Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Sheep81 08:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Status of Manospondylus 

message: 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)
replies: text: I dunno, both Godzilla and Barney are use the old posture, and they're terrifying ;)Dinoguy2 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know!!!!  Barney is terrifying!70.100.165.76 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Posture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Newbie 

message: 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)
thread_title: Running Speed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Size 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Oh, and the hip height of Sue is usually listed as 13 ft, for comparison. Dinoguy2 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the clarification MelicansMatkin 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albertosaurus taller? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  running and falling 

message: Does Sue merit her own article? Or does her bit here suffice? Totnesmartin 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree--in fact Jane (dinosaur) should be merged into either here or Nanotyrannus. Dinoguy2 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt Sue might be notable on grounds of size and completeness. Totnesmartin 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Leg length 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Choking T-Rex?...

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I was having a bit of a dig. Not to be taken too seriously. John.Conway 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subfamilies and tribes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where does reference #18 go? 

message: According to one article the Tyrannosaurus Rex raised its tail in the air.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tail in the Air? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Can some one answer me these two Questions  regarding  T.Rex please? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Subfamilies and tribes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wow it's a time traveler from 2004!!! Sheep81 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Addition to the Feathers Section 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tyrannosaurus rex social behavior 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed - the original editor didn't include a ref. J. Spencer 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 18 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Documentaries

message: 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)
thread_title: Sorry bout all the edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When did it live? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scale diagrams 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well that one would be tough to prove... Sheep81 22:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Septic Bite

message: 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)
thread_title: Turning Rate

message: 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)
replies: text: Obviously the published numbers are wrong and the user-created graph is right ;) Sheep81 02:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I know... I just thought it was funny how backwards his reasoning was. :) Sheep81 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: height

message: 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)
thread_title:  T rex in pop culture: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feathered Tyrannosaur Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Species in taxobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tyrannosaurus Size

message: 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)
thread_title:  References vs Footnotes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica has a PDF._Dragon Helm 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting information: A T rex secret weapon is it's fused nasal bones

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Human speed

message: 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)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: The jury's out, again:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007AM/finalprogram/abstract_132345.htm
Dysmorodrepanis 11:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can someone decide whether that's disputed? We have a big tag on a featured article here... Circeus 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Peck's rex also preserved a metacarpal 3. Here's a 2005 illustration: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Those only show MCIII though--the new abstract specifically refers to digit III... Dinoguy2 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2 fingers or 3?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tooth Length 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Philcha (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holtz on tyrannosaur speed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Go for it. Philcha (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medullary tissue in bones

message: 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)
thread_title: Move "Classification" after "Paleobiology"?

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Teenage growth spurt

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''T rex'' speed / acceleration

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What is now the type specimen of ''T rex''?

message: thumb | right | 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The story of THE BITE?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possessive apostrophe?