Talk:Tyrannosaurus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. Even so, 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. |
 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. Didnt it eat plants, that s a debate????
The part about speed needs to be fixed. In order for a Tyrannosaurus to run at 45mph it would need massive legs muscles. The size of the muscles it needed for that kind of speed would be too heavy for it to lift. In comparison, the leg muscles it did have were already heavy enough, so that the combined wieght of the leg muscles and the body forced it to walk straight legged, like an elephant. So much leg muscle would also mean that some muscle would have to actually be taken away from the jaws to add to that(A creature can only have so much muscle in it before it becomes to heavy to move itself). Also that type of speed would be dangerous for a Tyrannosaurus. The skull of T-rex was extremely heavy, and those arms could not support its weight at all, so one fall could be fatal for it. Therefor the Tyrannosaurus could only run at about 15-20 mph. Sorry, I just had to get that out.:) Watch out for the Discovery ChannelMs. dino fanatic (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) show "Tyrannosaurus- New Science: New Beast". That's where I get all of this from. |
|
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Carnivore?
Hasn't it been proven that the T-Rex was actually a plant eater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.195.124 (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, it has not. J. Spencer (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thought scientists said that they figured out the T-Rex would have broken all his teeth if he bit into another dinosaur.--72.68.195.124 (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tyrannosaur teeth are about the least breakable theropod teeth, as they had thick rounded cross-sections. They could even crunch up bone to some extent, as seen in tyrannosaur droppings. J. Spencer (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The whole T. rex was a plant eater is a myth made up by creationists to try to explain carnivores in paradise, I believe. There's a diorama showing a T. rex eating plants in that new creation museum. Funny stuff. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This might be different, as I vaguely remember as a kid reading that some paleontologists thought that theropod teeth would snap if used in active predation, thereby meaning that they were scavengers. Nuts if I know where this was, though. This may have been a riff on Lambe's contention that theropods were scavengers because their teeth showed little wear; he neglected to take into account their continuous replacement, however. J. Spencer (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The whole T. rex was a plant eater is a myth made up by creationists to try to explain carnivores in paradise, I believe. There's a diorama showing a T. rex eating plants in that new creation museum. Funny stuff. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tyrannosaur teeth are about the least breakable theropod teeth, as they had thick rounded cross-sections. They could even crunch up bone to some extent, as seen in tyrannosaur droppings. J. Spencer (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thought scientists said that they figured out the T-Rex would have broken all his teeth if he bit into another dinosaur.--72.68.195.124 (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No need to attack and insult Creationists, Dinoguy2. It being a "myth" is just your opinion. --72.80.35.106 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in whatever case, there is no evidence or reason to think that tyrannosaur teeth were unusually prone to breakage. Given continuous replacement of teeth, a broken tooth would be replaced in short order anyway. J. Spencer (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- You need to remove the quotes from "myth" and put them around "opinion". Sheep81 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't attacking anyone, at least not intentionally. It is a myth because it's demonstrably not true. There's T. rex dung with bone in it and T. rex bite marks on the skeletons of other dinosaurs. This is proof that it ate meat. I personally find the diorama funny because of this, I'm sorry if you feel like that's an attack. Since no published non-creationsist sources have tried to perpetuate this myth, I was pretty sure creationists actually made it up. That's just the facts, man ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- No need to attack and insult Creationists, Dinoguy2. It being a "myth" is just your opinion. --72.80.35.106 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
He said it was a myth, 'I believe'. That is his opinion. Don't be precious.--Gazzster (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Dinoguy2 is attacking or insulting creationists. This is, or should be, a free forum for the exchange of ideas, as long as the ideas are discussed and not the people who talk about them. Now curved, serrated teeth are obviously intended to slice through flesh, like a steak knife. They would be hopeless for cutting vegetation, fruit or bark. Ever tried cutting your alad with a steak knife? Then there's its pretty wicked talons, and the spaces in Triceratops bones that match T-rex teeth.--Gazzster (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. I remember the idea about T-rex teeth breaking about 20 years ago. I believe that was related to the idea that T-rex was a scavenger, which is revived from time to time.--Gazzster (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- On the subject of T.rex tooth strength,[1]. Must have been some tough carrots! Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has seriously suggested that it was a herbivore, but many have suggested that it scavenged, due to its large head and small arms.Dendodge (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
T-rex has been proven not to be a herbivore. A paleontologist found T-rex bite marks on a Triceratops hip bone. He used dental putty and found that they were an exact match to fossolized Tyrannosaurus teeth.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 7:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Taxobox image
Am I the only one who thinks the current taxobox image is rather cheesy with its obviously blackened background and undescriptive angle? Why not use the featured image of the skull instead? Funkynusayri (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind. It's always kind of bothered me that the teeth in that mount seem to be dangling by their roots, making them look three times longer than they would have been in life... The only problem with the featured pic is that it's taken at an odd, extrme perspecive that still doesn't give you a solid idea of the actual shape of the skull (was it taken by Luis Rey? ;) ). Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, I changed the image before I saw your addition. On the angle, even though it's, well, "Luis Reyish" (he would probably had included a tiny body in the picture as well), I think it's many times better than the previous one, and well, it's featured! Gives an aesthetically pleasing start to the article. I still think we should have a proper profile of the skull, or better, a full skeleton, far up in the article, the first one seen is the incorrect Allosaurus skull, which seems kind of odd.
