Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 1

message: As the article currently stands, the third paragraph under "Predator, Scavenger or Both?" contradicts factual material presented in the first two paragraphs under that section, but does not cite any references. Also, the third paragraph doesn't seem to be aware of the existence of the preceding material, since the question the third paragraph raises ("But why be so well armed if T-rex was a scavenger?") is already answered (because breaking bones is handy for extracting marrow).
There are similar but less severe problems for the last paragraph under the section "Adapted for running?" A citation for the consensus walking speed of T. Rex is provided, but no citation is provided that supports the claim that chickens and crocodilians are an inaccurate model for T. Rex locomotion. No information is supplied to suggest wind resistance is a significant source of resistance to movement for T. Rex, or chickens. It is unclear what a carnivorous diet has to do with locomotion in this context. And the point about muscle structure and the resultant uncertainty is taken, but it is certainly true that as a result of examination of bone processes a lot is known (as opposed to inferred or guessed) about the musculature of T. Rex.
Much of the aforementioned stuff is repeated under "Discussion of Horner's Claims." And the last two paragraphs under that section are redundant.
In short, this article needs some specific cleaning up and quite a bit more citation for the predator model of T. Rex lifestyle. I know something about the subject, but I don't know the literature, so I'm not sure I should be the one to do this. I'll give it a week or two and if nobody else steps forward, I'll do some surgery myself. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 17:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contentious but Unreferenced Stuff

message: What other pictures of parts of the T Rex to upload. I have the front arms/claws, the feet, the backbone and tail, and more (bigger) pictures of the skull. Any bigger pictures of the skull will show the armature which is holding up the fossil bones. Any requests? As you can see, the Field Museum has the holiday decorations up. I can't get rid of those til later, and it will take a trip to Chicago to get more pictures. There are pictures with people in them to get an idea of the size. Also, I have to shrink the images because they can be huge. Is there a use for the huge pictures.
Ancheta Wis 01:24, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: I was watching a discovery program which questioned the widely held belief that T. Rex was a mighty predator. As evidence the small useless arms, the ratio of its leg bones (making it a slow runner) and poor vision is presented. This combined with good smelling leads paleontolgist Jack Horner to think that T. rex was not a predator but instead a scavenger. Has anyone heard about this, do the ideas have any support in the science community, and could someone write a section about it?
A google search turns up a few interesting hits.
This image, taken at the Field Museum of Natural History, shows the size of the right arm. Bear in mind that the arms of this T. rex are as large as a man's arms, and that T.rex could definitely do damage with them. Note the claws; they are as large as a man's hand. Ancheta Wis 06:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts about T. rex? 

message: "New finds have dethroned it as the largest theropod, but T. rex will very likely remain a point of ongoing scientific research and popular culture."
This is highly debatable.  The two or three therapods now considered to be larger than Tyrannosaurus are known from very scant remains, and their size estimates overlap with those of Tyrannosaurus.  Also, the Dinosauricon website's entry on Tyrannosaurus states that new fossils have been found in Asia of a T. rex (or possibly another Tyrannosaurid) that are so large, compared to those of more complete finds, that they suggest a Tyrannosaur much, much larger than the new finds which have supposedly "dethroned" T. rex as the largest therapod.
It also bears mentioning that even a layman's glance at the reconstructed fossils shows a Tyrannosaurus far more athletic and agile than any of the other (comparatively clumsy) animals that are anywhere near its size.  Even the smaller and more lightly built Spinosaurus looks as if it could hardly rear up on its hind legs, let alone run on them.  --Corvun 17:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I've also heard that the few therapods that could be considered "larger" than T.rex (Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus) were only centimeters longer, and significantly lighter.  So if we're going on overall size icluding weight, T.rex is still the largest therapod.--Rob117 01:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points:
# It is "theropod" :o).
# The remains of Spinosaurus found by Stromer are very difficult to interpret; it's possible they indicate an individual that was a third longer than Sue. This individual was a subadult; later found fragmentary remains indicate specimens that are again over a third longer (not larger) than the Stromer one. For some mind-boggling details, consult http://dml.cmnh.org and search for "largest theropod". Especially http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Dec/msg00216.html might be very interesting--MWAK 21:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dethroned as the Largest Therapod"? 

