organism. And just my personal opinion- I agree that the larger dinosaurs were mass homeotherms (or gigantotherms) rather than true endotherms. There is no necessity for true warm-bloodness when with a massive bulk you're imitating an endotherm anyway. imitating But we're not really helping the article here.--Gazzster 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a few points - I used "partial endotherm" to mean not that T Rex did not have internally generated heat (endothermy), but simply that its temperature regulation benefited from large size (just as an elephant's does). Tropical Asia (the land of the Asian elephant) is probably more consistently warm than Cretaceous Canada, because of the absence of serious temperature change between seasons in the tropics. The Cretaceous was much warmer than today, but rainy winter nights at 45-50 degrees North latitude would still have chilled a pure ectotherm. And, yes, crocodiles are efficient, but there are no ectothermic pursuit predators in an environment with homeothermic endotherms. (The only fossil example, I can think of was an early (circa 49 mya) Tertiary land crocodile, but it lived early enough to have few competitors.) (The great white shark, bluefin tuna, and other large fish predators are actually endotherms; even the Komodo dragon is not a pursuit predator, relying instead on an ambush from the scrub). And yes, I think this discussion is long enough. Vultur 00:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"My point was that the Komodo dragon can only exist as an active dry-land predator because of the lack of warm-blooded competitors."

To be fair, there were no warm-blooded competitors for predatory dinosaurs either, unless the various stem crocodilians were warm blooded. I remember reading somewhere that even modern monotremes are not "true" endotherms, which if true, would make me doubt that even Mesozoic mammals were warm-blooded in the sense that eutherians are. I agree that there are a lot of shades of grey in the metabolism area, and it's dishonest at best to reduce things to warm/cold blooded. Dinoguy2 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My whole point with the "partial homeotherm" deal was that T. rex wasn't warm-blooded in the same way a human or a sparrow is - I just think that it was much closer to the mammal model of regulation than the lizard model.  :(Something like an elephant, which is an endotherm, but has a low metabolic rate for an endotherm, a slow heartbeat, benefits from mass homeothermy and a warm climate (as T. rex would have benefited), and has no body-covering fur or feathers.) Maybe baby T. rex were faster metabolically, and maybe they were feather-covered. (If baby rexes had feathers, I would imagine the adults lost them, because the heat generated by a chase would be hard to lose in a well-insulated, multi-ton body.) And, as for the competitors, this is true for T. rex. However, remember that there were small (<50 lb.), highly active theropods even in the late Cretaceous, the time of mammal predators such as Repenomamus. These would have rapidly out-competed cold-blooded small theropods, and probably would have evolved larger forms and out competed the big ones if the big theropods were cold-bloods. Vultur 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I recognise your point about 'partial homeothermy'; You concede Dinoguy's observation about grades of temperature regulation. On the last point- perhaps, if a hypothetical giant cold-blooded theropod and smaller hypothetical warm-blooded theropod of similar form occupied the same ecological niche. But there is a massive physiological difference between a tyrannosaurid, and say, a dromaeosaurid. Enough said! I'm sorry guys, can't help myself! Its been a pleasure, Vultur- maybe I'll continue this on your Talk Page. Cheers, dinosaurophiles!--Gazzster 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether T.Rex was "warm" or "cold" blooded is the question, but the truth is that it was an active animal. T.Neo (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does reference #18 go?

An empty ref tag was added over a month ago, but the reference wasn't used anywhere else in the article. Surely someone has access to Olshevsky 1995?--Rmky87 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tail in the Air?

According to one article the Tyrannosaurus Rex raised its tail in the air. [3]
Here is the relevant section near the end:

But if the dinosaurs really dragged their tails on the ground, there would probably be the fossilized remains of ruts behind the footprints. Scientists have searched and found places where a tail may have swished back and forth, but it appears a T. rex did not drag its tail.

"I'm not going to say there's never tail-drag marks found," Lamanna says, "but they're found so rarely that it really shows us, I think, pretty convincingly, that the dinosaurs held their tails aloft almost all of the time."

--Mwalk10 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)----

I'm not sure why you've brought this up here. This Wikipedia article does not state T. rex dragged its tail, and the images depict it as not dragging its tail, with the exception of one old-style "tripod" image, which is clearly marked as "outdated". Firsfron of Ronchester 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious line

Research on some of the tissues involved have suggested that chickens are closer relatives to tyrannosaurs than some other modern animals are. Surely all birds are as closely related to T. rex as chickens are? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That should be changed to birds.I'll fix it up. Dinoguy2 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can some one answer me these two Questions regarding T.Rex please?

Hi all

How many Tyrannosaurus Rex Fossils were Found ,or available with us today?

And are there any Tyrannosaurus Rex “Transient cross Fossilized species” i.e cross between T.Rex and “pre-or post-evolved “ T.Rex species been found yet?

Cheers and Regards

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question: as the article states in the introduction, about 30 specimens have been found. You second question is much harder to answer, since I don't know quite what you mean. What's a “Transient cross Fossilized species”? All species are in transition. John.Conway 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

OKAY..So there are about 30 "complete" fossil specimen of T.Rex..Correct?

What I mean by the second question is ……did they find a Fossil of species evolving to T.Rex...Or a T.Rex evolving to other species among the 30 fossils + found or whenever they dig a hole?

Cheers and Regards :)

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly didn't get to evolve into anything, as it was there for the K-T Event. J. Spencer 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

YES..But It ( T.Rex) must be evolved from previous species. There must have found a transient T.Rex Fossil. Otherwise it put evolution theory into a review position.

Cheers and Regards

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer your question, but Albertosaurus was a tyrannosaur closely related to T. rex but from around 70 million years ago, while rex itself came 5 million years after that. There are tyrannosaurs earlier than Albertosaurus, too. Every fossil in the fossil record is an instance of a transitional fossil, going back to the earliest one-celled organisms. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, see what we have here. Daspletosaurus is sometimes cited as the direct ancestor of T. rex, but it is hard to tell for sure, as there are many gaps in the fossil record. But look, if you are looking to start a debate about creationism, this isn't place to do it. John.Conway 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mr/Ms Firsfron of Ronchester I think that "Albertosaurus" or "Daspletosaurus" might be the answer of my second question ..I will read more about them...let's start from here, and thanks to you all. J. Spencer &John.Conway.

cheers & Regards

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been reports of an animal somewhere between Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus from the top of the Two Medicine Formation, but as-yet unpublished. This may or may not be the same as another unnamed species of Daspletosaurus. J. Spencer 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So does the soft tissue found in the T-Rex bones prove that Dinosaurs are warm blooded?

Well for years there has been a question on whether or not Dinosaurs are warm blooded or not. Does the soft tissue prove that Dinosaurs are warm blooded or otherwise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.5.115.213 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Scientists have been examining remains of what they think may be collagen, a protein found in mammals. [[4]] The tests have so far been inconclusive.--Gazzster 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Collagen may have survived because it probably has a stronger make up than other organic matter. However the very fact that collagen was in suitable amounts that would allow it to survive the preservation process could also show that T-Rex was far more like mammals in some ways. Maybe even the warm-bloodedness aspect of mammals. This is just my take on the matter. (NewDreams2 17:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Subfamilies and tribes

A while ago I removed the subfamily and tribe ranks from the taxobox (with a quip about tyrannosaurid worship), but they have just been re-added. I am of the opinion that subfamilies and tribes are rarely useful for readers of an encyclopaedia, and their inclusion should be justified by significant morphological/ecological difference. I don't think the tyrannosaurid sub-clades have significant morphological differences that would be of interest to the general reader, and just add unnecessary confusing detail. -- John.Conway 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC) I just noticed that Tyrannosaurinae and Tyrannosaurini both redirect to Tyrannosauridae anyhow. I think this is a clue that they are unremarkable nodes/stems and don't really belong in the taxobox. -- John.Conway 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably, sadly, true of a lot of articles. On the defense, one could probably say that including them consistently helps the common folk learn to put their ini, inae and idae in the right order, although whether that's a valuable skill is, again, debatable, and similar benefit can probably be attained by following the link to scientific classification, which is included in the taxobox by default. (btw, do other sciences have no classification? I'm pretty sure chemistry does...) Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