Something like the one on the left here, just better angled and with a full tail. (Funkynusayri (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] definition of a digit
Upon further review, does a metacarpal count as a digit or a finger? I was under the impression that you need a phalanx bone. J. Spencer (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno... I would think you need phalanges or else pandas might have six fingers. Sheep81 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Digits are fingers and toes, a Metacarpal is a bone in the finger. Therefore, one would presume that the Metacarpal would be part of a finger, which would be a digit. This means the answer is actually, well, both. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your metacarpals are in your palm, not your fingers. They are bound together by tissue, not externally separated like the phalanges are. This is the case in most animals I can think of. Sheep81 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think "digit" refers to the phalanges, hence "digitigrade". -- John.Conway (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Size comparison image
Why do we still an image that includes Therizinosaurus (a vegetarian mega-theropod) and Tyrannosaurus in puce, when we agreed on one without Therizinosaurus and with Tyrannosaurus in black ([2])? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've already explained why I put it there on my talk page. Didn't realise it would be such a big deal, and no one else complained. I think Mapusaurus and Therizinosaurus are important additions, after all, they're both huge theropods, and Therizinosaurus is even taller than Tyrannosaurus. Both considerably larger than Allosaurus, which is there instead of them on the other version, and looks out of place. I don't see the necessity in having Tyranno in black either... I've added the image in question to the right of this page, by the way. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well why is Cacharodontosaurus placed before T.Rex? I honestly think that would confuse some people as to which was larger. Also tyrannosaurus should be 13 squares long, representing the fact that it was roughly 13m long. Especially since Giga and T-Rex were basically the same size with Giga longer.Mcelite (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite
- Because the top estimates have it longer. They're arranged by top estimated length as listed on Dinosaur size. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Funkynusayri, I knew I'd raised the question before, thanks for reminding me of where. My own opinion is that: highlighting the "star" of the article in a strongly contrasting colour is a good idea; Therizinosaurus (a vegetarian mega-theropod) is not all that relevant; the presence of Allosaurus makes the point that the Cretaceous mega-predators were much larger that the Jurassic's largest known predator; Mapusaurus would be a desirable addition but we'll have to stop somewhere. What do others think? Philcha (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense..Mcelite (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite
To Mcelite - Giga was way bigger my friend. It was around forty-five feet in length and weighed around7-8 tons. In comparison T-rex was only forty feet in length and it wieghed only 6 tons. As for the Cacharodontosaurus and T-rex sizes being confusing, that's okay. Paleontologists are still trying to figure out which is bigger. It's kind of the same thing as the Dienosuchus - Sarcosuchus debate, except with Therapod dinosaurs instead of crocodilians.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
note that thing if scientist measure the spinosaurus length with its size of skull than it is strongly possible tyrannosaurus rex might be 14.5 meters long. Because one tyrannosaurus largest skull found then anyother espeially larger than sue skull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Ammar.T.K.K (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ms. dino fanatic where are u getting that from? 6 tons exactly? T-Rex has been estiamted to weigh 8 tons by some scientists furthermore, T-Rex and Giga had basically the same hip height with Giga having a longer length. Furthermore, the length of T-Rex estiamted so far is 43 feet not 40 possibly even larger since there is some debate as to if Sue was a old T-Rex or not. To make it even more complicated T-Rex's teeth were larger than Giga's. Peace Mcelite (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