message: A few years ago there was talk about having to change T.rex to Manospondylus gigas, because a vertabra found and named in 1892 as M. gigas is now recognized as belonging to T.rex, which was not named until 1905.  In 2000 this was solved by the ICZN making a new rule, so the name T.rex stayed valid.  Should we put this in? [unsigned]
:See http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/priority/ Rob117 23:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Lengis 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manospondylus gigas 

message: My edit summary from (02:46, 22 November 2005) stated: "Copyedit. The checkpoint is still 'frequently' manned according to sources, if not permanently. Please no not remove my edits, but add to them. Also, please add source. That's how NPOV is achieved." All I meant to type was "Copyedit", and the browser cache apparently filled out the space with an earlier edit summary that also began with "copyedit" for a completely unrelated article that I edited before. I just noticed this today. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Ramallite (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I was wondering about that! Banana04131 03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit summary  

message: Dinosaur Comics contains a T-rex as a main character.
Lots and lots of comics, movies, TV shows, etc use T.rex as a character. While I'm not opposed to a pop culture section entirely (though preferably as a seperate entry), on its own this is pretty useless. Dinoguy2 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: From the most recent batch of edits by 83.131.61.72: 
One would expect that scavenger might not need the advanced depth perception that stereoscopic vision affords, but rather a wide area of sight generated by sideways-pointing eyes. However, this is hardly a convincing evidence, since many modern-day scavangers, such as jackals and hyenas, in fact have binocular vision like their predatory cousins.
Terms like "one would expect" are weasely (Wikipedia:Weasel_words). "Hardly convincing" for who, the author? Provide a cite which supports or does not support the assertion. Do not clutter Wikipedia with personal opinions or observations.
Also, some theropod dinosaurs which definetely classify as skilled hunters had eyes positioned sideways, not gaining benefits of binocular vision (Deinonychus, an active predator if there ever was one among dinosaurs, is perhaps the best example
First of all, there is no source to back this up. I would not expect there to be, since Deinonychus is notorious for having strongly binocular vision! The statement is not only terribly misleading, it is flat-out wrong.
However, it also suggest that this particular Edomontosaurus managed to escape, which shows that even if it was an active predator, T. rex was sometimes unable to catch his prey.
While true, I think this statement is so obvious ('predators sometimes fail') that it is unnecessary.
Comparassion with modern birds, the closest living relatives of theropod dinosaurs, speaks in favor of such hypothesis; most of the largest birds of prey (vultures & condors) are scavangers, while the smaller ones (hawks and falcons) are active hunters.
Again, a statement which lacks scientific evidence. Either provide a cite to the paper that reports this statistic, or don't include it. I'm including this text here in case the author wants to modify it and return it. For now, I'm reverting this stuff. Dinoguy2 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one-
Some scientists, including noted hadrosaur expert Jack Horner, claim that T. rex was unable to run quickly and was primarily a scavenger. Others insist that T. rex was a fast runner and primarily a predator.
This approaches weasel language unless anybody can point to a scientist besides Horner who thinks T.rex was an exclusive scavenger, which is Horner's contention (as opposed to the stated 'primary' scavenger). I'd venture to say all scientists think T.rex was a scavenger to some degree, so this whole statement is misleading. I'm fixing it, this is just fyi. Dinoguy2 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseless Assertions 

message: "Its fossil remains are relatively rare; as of 2005 only 30 specimens had been found"
Isn't that actually rather a lot? For a large predator that is. John.Conway 11:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say, most dinosaurs are only known from one!Dinoguy2 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone objects, I'm going to change it. John.Conway 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, that's a surprisingly large number for a top predator that one would expect to have had a very low population density - MPF 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare? 