People don't need this level of detail in a summery box -- I've been removing superfluous ranks for a while. I have no problem in them being included in a bit on phylogeny, but the taxobox should be kept simple. I should take this to the project page. -- John.Conway 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, taxoboxes cover all major ranks as well as minor ranks between the lowest major rank and the taxon being described. Minor ranks of special interest, such as superorder Dinosauria, can also be included. Mgiganteus1 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that a statement of policy (somewhere) or your opinion? I don't think it's a good policy if it is one, and will attempt to change it -- if it's just your opinion, consider your face slapped with a white glove. -- John.Conway 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

John has a point when stating that repeat links should be avoided, especially when there is no article to stand for them. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a policy as far as I know, but rather a standard layout that several editors, including myself, have adopted. I think it's a good way of ensuring that obscure minor taxa are linked to from a number of articles, but in cases such as this, where they are redirects, their inclusion may not be so important. Mgiganteus1 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Obscure minor taxa for which nothing can be said outside of phylogentic considerations shouldn't have articles in my opinion. Hadrosaurinae and Lambeosaurinae are examples where I think something can be said, Tyrannosaurinae and Tyrannosaurini are not. -- John.Conway 21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Mgig has a point about ensuring that minor taxa are linked to several other articles. Currently, these wikilinks are simple redirects, but that may not always be the case. When articles don't have any links pointing to them, they tend to get those silly "linkless" messages at the top that the bots like to add. I certainly don't see the inclusion of minor ranks as "tyrannosaurid worship", especially since we're using tribes within the hadrosaurs and (possibly) ceratopsians, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm normally an advocate of red links, but this is a case where either the redirects should be undone (if people really believe there is something to say about those taxonomic groups; it seems John opposes this idea) or the links added later, when possibly something can be said about these groups (always a possibility as additional skeletons become unearthed, esp. when large deposits are found). Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add me two cents worth. I reckon we should follow the KISS principle. Leave it out. Otherwise someone will feel inspired to add subdivisions to every dino taxo box. About redirects: if they're overdone, they can be confusing, especially if the article to which a link redirects does not clearly and adequately explain why the redirect has taken place. They can give the impression of synonymity between two headings, when, in fact, there may be subtle and necessary distinctions to be made. Case in point. And examples of that abound the length and breadth of Wikipedia. --Gazzster 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty simple way to go about this: If there's no article for a particular group, and if you can't see there being an article on it that could actually convey useful information or history, redirect it to the next appropriate group and leave it out of the taxobox (It can still be included in cladograms and such within articles of course). As for extraneous taxa, my opinion from my userpage: These things should be short and sweet-use unranked higher taxa on species pages only if it contains widely used or relevent information, preferably linked to an existnant article. For example, a taxobox for Utahraptor might list "(Unranked) Maniraptora", since maniraptors are a well-known and distinctive clade, or Coelurosauria (same reason), but both would be messy and slightly redundant (it might be better to list coelurosauria for basal coelurosaurs and maniraptora for maniraptorans). Again, using Tetanurae for species far removed from basal tetanurans would become cumbersome, but appropriate for, say, megalosaurids and spinosaurids. Use your own discretion. Dinoguy2 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An Addition to the Feathers Section

A cousin of T-Rex called Dilong Paradoxus has been discovered. This animal is very different from the rest of it's kind due to the fact that it has feathers. Because it is more ancient than the more advance Tyrannosaurids, it may prove that T-Rex evolved from smaller feathered Dinosaurs. Also according to the article it can be used as a basis in proving that T-Rex probably had feathers early in its life.

Here is the link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.26.123 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Wow it's a time traveler from 2004!!! Sheep81 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC) : )

Pronunciation

Pretend for a moment a 12-year old is making a presentation and wants to be sure she is pronouncing it right. What you've got there is just plain ole no good, really: /tɪˌɹænəˈsɔɹəs/ or /taɪ-/; from the Greek "τυραννόσαυρος ?? Tom Schmal 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're stepping into one of the great unsolvable debates there. Over at the article about ubuntu (Linux distribution), we have been having people revert each other between international phonetic notation and English transliteration (oo-BOON-too if you must know) for months. I'm sure it's still going on. You're lucky I'm not an IPA freedom fighter, or we could never be friends. There are two things you can do that are sensible. 1) Accept an unalienable truth about Wikipedia and walk away a wiser man, or 2) raise this issue across Wikipedia and demand that both a pseudo-English and IPA notation be provided. In the latter case, prepare for weeks of discussions. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a 25 year old grad student and I can't tell the difference between IPA and the Greek characters. You're not alone ;) For the record, in my Northeast U.S. accent, i'd pronounce it (tie-RAHN-o-SORE-us RECKS). Dinoguy2 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you... FA people seem to like the IPA though, so there you have it. Sheep81 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If a 12-year-old has to come to Wikipedia to figure out how to pronounce Tyrannosaurus, then he has other problems. : ) Sheep81 09:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one. :D I'm also from Northeast U.S. and I pronounce Tyrannosaurus Rex just like Dinoguy2. I really don't know why, but other pronunciations of T-Rex drive me crazy. --Silverstag89 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NO ONE I know could understand the little IPA greek letters. I doubt many people can, even those who are educated. I would think Tyrannosaurus would be an easy name to pronouce, compared to such names as opisthoceliocaudia (the same goes for spelling). One of my pet hates is when people mispronounce dinosaur names and claim there pronounciation to be correct (i.e. DIP-LO-DOKE-US or PARA-SAWR-A-LOWF-US). I was even told to shut up by a teacher who mispronounced Archeopteryx as ARKEY-O-TY-RECKS. T.Neo (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus rex social behavior

A very good article about T.rex but it seems to lack things about there social behavior, nesting, how they treated their youngsters, did they live in groups or solitary, etc. Do you know of any research articles that have been published about this particular area?

Janus 3.may 2007—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megaspegas (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, we know virtually nothing about T.rex parental care or nesting. The only hint towards social behavior comes from a few healed rex bones (maybe they indicate care from other rexes, maybe not) and a few bonebeds where more than one rex were found (doesn't say much really). Dinoguy2 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that hypothesis and theories on the social behavior of the T.rex should also be told in the article. Much of scientists beliefs on T. rex stem from fossil finds, comparisons with presently existing animals and logically based inferences any way. Not that different from how they have made their own opinions/hypothesis on the social life of T. rex. Neglecting to mention such fact/evidence grounded theories and opinions would be such a waste for the Tyrannosaur article(it really is impressive),which I believe should be able to provide as much information on the current theories(by scientists of course) about the creature.

Information and theories on their social behavior can be found in this source. http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/pb.pdf . You can check its validity. Also I think it would be good to add information on William Abler's paper on the septic bite of the T-rex. Sources for this can be found in this talk page and on the pdf given above. :) . (NewDreams2 10:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Another possible source: http://www.unearthingtrex.com/pages/rex_behaviour.html Here is its home page: http://www.unearthingtrex.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDreams2 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref 18

Just a quick note- ref 18 is blank. I would guess someone mispelt the ref name, or removed the master ref. J Milburn 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - the original editor didn't include a ref. J. Spencer 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Documentaries

From the "Posture" section: "There have been suggestions that, when chasing prey, the animal might have raised its neck into an 'S' position (much like that of a bird) in order to avoid problems in changing direction; this was discussed in The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs. This way, the head might not always have been jutting forwards." Should we be citing things from television documentaries? Sheep81 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, no. There are so many papers on Tyrannosaurus that I don't think citations from documentaries and films are truly necessary. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting, then. I don't think the S-shaped neck is that notable anyway, the same can be said for virtually all theropods. Sheep81 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout all the edits

I am not doing a very good job of proofreading today, plus I was hoping to avoid edit conflicts by tweaking each section separately. Will try to be more concise with my edit in the future. Sheep81 08:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When did it live?

I was trying to find out when the T.Rex was alive, but couldn't find any info about it.

I think it would be very useful if there were some standard format for extict species, with where and when they lived.