I get all of this from watching Discovery channel. Yes, there have been some T-rex that have gotten large like Sue. I know that she is the oldest at about 30 years, but that also makes her the longest, at about 43-45 feet in length. I heard a rumor somewhere about a possible 56 foot T-rex, but I am uncertain, as I have seen this only one on Discovery Channel and I never saw it again. And did I say Giganotosaurus was higher? No. I simply said he was longer. Most scientists, such as Jack Horner and the paleontologists who worked with the producers of Walking with Dinosaurs, agree that T-rex was around 6-6.5 tons. Also, T-rex may have had large teeth but that doesn't make it as big or bigger than Giga. Just because the Saber-tooth cats evolved teeth that were almost as large as T-rex's teeth, doesn't make it as large as T-rex. Same thing with T-rex and Giga. T-rex was simply specialized to eat certain types of dinosaur, Most likely carrion, because they were long and thick. Giga's teeth ,on the other hand, were smaller but thin and serrated, perfect for slicing flesh. Okay, I am getting off topic. What I'm trying to say is that the statistics I mentioned were for an average T-rex next to an average Giga. I don't usually go by records.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You obviously don't know that much about dentition. Scavenger dentition as seen in animals that specialize in it have no need to be structured like Tyrannosaurus's teeth. The teeth of T-Rex were bonecrushers much better for killing than scavenging and sorry but Jack Horner is sometimes off the wall to me. His idea of T-Rex being mainly a scavenger is a very narrow view, and underestimates the ability the animals were possibly capable of. Also records make a difference because if one could reach that size than others could as well and from what I read Sue was not that old she was more like 25 years old which was most likely not old for the speciesMcelite (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
- Little nitpick... not that I think T. rex was a pure scavenger (obviously it probably did both like all carnivores), but wouldn't you get the most out of any carcass by being able to consume the bone as well as the meat? Bone crushing teeth make T. rex better at eating, not better at killing. Other dinosaurs killed just fine without them. Minor nitpick #2: Sue was indeed quite old and is among the oldest-age T. rex specimens known. Minor nitpick #3: given the number of rex specimens known, I think the average length would be something like 35-38 ft, not 40. 40 is on the big side, with 42ft representing the very largest known. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then comes the problem how are we 100% sure that Sue was an old T. Rex due to the fact that we are not sure what the life span of the species was? Also the fact that crocodiliams easily live over 50 years, and did they take the time to try and see if the largest Giga skeleton is considered an old individual as well. Your right though T. Rex teeth were good for eating. The question comes what if we find a T. Rex that's 50 feet and it's younger than Sue? Then what?Mcelite (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
- One of the papers on Sue uses uses the fact that it has a lot of growth-related pathologies, many healed injuries that healed very long before it dies, etc. and possibly growth rings (don't have the paper handy) to basically determine that Sue was an elderly individual. I'd be very surprised if a younger one were found that was larger--that might be a good argument for naming a new species. The same pathologies were, I assume, not found in the few Gig specimens we have (or they would have been reported). We can probably speculate pretty reasonably that the largest Gig specimens are younger than Sue. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the problem with injuries is that we are not sure how much of a rough life Sue had. So how can alot of healed injuries be significant with age especially with the possiblity that T. Rex hunted in pairs or small packs. Furthermore, how much nutrition the animal is receiving would also affect growth rate of the animal which can be seen in reptiles, birds, and mammals so if Sue wasn't getting the full nutrition she needed when she was younger it is possible that this would have effected her size overall. Also there have been many other surprises in the fossil records so I wouldn't be too shocked if a larger T. Rex is found and younger than Sue and vice versa can be said for Giga if we find a Giga that is older than the skeletons we've found but smaller than the others than what are we going to about estimations? lol Mcelite (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
- If a bigger one is ever found and described, we'll include it. Simple as that. Estimates aren't based on what we think their max possible size was, since that's nothing but wild speculation, not based on evidence. Estimates are based on concrete evidence from fossils. Anyway, we can sit here and speculate about whether or not Sue was towards the end of rex lifespan, but the scientists who actually studied the specimen think it is. So we should go by their opion on this. The sites are listed in Sue (dinosaur). Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Move "Posture" and "Arms"
I suggest these should be part of "Description". Philcha (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scavenging again