message: I was under the impression that species names were usually adjectives modifying the species name. For example, Microraptor gui means "Gui's small thief" not "small thief Gui", Struthiomimus altus means "tall ostrich mimic" not "ostrich mimic tall", etc. Thus shouldn't the species name come first in the translation? Shouldn't it be "king tyrant lizard" instead of "tyrant lizard king"?Dinoguy2 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have forgotten that the translation, when seen as a coherent whole, must also make sense in English. Now that language is not my native tongue, but it seems to me that there can be a king that is a "tyrant lizard", but not a lizard that can be a "king tyrant". However, as the species name is rex and not regalis, perhaps we should not see it as a coherent whole: the creature is then simply "tyrant lizard" and "king" :o). Or do you interprete it as a title: King "tyrant lizard"? --MWAK 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always assumed it was like "emperor penguin". Maybe a better translation to English would be "king tyrant-lizard"? John is better with the etymology stuff than I am, so I won't change it myself.Dinoguy2 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try 'King of the Tyrant Lizards', which was the usual phrasing when I was a kid. CFLeon 21:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds too hyperbolic (cf. "king of the jungle"). The specific name is an adjective, not a title. Should we change Dilong paradoxus to "paradox of the emperor dragons"? Dinoguy2 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no more hyperbolic than getting 'United States OF America' from 'USA'. It's still an adjective form. 'Tyrannosaurus' is the 'tyrant lizard', 'rex' is the 'king' of the 'tyrant lizards', or the 'king of the tyrant lizards'. In one case the 'of the' is stated; in the other, it's understood. The basic meaning is the same in either case. But the original point is that the species name MODIFIES the generic name and therefore in English precedes it, as is more apparent with other species names: Canis familiaris ('Familiar Dog'), Canis lupis ('Wolf Dog'), Homo sapiens ('Thinking Man'), Homo neanderthalensis ('Neanderthal Man'). See how it works? CFLeon 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see how it works, and I think you'll find I argued the same thing in a few posts above ;)I do think "king tyrant lizard" sounds more encyclopedic than "king of the tyrant lizards", but, I'm not exactly fanatical about this.Dinoguy2 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Dinoguy, I wasn't directing the last bit to you, but returning to the original point of the thread. CFLeon 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tyranno means Tyrant, not king. Rex means king. Oedipus REX means Oedipus KING, since Oedipus was the king of Thebes. The genus always goes together, so Tyranno and saurus will go together. Rex is the species name, so therefore,in decending order, species comes after genus. I am not positive, but I would bet that Tyrannosaurus, the genus, comes before rex, the speces; even in the translation of the name. Putting rex first would be like calling George Bush Bush George. Therefore, I would place my money on Tyrannosaurus rex meaning "Tyrant Lizard King", but an expert would know better than I. I have seen books with both translations. It is possible that both would work. Shuuvuia
     Gentlemen, does it really matter? In popular culture he is crowned King of the Tyrant lizards. And there he will remain.
Gaz 11-6
I don't know why I never had Tyrannosaurus on my watchlist and so missed this and all other threads to date. I have reworded the derivation bit, to make it more readable (not to alter its drift) and I think it does the job fine, as it is, without bothering ourselves over this word-order thing. As well as this thread, there's been some very important stuff going on, so congratulations to everyone involved and sorry not to have contributed. - Ballista 06:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrant lizard king or King tyrant lizard? 

message: I think including this pic on this page is decidedly stretching the limits of 'fair use'. Note the rather explicit copyright notice on the pic. On the page about the company, maybe fair use, but not here as well. Suggest removal. - MPF 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, remove it. I don't like it much anyhow. - John.Conway 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nimba Creations Model pic

message: I added a quick note on Guanlong. Personally, I think we should add a section on evolution/ancestry/relatives. -- Writtenonsand 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sort of thing would be more appropriate on the Tyrannosauroidea page.Dinoguy2 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Appropriate", perhaps. But every news article on Guanlong has mentioned Tyrannosaurus (or T. rex), so the lay folks will be expecting to see a mention on this page (and very few if any popular-press articles have mentioned the Tyrannosauroidea.  :-) )IMHO Guanlong would have to be linked from Tyrannosauroidea, as you say, but should also get a mention on Tyrannosaurus/Tyrannosaurus rex. -- 201.51.230.198 12:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but if its going to be here, I recommend putting it down with the Other Tyrannosaurs section. There's no reason to include Guanlong in the top paragraph aside from the fact that it happens to be in the news this week. There was a similar flare of public interest in early tyrannosaurs when Eotyrannus and Dilong was found, and i don't see those dinosaurs mentioned anywhere in this article, so I hope the need to mention Guanlong isn't due to the paleo equievelent of a fad...Dinoguy2 14:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guanlong

message: What exactly was the rationale for the moving the article from tyrannosaurus rex to tryannosaurus?--Every1blowz 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs. In short, the wikiproject states that genus names only should be used as article titles, and there was no good reason to exempt Tyrannosaurus (the only exemtions now are those where the genus name is preoccupied by another article, such as Dilong and Mei). Also, the article is not limited to the single species T. rex, as it discusses T. bataar and even "T". torosus.Dinoguy2 23:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I understand the move this article is now in a strange state were it's not neutral toward the genus level but mentions "T-Rex" everywhere. Even the infobox!
This has to change.--Technosphere83 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the article