It lived during the Maastrichtian stage, between 62.5 and 65.5 million years ago. I've added that information to the article, per your request. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, shouldn't that be 68.5-65.5mya, given that the Cretaceous ended 65.5mya? Or has it been re-dated? —John.Conway 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Scale diagrams

I'm working on scale diagrams for some tyrannosaurids, which has been easy for T. rex since Scott Hartman has individual specimens done, with scale bars I can just size-match to my existing grid templates. Out of curiosity, which skeleton would it be preferable to scale for? Right now I have the AMNH specimen and Sue side by side as in the allosaur scale. Would it be better to do a comparison like that, or chose one representative specimen (in which case AMNH is closer to average size for a T. rex)? Dinoguy2 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the size ranges like you did for Archaeopteryx. It conveys a more accurate impression of size — i.e. a range rather than a point. —John.Conway 09:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally, cause Sue is a very old girl and pretty close to the upper size limit for the species. A typical adult would be somewhere between Sue and the holotype, which was a young adult. Sheep81 09:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, scratch that. AMNH 5027 is middle-aged, not a young adult. I was getting it confused with... something. Sheep81 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you find an outline of Jane somewhere maybe? Just to throw a kid in there? I looked on the website but I didn't find anything readily available there. Sheep81 10:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that, but I couldn't find any skeletals of juvi tyrannosaurines or Nanotyrannus. I could use Hartman's juvi Gorgosaurus but I'm not sure how closely they match juvi T. rex. Don't want to scale down an adult since the proportions are so different... Posted grid with Sue, Stan, and the AMNH mount on image review for now. Dinoguy2 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Septic Bite

I was reading over "The Teeth of the Tyrannosaurs", a study published by William L. Abler. In it, he suggests that Tyrannosaurs may have had an infectious bite, like a Komodo Dragon. What is the current scientific consensus on that theory? Does it warrant inclusion in the article?

K00bine 21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that one would be tough to prove... Sheep81 22:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Practically all modern carnivores do - why not T rex? Dlh-stablelights 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard about this too quite some time ago. Although I don't know how these scientist were able to find out about this. Maybe someone could dig up a link or research on this, it could really be good added information.

(NewDreams2 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I found this article on "Britanica India: Did you Know?" http://www.britannicaindia.com/duk_det_inside.asp?art_id=74

"The front teeth were D-shaped in cross section, tapering toward the tip. The crowns of the teeth, like those of all animals except mammals, were shed and regrown frequently (every 250 days or so, on the basis of microscopic lines visible within the teeth). Serrations of the teeth bear deep pocketlike recesses in which bacteria may have flourished to provide an infectious bite, much like that of the giant Komodo dragon today."

Maybe someone could add this new information as well as other information regarding T-rex teeth found in this article to the T-rex article if its not yet there and if the info is meets all requirements to be considered valid. I'll try looking for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDreams2 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Found new information from the T rex museum website. This time more exact.

Here is the link to the page. http://www.trexmuseum.org/moretrex.html

Here is the link to the site itself. http://www.trexmuseum.org/

Now copy and pasting what it says:

The teeth of the tyrannosaurs

by William L. Abler. Scientific American, pp. 50-51, September 1999.

Many attempts have been made to answer the question of whether tyrannosaurs were active predators -- seeking out and killing their prey or were scavengers, waiting for the opportune moment to step in and satisfy their hunger. Joining this debate, researcher William Abler and his colleagues have literally looked inside this amazing dinosaur's mouth for clues and come up with some surprising results.

The enormous teeth of the tyrannosaur would seem like the perfect killing tool with sharp points and serrations on both the front and back edges. But when put to an actual test of bone crushing and flesh tearing, would they live up to this perfect image?

Abler and his associates wondered about the serrations seen on the teeth, and whether they would serve the same purpose as those on common kitchen knives. Since no studies had been done regarding knife edges, Abler set up an experiment with serrated blades and tyrannosaur tooth edges.

By creating a series of standardized knife edges, including a serrated edge, the scientists were able to study cuts or tears on actual pieces of meat and simulate biting experiences similar to those that might have been demonstrated by the dinosaur.

The blades were "mounted on a butcher's saw operated by cords and pulleys" that created a sawing action on several same-sized pieces of meat. While the straight edge split the meat, a serrated knife edge "gripped and ripped" it.

A serrated fossil tooth of the ancient shark Carcharodon megalodon produced similar results. When a tyrannosaur tooth was placed in the mechanism, it produced cuts similar to those made by a smooth knife blade that was in need of sharpening. Questioning these results, Abler wondered: if the menacing tooth edges were not sharp, what were they for?

When comparing the serrations of the tyrannosaur tooth with those of the ancient shark, Abler saw major differences in the shape of the points and in the spaces between the points, or cella. The shark's tooth had pyramidal-shaped points. while those of tyrannosaurs were cube-like.

Putting the teeth of Albertosaurus to the meat test, the scientists discovered food particles and grease trapped in the cella. According to Abler, when such particles remain in the mouth they become the sites for septic bacteria which can result in fatal bites to victims. This indicated that tyrannosaurs might have been able to merely bite their victims and sit back and wait for them to succumb to the fatal infection. A "puncture and pull" method of biting seemed most apparent to Abler, where the dinosaur's teeth acted as pegs that more or less held the victim. Also, due to the non-articulating surface of the teeth, he hypothesized that tyrannosaurs did not chew their food but swallowed it whole.

Abler cites a study of the Indonesian Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis), whose teeth are similar in shape to those of tyrannosaurs. Ciofi's study has led the paleontologist James O. Farlow to suggest a positive comparison between the two animals. Since the Komodo dragon sometimes hunts by biting its prey and then waiting for it to die through an infection of the wound, why wouldn't this be possible in tyrannosaurs?

[People bitten by a Komodo dragon more frequently die from sepsis than from the damage inflicted by the wound itself. -- Ed]

Abler adds that with tightly closed lips, tyrannosaur teeth may have pierced their own gums, which would then have bled and nourished the septic dental bacteria. This would have provided perfect conditions for poisoning future prey.

Someone could try taking a look at it to check its validity. And if found valid can be added into the article. (NewDreams2 06:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I think more info is needed though. (NewDreams2 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I found another link which says generally the same thing. http://www.ceo.wa.edu.au/home/carey.peter/Dinosaurs/noel.html

"Scientists studying the teeth of the largest lizard in the world, the Komodo Dragons of Indonesia suggested that they might serve as a living model for the behaviour of T. rex. The teeth of the Komodo Dragon are remarkably similar in structure to the huge extinct predator and a bite from its jaws inflicts a dangerously septic wound. Even though the prey might get only a nip the resultant wound is often enough to eventually bring the animal down. Later – hours or perhaps even days – the Komodo Dragon, with a very keen sense of smell, can track down the stricken prey and kill and devour it. This same form of predation could well have been practised by T. rex."(NewDreams2 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

The last page of this PDF also talks about the T rex septic bite. But I'm not sure if its a valid source, but I think so. So check it out. http://www.ess.ucla.edu/academics/courses/web/spring_2006/ess_17/lectures/Lec18.pdf (NewDreams2 07:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Here is another link. http://www.ess.ucla.edu/academics/courses/web/spring_2006/ess_17/lectures/Lec18Notes.pdf

If you take a look at the last page, at the very bottom, where it says "T. rex nasty bite?", you can see it talk about T rex's septic bite. (NewDreams2 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I found another source: http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/pb.pdf

Its in page 10 of the pdf, so you can go and see the info for yourselves. The pdf is divided into different articles it seems and the article "The Teeth of Tyrrannosaurus" by William Abler starts from page 9 of the pdf to page 10. Go ahead and look at it.The pdf seems to have a lot of other info so check it out. (NewDreams2 07:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Turning Rate

The turning rate of T.rex at the end of the locomotion section is an interesting titbit, but perhaps more information could be presented to put it context.

I mean, isn’t such a turning rate more or less expected from a bipedal, horizontally oriented, 5-6 ton animal? After all, we don't really expect such an animal to go spinning around on a dime as fast as Homo sapiens do we?

Is it a unique feature of Tyrannosaurus or something we’d expect from just about any huge theropod or bipedial dinosaur for that matter?

Though to it's credit, the articles on the web pointed out the turning rate of T.rex as a case study for modeling the general speed of the entire ecosystem back then, the methods of attack employed by large dinosaur predators would be quite different from the zig-zagging high speed chases we see in the African savannah.

It is highly unlikely (not to mention humourous) for T.rex and Anatotitan in be involved in a Cheetah-Gazelle kind of chase... prehaps the lunge-grab style of predation employed by crocs would be a better model? T.rex would have employed straight line (ambush?) attacks that slammed into the prey at full force (it's head was certainly fit for the job) or simply chased down its prey with much less of the turning antics we see in the savannah, after all it's not like its main prey items were very agile as well.

