Talk:Tyrannosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tyrannosaurus article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Tyrannosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result May 22, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 28, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 24, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

	To-do list for Tyrannosaurus:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Please be bold in editing the article and in editing/adding/striking out items from this list. The text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis. Improve Tyrannosaurus rex in popular culture and summarise main points here. Figure out status of the image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg. Don't reference to Jurassic (movie). (I'm not sure what this means, however wrong the name of the movie is it does portray a T-rex well....?) Need an image of a T-rex as if feathered. (I have emailed Ken Carpenter and Thomsa Holtz for leads...Cas Liber 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) - getting there - Ken told me of an image in Nov 99 National Geographic so I will email them forthwith Cas Liber 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I had the issue in question but I seem to have misplaced it. I wasn't aware images from NatGeo were usable here--if so, I've got a ton of scanning to do... At any rate it might be better to ask around to amature paleoartists, browse through the artists on Dinosauricon, etc. There are plenty of great feathered rex illustrations out there.Dinoguy2 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Mapping a timeline of geological and evolutionary history to Galactic rotation is linear (though cyclic because of the rotation) and profitable. For instance, T. Rex emerged just after the Andromeda Galaxy lined up with the Galactic Center. The Cambrian was three Galactic rotations ago, plants emerged onto land two, and animals about one. What the heck? J. Spencer 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Replace the dino cards references with reliable sources that have a url or isbn

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives
Archive 1: through March 2006 Archive 2: through October 2006

Contents 1 Status of Manospondylus 2 Posture 3 Newbie 4 Running Speed 5 Size 6 Albertosaurus taller? 7 running and falling 8 Sue 9 Largest ever? 10 It's a scavenger 11 Leg length

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 recieve 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)

[edit] 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)