The article still seems to be treating the scavenging hypothesis seriously, even though it's only advocated--as far as I know--by one researcher (Horner), and and he hasn't published it in peer-reviewed literature. Heck, he even admits in one of his books (the one about Sue, maybe?) that he advocates it to stir up controversy. I understand that it's big part of the Tyrannosaurus pop-culture documentary circuit, but I'm not sure how much space it should be given. It should be treated as a fringe hypothesis isn't taken very seriously. — John.Conway (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- This hypothesis seems to be somewhat more credible than the plant eating hypothesis. Was there any more mention of it in recent journals? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The scavenger hypothesis is quite old. It is mentioned in popular literature from the 1980s. And I've a feeling its goes back to the discovery of T-rex. So it's a significant aspect of study.--Gazzster (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Okay, but its still doesn't really clearly say that it's a fringe hypothesis, and that it's been pretty much refuted (I thought those hadrosaur tail bites cleared this up?). I didn't want to edit this myself, because I'm no tyrannosaur expert, but isn't this the state of the literature? — John.Conway (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well there's been alot more evidence leading towards T-Rex being a very active predator. Like John.Conway pointed out the tail bites on the hadrosaur also there have been many healed injuries found on tricerotops, alamosaurus, and many duck-billed dinosaurs with healed bones that were caused by a bite from no other predator than Tyrannosaurus. It's funny how scientist are hesitant to say T-Rex is more of a predator than a scavenger but find feathers on one species of dinosaur and they all get feathers which is mostly assumptive and can be considered careless.Mcelite (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
- We ought to be careful about ruling out any reasonable hypothesis. Let's remember too, that 'reasonable' hypotheses can be turned on their heads overnight by more 'tendy' hypotheses. The idea that sauropods were amphibious was 'reasonable' (and shows signs of returning to some extent). Hadrosaurs used to be bipedal and birds descended from thecodonts.--Gazzster (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- We also don't want to say anything here that's not explicitly stated in the lit. I agree that with all the bite mark evidence, the idea that that T. rex was a pure scavenger doesn't hold any water, period. But has this actually been stated in the lit? If so, we can maybe use a quote from the paper that describes this as a "fringe hypothesis" that's been "refuted." If not, it's not our place to editorialize. If people publishing the primary and secondary lit haven't gone out on this limb, we as tertiary lit shouldn't either. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I admit I haven't read the Wikipedia guidelines on original research very carefully, but that seems to be a really strict interpretation. Most article require a good deal of interpretation of the literature to make any sense at all. In this case, what we seem to have are papers explicitly stating that T. did engage in predatory behaviour, and nothing (recent) stating otherwise (although I admit such papers might exist, but I haven't seen them). The hardline "T. was only a scavenger" hypothesis is a fringe one, as the much current literature explicitly contradicts it, none explicitly endorses it, and only one scientist I know of espouses it. Of course, this will all come crashing down if there's a paper endorsing pure scavenging out there I don't know about. — John.Conway (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- We also don't want to say anything here that's not explicitly stated in the lit. I agree that with all the bite mark evidence, the idea that that T. rex was a pure scavenger doesn't hold any water, period. But has this actually been stated in the lit? If so, we can maybe use a quote from the paper that describes this as a "fringe hypothesis" that's been "refuted." If not, it's not our place to editorialize. If people publishing the primary and secondary lit haven't gone out on this limb, we as tertiary lit shouldn't either. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief the scavenging theory has been atracting a lot of attention. Not just from Horner but from other paleontologists and biologists as well. Two biologists who had never heard of T-rex before decided to test out a scavenging equation on T-rex, and found that T-rex could have easily led a life of scavenging. This is because T-rex was a reptile(despite being more closely related to birds, which is my only concern about flaws in the equation), and reptiles have slow metabolisims. The biologists expected the need for food to be great, but found that all T-rex needed to survive(if it was scavenging) was to have a meal the size of a human every five to six days(This is also supported by the fact that T-rex had a relatively good sense of site as well as an awesome sense of smell). If food was scarce then it may have hunted. T-rex bite marks have been found on a Triceratops hip bone in an area that could only have been eaten if the Triceratops was already dead and torn to pieces. However, another bite mark found on a hadrosaur was found to have healed, which means the hadrosaur was alive. So it could also have been an opertunist.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
However, there is more evidence pointing towards T-Rex being a more active hunter than a scavenger. It's dentition alone is evidence of having an active life. A animal that is a pure scavenger would not need any dentition like T-Rex. It's jaws where built for dealing with stress which is something not necessary if you're a scavenger. Also more evidence points towards T-Rex being warm-blooded so it's metabolism wouldn't have been slow. So T-Rex would have been better off hunting then scavenging for food.Mcelite (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite
- Re "Two biologists who had never heard of T-rex before decided to test out a scavenging equation on T-rex,..." (Ms. dino fanatic 01:42, 4 March 2008 ), yes, they were from Glasgow U and it's reported in the Tyrannosaurus article. Philcha (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Re "A animal that is a pure scavenger would not need any dentition like T-Rex" (Mcelite 02:05, 4 March 2008), I agree! The first time I heard of the pure scavenger hypothesis it struck me that natural selection would not favour such dentition in a pure scavenger: it's ridiculously over-gunned and over-expensive to build and replace; and it's very sub-optimal for scavenging, not suitable for stripping flesh off bones nor for extracting tender internal organs (a vulture's long beak and neck are best for that in a largeish animal) nor for splitting bones length-wise to get at the marrow as hyenas do (and they're not pure scavengers!). It also struck me at the time that natural selection would not favour improving 3-D vision in a pure scavenger (T-rex was the last tyrannosaurid - and tyrannosauroid ; and has the best 3-D vision of its lineage) but would favour it in a killer for which improved accuracy would complement its devastating bite power. I couldn't find a ref for the dentition argument, it would be great if someone could provide one. Philcha (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nature does favor some complete scavengers like the vulture.And if the Cretaceous world was anything like Africa and had a large array of animals, then yes, T-rex needed to have 3-D vision. I doesn't do much good if you can smell food but never find it. Also T-rex ran the risk of tripping over the carcass and breaking it's skull if its depth perception was bad. And Philcha? I unfortunately have to shoot the teeth thing down, seeing as you contradict yourself in that. T-rex had bone-crushing jaws. And you're right that the teeth were not suitable for stripping flesh from bone. But now tell me, how much meat would be left on a carcass after the Dromeosaurids got through with it? Not much probably. So T-rex probably ate the bones too. Let me add that the bones that it ate have also been found in T-rex coprolite. If it found a complete carcass then T-rex could still eat it. The front teeth were D shaped. Perfect for holding prey, or ripping meat from a carcass. Also, T-rex's bite force was so powerful, that it didn't probably even try to rip flesh from bone, so much as just take a huge bite out of you, bones and all.Another thing, if you're crushing bone you do need some rather powerful stress-absorbing jaws. Our jaws are not stress absorbing, nor are they strong(so I have heard. I may be wrong). I'd like to see you crunch bones. Also, there is only one man out of 6 billion who can chew and eat steel. And even if T-rex was warn-blooded, which it probably was, it could still have hunted. Gazzster- Dromeosaurids, such as Dienonochus and Troodon would keep them in check. (Although technically Troodon is a Troodontid, but close enough.)Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Even if the whole pack hunting thing is allowed for, the dromies and troodontids of the time were pretty small. I have a hard time imagining Troodon going after anything but hatchling Maiasaura. Do you mena that small predators kept the population in check by eating young and eggs in large quantities? Is there any evidence for dromie or troodontid predation on ceratopsians and hadrosaurs at all? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Ms. dino fanatic. Re the dentition, I said "splitting bones length-wise to get at the marrow as hyenas do". Theropods did not have this capability, and Tyrannosaurus more probably just crushed bone as an effective way of killing / crippling its prey rather than specifically as a feeding strategy. Re the 3D vision, it was apparently a very late development even in tyrannosauroids, and Tyrannosarus had noticeably better 3-D vision that the slightly earlier tyrannosaurid Daspletosaurus. This rapid development suggests that it was a significant advantage in the context of natural selection. It's easy to see how it would be a significant advantage for a predator while AFAIK no-one has suggested how it would be a significant advantage for a pure scavenger. It's worth noting that tyrannosauroids got along quite well without enhanced 3-D vision for most of their history, until the very late Cretaceous. Philcha (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It is a common misconception because of our knee-jerk reflexes against beastial uglyness that hyenas are exclusively scavengers. Especially in the case of the spotted hyena that is wrong. Hyenas are active predators and are second in the foof chain of the savanah only to lions. Some of their fatal predatorial traits such as bone-crushing jaws can also serve for succesful oportunistic scavenging but that does not make them devoted scavengers. Tyrannosaurus propably had a similar feeding behaviour.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ambush predator?