Rexregum 20:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe if T.rex do hunt in packs, then you can think rexes coming in from all sides. Or a younger individual races along scattering the herd of hadrosaurs and chasing a lone individual from behind, when suddenly the hadrosaur is attacked from the side by some of the bigger rexes.(NewDreams2 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Any way, why is the comparison only with humans? Why just compare them to cheetah's and gazelles. What is the turning rate of other four limbed mammals of the savanna such as wilder beasts, zebras etc. They probably would also have 1-2 second turning rate right? And I think a zig zag chase isn't made totally of 45 degree turns but maybe half of that. A perfect 45 degree turn is a perfect left or right face turn, when racing at high speed such turns are dangerous for joints and tendons, and the animals might trip. I would expect around 20-25 degree turns instead. Maybe even 30, but a true 45 degree turn would be rare. Even we humans would probably have to slow down for a brief second to make such a turn if we were in a high speed sprint, and slowing down even for a split second would mean the difference surviving and being eaten. (NewDreams2 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

height

The part in the article where it says that Tyrannosaurus is 5m (16.6ft) should be removed. It didnt get that tall, even look at the graph next to it. The graph shows it at about 4m tall. 24.208.55.168 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the published numbers are wrong and the user-created graph is right ;) Sheep81 02:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on image review, the rex in the diagram appears shorter due to its pose. Imagine it in a standing position and it would be about 4.5 m, which is the lower end of the height range. Height is variable depending on posture. Dinoguy2 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I know... I just thought it was funny how backwards his reasoning was. :) Sheep81 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

T rex in pop culture:

I have removed the picture Image:JurassicParkTREX.jpg from the T rex in pop culture section of this article. Due to the fact that a page (Tyrannosaurus in popular culture) already exists for this use, that no fair use rationale had been given & that this picture would not have made it through any FAC, I have deleted it from this article. I proposed to move it to the Tyrannosaurus in popular culture article, but there was a representative picture there from the Jurassic Park movie already, so I have palced this note here in case the picture is ever needed again. Try & keep this article clear of fair use pictures unless absolutely needed. Thanks, Spawn Man 10:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Feathered Tyrannosaur Picture

A baby T. Rex, covered with down.

I noticed that a picture of a feathered T. Rex was on the article's "To-Do" list, so I drew one myself. Hope it comes in handy.

K00bine 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cute. T.Neo (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus rex pop culture

Since I cannot revert your edit without breaking the three-revert rule, I am requesting that you revert your own edit. Tyrannosaurus is a featured article. When it was nominated, a point was made to convert the preexisting list of pop culture trivia to prose and limit its size. A separate article for Tyrannosaurus in popular culture has been created for pop culture trivia like your Eric Garcia reference. Please move it to that page. If you wish to add this author, who I have never even heard of before, to the main T. rex page, please bring it up on the talk page of the article or of WP:DINO, rather than go against a year's worth of consensus, please. I'm sure the idea will be roundly rejected but you are welcome to make the attempt. Thank you. Sheep81 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cranky? Having a bad day? I'm not attacking a featured article (and, please be aware that even featured articles change over time), just thinking that T-rex's last section reads awkwardly and contains an odd selection of examples. It looks like a random example or two was selected in several categories. A list format would focus on the distinct categories in popular culture rather than on the selected examples. And I thought the movie section carried too much weight in the paragraph, and so added Garcia's work (a modest effort but recently made into a cable film) to expand the written material section. That same flaw is on the associated popular culture article as well. Books are seriously ignored, I always think books are more important than movies, anyway. So, you can revert -- you've hardly offended me -- but being defensive of minor changes to this article is hardly the Wiki way. Best wishes...........WBardwin 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not me being defensive, I'm just the only idiot awake. I'm sure if I hadn't reverted it, five or six people would have jumped at the chance a few hours from now if not sooner. Of course articles change, even featured ones. But be aware that there has been a concerted effort to keep trivial pop culture references OUT of that section. If you look, you will notice that your "random example or two" are in fact very notable examples. Eric Garcia, however humorous, is not up there with King Kong or Calvin & Hobbes. Also be aware that the article would not have become featured in the first place had the pop culture section been in list form. Making unilateral changes to an article without an attempt at discussion, even when you have been informed that consensus is against the change is not the Wiki way either.

If you feel that books are underrepresented on the pop culture subpage, by all means add as many as you can think of... in THAT article. Sheep81 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, if it were up to me, I would delete the entire pop culture section (from this and every other dinosaur article except Dinosaur) and make it a "See Also" at the bottom. I'd lovvvvve to do that! It would make my day! But consensus is against that as well, so I can't. I'm still requesting that you remove the Eric Garcia reference, by the way. It is indeed a minor change. But this type of minor change to that particular section has been vetoed roughly a thousand times. This is why I am adamant about its removal. Sheep81 09:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi WBardin!

I've reverted your edits, too, as we at WP:DINO worked very hard to get Tyrannosaurus up to Featured Article status, and it has been pounded into our heads that articles which use bulleted lists cannot be Featured Articles; all lists have to be converted to prose. We've had this discussion with the FAC reviewers before, and there is just nothing we can do to change their opinions of bulleted lists. As we would naturally want to retain the article's status as representing the best of Wikipedia's articles, we simply cannot use the bullets.

Another thing: I've never heard of the Garcia comic thing, and Sheep's right: it doesn't have the notability that King Kong or even Calvin and Hobbes has; we've used Summary Style here to present the really notable appearances in popular culture, something we had to do for WP:FAC. Please note that Sheep is certainly aware that even Featured Articles change over time; heck, he's made a bunch of changes himself. But the current edits don't tell s anything about Tyrannosaurus. There's a seperate article called Tyrannosaurus in popular culture which is full of fancruft and lists, and you're welcome to add that Garcia thing in there (because we've never worked extensively on paring that article down to the really notable stuff, and it's not a Featured Article).

It's clear you're interested in dinosaurs, and, despite this rough start, I'd like to invite you to join Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, as we could use someone with your editing abilities, and it's clear you're passionate about the subject. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen (I assume), you are both being defensive and I think unnecessarily so. I'm no newby and I have worked on (gasp) Dinosaurs before, even on the (much earlier) T-rex article. I even created a dinosaur article on a new find in Utah. But your pop section reads like a list because it came from a list and so I formatted it as a list to see what was really in there. As written, it is not worthy of a featured article. It needs to be rewritten in a historical context, i.e. the initial popular imagery arising from the representations/models of early finds and how that image has changed (slowly, since about the 1960's if I remember it right). I have a book by Horner (I think), that talks about the popular image of T-rex, its origins, and errors. That would be a good start. Then, I would eliminate all "pop" examples, except those that represent examples of how T-rex's image changed over time, i.e. King Kong vs Jurassic Park. The list article needs a great deal of work, and is way out of balance, but "popular culture" is one of Wikipedia's biggest weaknesses. As for Garcia, he came to the top of my head as I was thinking about what else could be added, so he can stay or go. Sawyer is a much better scifi example. If you think your "army" of reverters would stand for it, I'll add the section to my to-do list. Best.......WBardwin 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pasting this all over Wikipedia. If you'll actually read the discussion that you just copied and pasted here, you'll see that nobody is defensive about the prose, or that you would dare touch the article. Nobody gives two shits cares if you rewrite the section in its entirety. In fact, we would have thanked you had you done that. But you didn't do that. You converted the pop culture section into a list, then after that was reverted (twice), you added (badly formatted) non-notable fancruft to the section. Both of these are in direct opposition to the established and sensible consensus which has been developed and maintained over the last year by WP:DINO editors and the FAC process. THAT is what we were upset about. If you can make the section coherent while staying within those guidelines, you'll be a modern-day hero. I'll even give you a barnstar. Sheep81 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (edit: rephrase w/o profanity)

This kind of thing really grinds my gears. I agree that the pop culture section should be re-written as an historical discussion. I do not have the time or sources to do this. I agree that converting the section back to the list from whence it came is almost as bad as just deleting it entirely--that is, not an improvement, but a step backwards unless replaced with something better. I also never heard of Garcia and doubt many people have, as opposed to things like JP and King Kong, and that when the new and improved pop culture section is created, mentions of Garcia, or even James Gurney, or even the venerable Transformers Beast Wars, are not notable enough for inclusion. Dinoguy2 14:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Species in taxobox

Ok, I can see where this might be getting overly technical, but I don't think listing species in the taxobox of a genus-level article is appropriate. The article is titled Tyrannosaurus, not Tyrannosaurus rex. In articles for individual species, the taxobox synonyms obviously list synonyms for that species, with the full binomials. However, in the article for Tyrannosaurus, the synonyms should be of that genus, not of T. rex. This issue is more clearly illustrated by genus articles that deal with more than one species, like Diplodocus. That article lists Seismosaurus as a synonym, not S. hallorum, because if it were the latter, it would cause confusion. Which species of Diplodocus is S. hallorum synonymous with? This is not always so obvious, espcially with shifting classifications (it's D. hallorum now, but will probably be D. longus in the near future). I think it's better to keep the synonyms to the genus level, and discuss any issues regarding individal species in the text, as is normally done. If the synonym issues are not discussed in the text, that's not a reason to add species to the taxobox, but a reason to expand the text! Dinoguy2 00:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus Size

Will someone please change its size from 13 metres to 12 metres as the largest one ever found was 12.8 metres not as you idiots say "over 13 metres" so your work is vandalism who ever did that.

Fixed. Watch the personal attacks. J. Spencer 14:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Eine minuten on the Brochu ref for size; I just checked it after the anonIP edit, and I'm not finding anything about overall size except an offhand comment at the end that "Sue" was 41 feet long. Also, what does "height" refer to in this context? Hip height, height that the head was at, or maximum, knee-shattering, 1950s tripodal Rex stretch? J. Spencer 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Im quite happy with the lengths in the artical, Scott Hartmans Sue comes out at about 12.5m (very similar to 41 feet) and about 3.5m tall (in runnig pose) to the top of the hip. A hypothetical Sue scaled to be 6% larger (based of the reacent skull) comes out at a little over 13m,(asuming body proportions are maintained) but I don't know of any offical sorces for that sort of size. I've never been happy with theropod hights, there too heavily depended on the posture of the animal. The hight must be coming from Tri-podosaurus Rex. Maybe it should be removed, or replaced with an 'offical' Hip height (if one exists). Steveoc 86 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the reference cited doesn't seem to have the sizes cited in it. I'll look again, though. J. Spencer 13:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I have been looking for 13m refs all day and can’t find any. I don’t have the Brochu paper either. I doubt the sizes in the article are based of anything. I was looking thought the article history, its said 'between 12 and 13m’ since before July 2006 but had a different ref ( to a website which only mentioned mass estimates). Its height at the time was stated as 5m. On 21 July Sheep Changed the ref to the Brochu paper but didn't change the lengths or height. Then on 17th September 2006 anonymous user 74.119.16.252 eventually added ‘4.5 -5m’ tall and since then was never changed. On Hip height, a paper by H. Philip Powell (2004) says this ‘The hip height of Tyrannosaurus is calculated at 3·37 m (Thulborn, 1982)’ referring to Speeds and gaits of dinosaurs RA Thulborn - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 1982 .. Maybe this could be used instead? Steveoc 86 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be better for height; Greg Paul has 3.4 for AMNH 5027. I'm wondering if I'm missing a page or something, because professional papers that discuss theropod size use Brochu, 2003, but all I can find is the offhand 41 ft for Sue and the table of individual bone measurements at the end. If they calculated their measurements from that, cool, but I think they would be more faithful to the original document if they said "calculated from Brochu, 2003". (I don't like full body measurements anyway, as often it's hard to find out what was measured: was it the curve of the spine or a straight line, were cartilage/intervertebral discs accounted for and if so how, does the posture affects the measurement [hell on height measurements], and so on). J. Spencer 16:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

References vs Footnotes

The section Footnotes contains what appear to be most of the references for the article... perhaps it would be best if someone knowledgable on this topic would figure out where the references in the section References should be cited in the text, so that the section References can go and the section Footnotes can be renamed References. Shinobu 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting information: A T rex secret weapon is it's fused nasal bones

Read this informaton:

"The CT scans showed that the fused tyrannosaurid nasals were stronger than unfused nasal bones found in other carnivorous dinosaurs. "When T. rex bit down, the forces from the upper teeth would be channeled right to the [fused] nasal bones," Snively said. The resulting bite would have splintered the bones of unlucky prey.

For a non-tyrannosaurid but still carnivorous dinosaur with unfused nasal bones connected with stretchy ligaments, some of the bite force would cause the nasal bones to give a little and slide against each other. The flexing would zap some of that dinosaur's bite energy. "''

"Because the nasals [of T. rex] were fused, all of the bite force was transmitted to the food instead of some of the force being distorting the skull," Snively said. "The T. rex especially had a very strong skull and jaw muscles that would turn it into a zoological superweapon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDreams2 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats a part of an article I found at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18746925/

Is msnbc, so I think it is valid information. Could someone check it out and see if it can also be added to the T rex article. It might give great insight to the sophisticated anatomy of the T rex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDreams2 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another web page with the same information. http://www.livescience.com/animals/070518_dino_nose.html

Its an interesting article and hopefully it is seen by everyone. (NewDreams2 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Huh. Despite the numerous, well-known studies on T. rex bit force and skull mechanics, there doesn't seem to be anything about it in the article. In fact, the relevent papers are in the "References" section a user above noted contains papers not actually used in the article text! There should really be a bite force section under Paleobiology. I don't have the relevent papers, though... maybe somebody who does could throw something together? Dinoguy2 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica has a PDF._Dragon Helm 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if bite force and skull mechanics are placed in the article, information on teeth of the rex should also be included. Information on the rex's septic bite could also be included, if the sources are found valid. They should all be under one heading: "bite force and skull mechanics". (NewDreams2 08:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Human speed

Can anyone explain this mystery to me? The article says:

"An average professional footballer ('soccer' variety) would be slightly slower. A human sprinter can reach 12 m/s (27 mph).[74]"

The fastest running human is Michael Johnson, the American track and field star who on August 1, 1996 set the world record of running 200 meters in 19.32 seconds. That is 37.3 km/h or 23.3 mph

How can an average human sprinter reach 27 mph when the fastest human ever recorded Michael Johnson was 23.3 mph? 24.166.188.29 06:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they're comparing apples and oranges? Top speed and average speed can differ. I haven't looked, so my guess may well be wrong. Anyway, I think it would be misleading to compare top speed and average speed. --Kjoonlee 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the fastest professional runner could only reach 15 mph. A Rex would easily outrun a human at top speed. I have a ton of books on dinosaurs, so I gain info from them. --Silverstag89 03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

LMAO. Dude that's way off. The fastest is literally 25.6 mph I believe which was done by Asafa Powell’s 9.77 100 meter time, even though it is estimated that Michael Johnson clocked 9.66 for every 100 meter time in his 200 meter world record. Meaning that Michael Johnson may have actually reached 28mph. I'm a current sprinter right now and I've clocked 18mph at my max without wind. So ur way off sorry dude. Olympics is coming this summer so we'll see what happens then. I hope Maurice Green makes a come back.Mcelite 07:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Semi-protected

I've been bold and semi-protected this article, as well as Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus. I'm tired of seeing the already well-sourced size numbers for these animals changing on a daily basis, and I know that first thing in the morning, some IP is going to change the information without changing the reference. I understand that fanboy-types want their favorite to be the largest, meanest, baddest ones, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is ridiculous to add a few feet in length just to make your favorite the largest. Since the disruption is limited almost entirely to IPs, semi-protection should work fine. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2 fingers or 3?