I've added to the "Locomotion" section Paul and Christiansen's argument (2000) that neoceratopsions were fast; if true, that undermines the argument that Tyrannosaurus did not have to be fast - unless it was an ambush predator. My own feeling is that the "ambush predator" idea is implausible - how would a 2-storey high predator hide? The one thing it has going for it is that Tyrannosaurus had big levers on the knee and heel (Paul, PDW), which suggests rapid acceleration. More seriously, the only ref we have at present for the "ambush predator" idea is Dinocards. I've googled for "Tyrannosaurus ambush" and got nothing but forums, blogs and mailing lists (a few quite serious ones; plus a ton of uselss stuff). Does anyone know of any good refs that discuss the "ambush predator" idea? Philcha (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- These DML posts take the idea seriously [3] [4] Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] dinosaur arm
The T-rex's third metacarpal is actually cleverly tucked away in it's palm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.134.15 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bergmann's Rule?
Could the differences in the "Gracile" and "Robust" Tyrannosaur morphs be attributed to this? Are the Gracile and Robust morphs found further south and north of eachother, or do they tend to be more evenly dispersed?
K00bine (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cryptozoology
Living Tyrannosaurus have come up every now and again in cryptozoology, Kasai Rex and Burrunjor as notable examples. In what way could they fit into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.99.46 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just wait until they appear in a reliable source. Given the revolutionary nature of such a discovery, there will be headlines in every newspaper and articles in Science (journal) and Nature (journal). Until that happens, such suggestions don't belong in the article.-gadfium 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would be okay just to add a simple "some cryptids, such as the Kasai Rex are said to be similar to tyrannosaurus." T.Neo (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like weael language. Who says they're similar? Need a published source and demonstration of relevance, as it also sounds a bit like second-degree connective trivia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DNA comparisons to modern birds
An article of 2008-04-24 at AP.org discusses more recent findings of the comparison of T.Rex connective tissue DNA to that of modern birds (esp. chickens). — Loadmaster (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Targeted for vandalism
http://biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=742 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.176.42 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Tyrannosaurus Helcaraxae"
I've heard about a rumored "wooly" tyrannosaurus found in alaska that had feathers and was called Tyrannosaurus Helcaraxae. If someone can find a source on this, can they add it to the article or make an article about it? I couldn't find a source. Thanks. Elasmosaurus (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it really was just a made-up dinosaur in a book called A Field Guide To Dinosaurs. Elasmosaurus (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even as a fictional dinosaur T. helcaraxae (without capitalization) would be correct. On the other hand I guess that tyrannosaurid protofeathers would have been lost in their lineage much before the birth of the Tyrannosaurus genus so it is propable that even if the T-chicks had feathers that the adults would most propably not retained them. Although I must admit this is highly speculative (and after all there is also the wooly Sumatran Rhino to prove me wrong).--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I theorize that the males had colorful feathers on the head, with the babies being covered in down. But I don't have a source or a link, it's just an opinion. Elasmosaurus (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] False precision
In this edit I spelt "1 m" out as "one meter" and changed the conversion from "3 ft 3 in" to "3 ft". I was reverted by Firsfron with "revert removal of non-breaking space, WP:MOS". Sure I removed a non-breaking space but it had become unnecessary since the length was written in full but there was more to my edit than a mere removal of a non-breaking space ... and if we're throwing the MoS around then WP:MOSNUM#Conversions:
- In the main text, spell out the main units ...
- Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value
Giving the length of Tyrannosaurus' arms to the nearest inch as just about as sensible as doing the same for man but we don't need to go so far, it's plain that this was just a bad conversion from one metre. JIMp talk·cont 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, very sorry. Thanks for the explanation. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, Firs, I just wanted to justify my reversion of your reversion of my revision. JIMp talk·cont 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Swimming?
Any information regarding whether or not the T.Rex was capable of swimming? ScienceApe (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060713-t-rex-teens_big.jpg){kind=link}