The jury's out, again: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007AM/finalprogram/abstract_132345.htm Dysmorodrepanis 11:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, the way I'm reading the abstract, it looksl ike the jury's in, and it's three. Though the third is kinda dinky. Dinoguy2 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone decide whether that's disputed? We have a big tag on a featured article here... Circeus 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; I don't think it's disputed so much as not really widely reported yet. An image would be great. J. Spencer 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave things until there's some clarity. One swallow does not make a Summer. I dunno: perhaps the new find represents a different species or even genus?--Gazzster 11:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Peck's rex also preserved a metacarpal 3. Here's a 2005 illustration: [5]. I think there's just never been a complete forelimb of a T. rex found before. In fact, I believe only about 3 T. rex hands have ever been found period: Peck's rex, Sue, and this new one! All previous depictions of rex as 2-fingered were based on comparison to the (also incomplete) hands of Albertosaurus. Hopefully the full paper on digit 3 has an explaination we can use. There's also precedent for this: Compsognathus was thought to have two fingers up until pretty recently (though many people have just assumed the hnd was incomplete, unlike with tyrannosaurids). Dinoguy2 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there was actually a claw or anything from the descriptions that have surfaced, just a slightly bent rod-like thing that probably didn't stick out much in life. J. Spencer 15:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like this is being blown out of proportion, as most tyrannosaurid hands had 3rd metacarpals, and are known to have had them for years. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (1985), p. 71, the second page of tyrannosaur skeletal illustrations, shows a hand of Tarbosaurus with a 3rd metacarpal. Similarly, if you go to the first Dinosauria (1990, p. 182 in the paperback edition), both Tarbosaurus and Gorgosaurus (then Albertosaurus libratus) have 3rd metacarpals. In the 2nd edition (2004), Daspletosaurus and Albertosaurus proper are also mentioned as having them, and it is assumed that Tyrannosaurus had one as well (p. 124). Finally, and to seal my required killjoy moment of the day, "third digit" may be technically accurate, but it's not a finger in the sense that most people are used to dealing with, and it's not like Tyrannosaurus really had Allosaurus hands; it had two "finger" fingers and an inanimate bony rod per hand. J. Spencer 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a vestigial third finger. Sure, makes sense.--Gazzster 06:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the article that it was vestigial, though I don't have all the facts. It doesn't sound to me like its vestigial, more like greatly specialized. The article even says that there are strong muscles connected to the metacarpals of the finger. The way the third fingers that developed in T-rex hands seem to show that it was meant for immense strength. And just as the article says, good for grabbing and eating both prey(dead animals that it killed) and carrion(scavenged). People are probably going to have to change their picture of T-rex. [[[User:NewDreams2|NewDreams2]] 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]

Quote from the article: "Sturdy dorsoulnar and volar muscle attachments are present on the base of the metacarpal." The third fingers are not vestigial,since if they were, there wouldn't be that much strong muscle attachments at their base. It's heavily specialized. In my opinion T-rex sacrificed a bit of flexibility from its digits for grabbing power. Maybe its to better transfer the power from the wrists to the finger. Well just have to stay tuned I guess.[[[User:NewDreams2|NewDreams2]] 13:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]

The abstract describes a fused rod being used as an anchor for musculature, and there doesn't seem to be any indication of a claw, or that it stuck out much if at all. I'm not sure that's going to change illustrations much except for having a lump on the outside of the hand. J. Spencer 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying it. I'll check the article again.[[[User:NewDreams2|NewDreams2]] 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]

Isn't this the case for almost all theropod hands, though? Coelophysis has three large, clawed fingers and one vestigial nubbin, but it's still described as four-fingered. If a digit is present, it would still be accurate to describe it as 3-fingered. Heck, I remember reading arguments that the entire forelimb of Carnotaurus may have been embedded within the soft tissue of the body like the hind limbs of some whales, but you wouldn't say it lacked arms, right? Of course, more description in the text would obviously be necessary, since when people say "finger" or "arm" they naturally think of something that had those traditional functions, which the third finger of rex and the arm of Carnotaurus certainly did not. Similarly, the three "fingers" of some maniraptorans seem to have been bound together to some extent within the wing. This has been described for Caudipteryx (where digit 3 is fairly vestigial anyway) and I've seen it suggested but unpublished (except maybe in DoA? Paul does point out that digit 3 universally crosses digit 2 in paravian slab fossils but I can't remember if he argues that they were joined by soft tissue) for a number of dromaeosaurs and early birds. Point is, we should have better descriptuions/explainations of dinosaur hands somewhere, since there does seem to be a generally perception that they were all "allosaur-like". Dinoguy2 06:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For those wondering what it might look like:

• Peck's rex metacarpal III [6]
• Peck's rex hand replicas [7] [8].
• "Wyrex" [9] (includes skin impressions)--76.8.194.226 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The MCs looks more robust than in other tyrannosaurids, and MCIII is longer and better developed as well. J. Spencer 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Those only show MCIII though--the new abstract specifically refers to digit III... Dinoguy2 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say you're looking at it - the abstract says the phalanges are fused to the MC, and you can see it has a blobby tip in the photos, like a small roundish object stuck to the end. J. Spencer 13:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible T.rex Footprint

I just watch a report on BBC news. Phil Manning, who was interviewed, said it could possibly be T.rex or Nanotyrannus [10] [11] Steveoc 86 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"T.rex or Nanotyrannus"

Same difference ;) Pretty cool, though. Is there a peer reviewed description out there? Seems to be some uncertainty about its idendity as a footprint floating around on the DML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoguy2 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tooth Length

I have never read of Tyrannosaurus having 12in long teeth. Or is it 6in pretuding from the gums and the other 6in within the gums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.84.183 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the largest tooth literally found from the T-Rex Sue was 12 inches long. She has the record so that is the largest that we know of when it comes to teeth size. I personally got to hold her tooth because I met one of the guys that is working on her currently. :) Mcelite (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)mcelite

I think a lot less than half the tooth would protrude from the 'gum'--more like a third or even a quarter. Sue's largest tooth would effectively be about 4 inches. Almost all museum mounts have the teeth falling out of the skull--take a look at the taxobox image. The light part would have been within the bone of the skull, with only the darker areas protruding. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Holtz on tyrannosaur speed

I've shortened this part of the article becuase, while Holtz is a major authority, the item cited is old (early 1990s) and is a copy of a posting Holtz made on the Dinosaur Mailiing List - so does not merit more space than a more recent peer-revierwd article. Philcha (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that bit all together. With all due credit to Holtz, after 12 years this type of research would surely have been published if it was valid. Maybe it has been? Anyway, using such an old cite from an unpublished source just seems shady to me. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Philcha (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Locomotion" and "Feeding strategies"

"Feeding strategies" duplicates a lot of the content in "Locomotion". I propose to resolve this by placing "Locomotion" before "Feeding strategies" and merging locomotion-related content from "Feeding strategies" into "Locomotion". Philcha (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that too, sounds like a good solution. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've placed "Locomotion" before "Feeding strategies" and got most of the material in what I think are the right places. Still to do: improve flow of "Locomotion" and locomotion-related parts of "Feeding strategies"; remove some remaining duplications; find alternatives to some poor-quality references, or remove the offending material. Philcha (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see some refernces to Dinosaur Cards, published by Orbis. Can't find R. Hajdul (author of set / card referred to in section "Locomotion"). Is this a worthwhile reference? Philcha (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I remember an initiative to replace those refs over a year ago. I think by now anything with only a DinoCard ref should be removed, unless I'm not remembering that discussion correctly. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant discussion--scroll down to the first Object by Samsara, and continues with the unindented Comment by Sheep. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrannosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were all gone now too. Guaranteed anything that's true can be found in a real primary source; these should all be replaced ASAP. Sheep81 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done for now, I'll revisit in about a week to polish the flow. Before anyone objects to the use of bullet lists in the presentation of Horner's arguments for pure scavenging (in "Feeding strategies"): see Wikipedia:Embedded_lists, which permits bullet lists where there is a hierarchy of complex sub-topics; Horner's case has 3 quite complex parts, each of which has generated its own debate. Philcha (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the trackway image because it's important to show general readers what a sequence of footprints looks like (Trackway shows only a singleton). If anyone can supply a pic of a sequence of theropod prints in its place, I'd be delighted.

These sections could do with other relevant, informative images. Can't think of anything specific I'd like for "Locomotion", but in "Feeding strategies" I'd like to see: Tyrannosaur brain cast / reconstruction with olfactory areas highlighted, beside the relevant part of Horner's case for scavenging; T rex skull making it easy to see the binocular vision, opposite Stevens' research on that subject (there's a beauty in the press release, but it's too large and probably copyright); edmontosaur / ceratopsian bones with healed tyrannosaur bites, opposite the relevant text (replacing the "right foot of T rex" pic, which does not support any part of the text in the entire article). Philcha (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re - the sauropod trackway image... what is the purpose of this in the article? To illustrate that dinosaur trackways exist? I feel it's a bit disingenuous, s it may imply that tyrannosaur trackways are known. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See above: Trackway shows only a singleton, but sequences are needed if they're to be any use in analysing dino speed, so a singleton is irrelevant to "Locomotion"; if anyone can supply a pic of a sequence of large theropod prints in its place, I'd be delighted. A sequence of tyrannosaur prints would be ideal, but probably too much to hope for any time soon. Philcha (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile you've removed the "sequence of footprints" image, soon I'll get a "deleted" message for it. So I'm reinstating it, with a caption which admits it's sauropod and just to show what a sequence looks like. And you've reinstated the "right foot" pic without stating what part of the text it supports (none at all as far as I can see). Philcha (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't notice you'd removed the foot pic. Ok by me. "A sequence of tyrannosaur prints would be ideal," as I mentioned above, no such thing has ever been discovered... there may be one or two isolated tyrannosaur footprints out there, but nothing beyond that. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus footprint from Philmont

I took this picture of a Tyrannosaurus footprint at Philmont. They say that it is the only confirmed known footprint actually from a Tyrannosaurus. Would it work in the article? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice pic. But the reason I was hoping for a line of them was so I could say in the caption e.g. "Paleontologists can estimate speed from stride length". From that point of view a line of any theropod footprints as more useful than a single Tyrannosaurus print. Thanks anyway. Philcha (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Had a go at the two sections; for Locomotion, I didn't do much beyond formatting, except for reworking the compy size mention. I personally think it would be find to just say a 3 kg specimen was used, and that pointing it out as a juvenile is unnecessary (Greg Paul estimated the larger specimen at 2.5 kg back in 1988, anyway). For Feeding strategies, the major changes I made to the text were: I de-emphasize the "Horner peer-reviewed versus media" material, as I thought that could tend to bias the reader a-priori without even getting to what he had actually proposed; I condensed a section of text on the speed of the animal because it was about the same as the last paragraph of the preceding section; and I tweaked the edmontosaur paragraph because the damage was to bone, and using scarring might make people think that skin impressions were found. J. Spencer (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think these sections look really great now. I've thought they were a mess for awhile now but never got around to cleaning them up like I was able to with a couple other sections. Awesome job gentlemen! Sheep81 (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've: placed the 2 posture images together, to facilitate comparison and avoid squeezing the first few lines of text in "Posture"; made minor changes to wording in "Locomotion" (e.g. there were inconsistencies in comparisons with human sprinters); replaced 2 not very relevant images in "Feeding" with one that supports the binocular vision para.

I think the most desirable improvements now would be: image of tyrannosaur brain highlighting olfactory lobes (and optic if possible) in "Feeding"; image of healed tyrannosaur bites on bones of edmontosaur / ceratopsian, in "Feeding"; replace refs to DinoCards in "Locomotion" and "Feeding". Philcha (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science a few years ago, where the bitten edmontosaur is exhibited, so I'll check to see if I have any photos. J. Spencer (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Medullary tissue in bones

I think this is under-used in the article at present. The correlation with the physical / sexual maturity and the end of the growth spurt may be its least significant aspect, since the sample size is only 1 and it's an argument from absence of evidence (a discovery of medullary bone in a younger specimen would break the correlation). I think it's more significant as another dino-bird link with tyrannosaurs placed well inside the coelurosaurs (I realise I've just collapsed several articles and reams of cladograms into a few words!) and as an aid to sexing tyrannosaurs (may help resolve the dimorphism issue) - see Geologists Find First Clue to T. rex Gender in Bone Tissue. Given the range of implications, I suggest medullary tissue should have its own section, which should be fairly early in "Paleobiology" and at least precede "Growth". Philcha (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it would be a good idea, I'm willing to see how a separate section would look. J. Spencer (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Philcha (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Description" section

I suggest this is next in line for a makeover:

• Too may short sentences which fail to highlight the relationships between the points they make.
• Mention other mega-theropods in 1st para. Also mention that the others look more primitive (e.g. allosaurs on steroids).
• 2 diagrams illustrating tyrannosaur size. One should be enough - I'm thinking of adapting the one which includes other theropods so that it highlights the tyrannosaur and the human (make tyrannosaur darker, other theropods paler), and possibly removing Therizinosaurus because it's not a carnivore and has competely different build - we know it's a theropod but the general reader will find it confusing.
• The current last para "The neck of T. rex formed a natural S-shaped curve ...") should probably come next as it's simple and gives a general description of the animal's build. Also needs refs.
• The para about skull and teeth should be split, skull coming first. There's enough to say about both.
• The part about skull should contrast with other theropods (images would be good).
• The part about teeth is over-simplified - wide variation in size, proportions and serrations; "lethal bananas" . Should also mention U-shaped jaw (all the better to bite you with), another tyrannosauroid special feature. Philcha (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus (black) compared with other very large carnivorous dinosaurs

Here's my first draft of the size comparison image. Still to do: remove Therizinosaurus; modify presentation of Spinosaurus to distinguish between torso and sail. What do you think?

Slightly off-topic, is there any way to implement image maps in Wikipedia, so we could make the colour coding guide link to articles? And can we get round the problem that (AFAIK) in standard HTML image maps the specification of the linking areas ("hot spots") depends on the scale of the image? Philcha (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of blacking out Tyrannosaurus to highlight it. As to description in general: I did a very detailed section for Allosaurus, but Allo is different in that there's not much of a Family Allosauridae that could host other information (it's just Allosaurus and its best friend). I think Tyrannosaurus should have a similarly detailed section *if* it is not redundant with information that would be better served in Tyrannosauridae as general tyrannosaur characteristics. J. Spencer (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re the image, what about removing Therizinosaurus and modifying the presentation of Spinosaurus to distinguish between torso and sail?

Re the balance between Tyrannosaurus and Tyrannosauridae, I suggest writing it in Tyrannosaurus then looking at re-factoring later - as you said elsewhere, you've often found that works best. Otherwise we could wind up pushing some of the content all the way back to Guanlong (D cross-section front teeth) or Dilong (U-shaped jaw) or some other early predecessor (e.g. very robust skull). The comparison with other mega-carnivores is specific to Tyrannosaurus as it was about twice the size of its closest relatives. I think I read recently that T rex was more heterodont than its closest relatives - if so, that's also specific. For other common points, Tyrannosaurus would still need at least a brief outline (there's a style guideline whose name I forget), and by the time we add "see also ..." we may find it takes no more space to do it all inline. Philcha (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-the image, what purpose would separating out the sail serve? It's just the vertebrae, to be fair, if we did this, we'd need to separate out the neural spines on all the species. kind of an arbitrary decision, but should be easy enough to do if you really want it. I'll put together a non-therizinosaur version tonight, with rexy in black. Other suggestions sound good. As far as I know, there's no way to image map pics on Wikipedia, unfortunately. Best we can do is link the other species in the caption and/or image description. As for the two size diagrams, I think both are useful--one shows size variation within T. rex, the other shows T. rex relative to other giant theropods. I actually think the first is more important--this is an article about T. rex, not theropod size (can you tell I'm a fan of segragating info and keeping articles as on-topic as possible? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, while I'm making this, any preferences regarding which species go into the chart? Just the big three (or four, or five?) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're volunteering to finish the "mega-therapods compared" pic, that's fine. The point of distinguishing between torso and sail in Spinosaurus is to make the pic compare like with like, otherwise I think the pic makes its point less precisely in this context. I know that's a fiddly job and I'm prepared to have a go if you put together the other contents of the pic (see next item).

Re which dinos in the pic, I suggest Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus, Carcharadontosaurus, Gigantonotosaurus and Allosaurus if possible - that makes the point that Tyrannosaurus was much larger than the largest known Jurassic carnivore but slightly smaller than the largest Cretaceous ones.

Re the other pic, I hadn't realised it was a set of Tyrannosaurus specimens - blame my lousy eyesight. I have 2 concerns about including both pics. Readers may get confused like I did. And I'm not sure what point it would help to make (you may have noticed I like images to support points in the text). For example were all specimens fully adult, especially "little Jane"? Including non-adult specimens would make only the trivial point that sub-adult animals are smaller. If e.g. "Stan" and AMNH 5027 are fully adult males, a comparison of T rex specimens might best be placed in "Dimorphism", but including only full adults.

I suspect you think I'm being too fussy about images all round. But yesterday I inserted a full-face image beside the para about binocular vision and someone's already posted a message "that's really cool" - to me that justifies the effort I made to use the right pic for that section. Philcha (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re image maps, I've thought how I'd get round the difficulty in HTML in an ordinary Web page: a DIV with the image, the legend as a contained block with position:absolute; top: 2px; right:2px, the colour codes as <span style="background-color:whatever">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> and the names as links (the color code would display as e.g.    ). Too complex to spend time on now, but an option to keep in the toolkit in case we find a situation where we really need it. Philcha (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to the text of "Description" - I'd be happy to have a go at revising it as discussed above. I'd keep both "size" images until that issue is agreed. We can consider re-factoring when we see how it looks. Everybody happy with that? Philcha (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll throw in Allosaurus (or should I use 'Epanterias'?) and upload it shortly. As for the tyrannosaur size comparison, my main concern is that in all these size comparisons, we've been using the largest known specimens. The "Sue" specimen is enormous, larger than the average size of T. rex (there's a pretty good sample size at this point). Maybe if I redid that image, removed the juvenile, and included some of the smaller adult specimens? This may not be discussed in the text, but if there's a good source it probably should be mentioned in the size section ("most Tyrannosaurus specimens do not attain the size found in Sue" etc...). Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is:

Nice one! I may have a go at differentiating spino's sail, but please link this one into the article. Philcha (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In general I get the point about "the largest known specimens". Was T rex more variable than other big carnivores? Have we enough data to tell whether was T rex more / less variable in adult size than other big carnivores (and allowing for possible dimorphism)? I don't want to create unnecessary work for you, so perhaps we should work out what point we want the "T rex' size range" pic to make first. Philcha (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you can make image maps, with a bit of coding. Info here. Sheep81 (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Click on our names our or heads! Yay!

All right, took me 20 minutes but I think I finished. Check it out to the right. Hope your minds are ready to be blown... try not to all bow down to me at once! Sheep81 (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well seems we already have an image map on our hadrosaur article. Guess it's not as special as I thought, haha! Damn ornithischians... Sheep81 (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But still very nice. The question is whether we want to risk being pestered by a horde of other projects about how to implement it. If that's not a concern, I think the next question is how large should the map-containing image be in the actual article _ think it would be easier to use at 2x the size (=4x the area, to avoid ambiguity). If we agree on a size, I suggest implementing it for real.Philcha (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if other Projects ask, it's super easy. The cool thing is that the size doesn't matter as far as the mapping goes. The coordinates are mapped onto the full-sized image and you can set the display size in the first line, and it will automatically scale the coordinates to match. Sheep81 (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Move "Classification" after "Paleobiology"?

The details of classification are important to scientists but will make the general reader's eyes glaze over - they sometimes affect me that way! Philcha (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Teenage growth spurt

Does anyone know of any good explanations of why Tyrannosaurus’ was so much more explosive than that of its close relatives? Philcha (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from selection pressures within tyrannosaurids to get bigger faster? J. Spencer (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw the growth curve for T rex (alone), I thought: (a) intra-specific sexual / territorial / feeding competition among them might be so fierce that survival rates for intermediate-sized T rex adolescents might be low, and this would create selection pressure for a long period at small size followed by an explosive adolescent growth spurt; (b) since latest Cretaceous dino faunas show a trend to gigantism, intermediate-sized T rex adolescents would be in an awkward position between the "small game" and "big game" food chains. What puzzles me now is that T rex has a much more explosive growth spurt than its close relatives Daspletosaurus (about 8M years earlier) and slightly less close relatives Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus (also about 8M years earlier) - and that T rex was smaller than Daspletosaurus up to about age 12! Was there more of a gap between the "small game" and "big game" food chains in the latest Cretaceous than 8M years earlier? Or is there any reason to think T rex showed higher levels of intra-specific aggression? Or has anyone come up with some other explanation? And are there any good refs for discussions of this issue? Philcha (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has really published on this aside from Erickson and company. Also I would take the pre-spurt section of the graph with a grain of salt, very few remains of young tyrannosaurs are known, so that is mostly statistical extrapolation. As far as T. rex growing more quickly, it's probably just their typical hyperperamorphosis. Teenage T. rex look a lot like fully adult tyrannosaurids of other species... and nobody looks as "grown up" as an adult T. rex. Sheep81 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"typical hyperperamorphosis" - what's typical about that in T rex (seriously)? And why hadn't it fully played out earlier, in the basal tyrannosauroids? Adaptive radiation in sauropod dinosaurs: bone histology indicates rapid evolution of giant body size through acceleration (2003) says Late Triassic sauropods grew faster than prosauropods and as a result reached much larger adult sizes from similar hatchling sizes. The paper also suggests that this accelerated growth must have required "considerable increase in metabolic rate .... bird-like lung ..." (relevant to another topic I've been thinking about.) Philcha (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur Life Tables: An Example of Nonavian Dinosaur Population Biology may support the intra-specific competition explanation. If so, it leaves open / accentuates the puzzle about why the teenage growth spurt was less extreme in earlier carnivores. (My best guess right now is that dinos of very different sizes laid eggs of more similar sizes, so smaller theropods had less scope for an extreme growth spurt.) Philcha (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

T rex speed / acceleration

(Found this posting in the "To do" list at top of page, moved it here so people can discuss.)

I'm not an expert, but it appears that Tyrannosaurus could run 'pretty' fast, but was a slow turner. This would imply that he hunted similarly to a pike, or a crocodile, or maybe a heron: hide or sit very silently and wait until something passes by. If his prey consisted of sauropods and hadrosaurs, living near coasts and rivers, t-rex could easily have been hiding in water, just like a crododile does. Looking much like a trunk. This seems a *very* good theory to me but I can't find anything about this on the web...Drgeert 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. Paul ("Predatory Dinosaurs of the World", 1988) says T rex had really big crests on the knee and heel, giving muscles excellent leverage. IMO this says little about top speed but suggests exceptional acceleration from a stationary start, which is a feature of the pike Drgeert mentioned (pike accelerates too fast for field zoologists' slow-motion cameras to resolve the blur). Might be worth a mention in the article if we could find a ref to T rex acceleration. Philcha (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What is now the type specimen of T rex?

"Manospondylus controversy" has an image whose caption says " ... type specimen ... inaccurately reconstructed ... now disassembled." So what is now the the type specimen of T rex? Should we revise "Classification" to identify the current type specimen (preferably with image)? Philcha (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's still it, as far as I know. Disassembled doesn't mean destroyed, they just took apart the museum display reconstruction (back in the day, real fossils were used in museum mounts. Barbarians!) Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of our featured dinosaur articles have the type specimen identified by number in the history section... which in this article is really in need of a cleanup. I'll try to touch it up today or tomorrow if that's okay. Sheep81 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The story of THE BITE?

File:Carl Lewis T rex.png

Power is nothing without control

I've thought for a few years that the main theme of tyrannosauroid evolution was the increasingly powerful bite, starting possibly as early as Guanlong (and late tyrannosaurids upgraded their binocular vision - anticipating by 65M years that ad with Carl Lewis on the blocks in high heels). Some papers have come my way which support this notion (the bite, not Carl Lewis), when I finish the current edit of "Description" I'll get round to reading them. Would it be in order to include it in this article (or perhaps Tyrannosauroidea), provided I can avoid OR? Philcha (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be tricky to avoid OR (OR includes drawing even obvious conclusions from papers that the authors didn't explicitly arrive at). But give it a shot anyway, it's an interesting subject. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophe?

This has bothered me for a while and I can't find a yes or no answer in any style guides. Use of possessive apostrophe on scientific names? For example, is "Tyrannosaurus' mass" correct, or should we use "the mass of Tyrannosaurus"? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The way I was taught English (in Scotland, decades ago), the apostrophe is correct; and I preferred it as being more concide and imposing less cognitive load (stack processing) on the reader. But I'm aware that even grammar changes over both time and geography (I've spent time in the USA). I think the criterion should be whichever approach works best for the majority of general readers. Philcha (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep poking around, I'd feel better if I could find it in a guide, but I agree the use of the apostrophe is much easier on both reader and writer. I've been under the impression it's incorrect for some reason, but it would save a lot of trouble if it's ok! Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)