Talk:Tyrannosaurus

Latest comment: 2 days ago by Eriorguez in topic New Cladogram?
Featured articleTyrannosaurus 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 so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 28, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 24, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
November 22, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
May 26, 2019Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 12, 2004, and August 12, 2007.
Current status: Featured article


Nanotyrannus valid again? edit

Nick Longrich has recently published a paper: [3]https://osf.io/preprints/paleorxiv/nc6tk/?fbclid=IwAR2anhEa67Jo93tggq0bXzmY-E9n2c9cXQ0R11-o244kzcMaenaDlZ3_yrU detailing why Nanotyrannus may, in fact, be a separate genus from Tyrannosaurus after all, and how several specimens conventionally believed to be juvenile Tyrannosaurus are actually Nanotyrannus. Moreover, he points out that many of Nanotyrannus’s features are not similar to those of Tyrannosaurids at all, but group closer to more basal tyrannosaurs.

Does this mean Nanotyrannus is finally established as a separate genus, and ought to be referred to as such on Wikipedia? 135.135.227.26 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This isn't a paper, this is a preprint. Their conclusions have not received scientific scrutiny yet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
And when do you suppose that might happen? 135.135.227.26 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
When/if a journal accepts it. Bear in mind a single paper is by no means an end to the ongoing debate, and it's unlikely to not be contested. Also, it's well-known that juveniles of derived taxa often have similarities with more basal relatives, not sure how this should be news. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Mostly because I personally talked to Longrich about it, and mentioned several of the commonly-cited reasons why Nanotyrannus is considered invalid, and his reasoning for considering it a valid genus regardless seems solid to me. For example, the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs specimen is a subadult, but its arms are larger than those of adults. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There was a similar paper by Larson (2013), "The case for Nanotyrannus", but that apparently didn't change the consensus. So also in this case, we have to wait until we see some consensus in the scientific literature before moving it back to its own page. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The paper has now been published. We have to keep in mind that the consensus has never been based on good data. Nanotyrannus shares no autapomorphies with Tyrannosaurus so there is no strict proof the two are identical. But there is no cogent proof that they are not identical either, so most see it as more parsimonious to assume that there is only a single species. The text presently too much suggests that Nanotyrannus unproblematically fits the morphology expected for a juvenile in a tyrannosaurid growth series.--MWAK (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
We also need to be aware that this is certainly not a settled argument and will continue for years to come. Representatives from the other camp have already criticized the paper[4], so we can be sure there will be published rebuttals. As usual, there will be no slam dunk case closed before more specimens are found and described. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Forearms edit

Use as toothpicks has been suggested. This was a significant historical conjecture, still mentioned as a valid primary or secondary function, especially in the absence of birds that today have a similar symbiotic role for living archosaurs. Drsruli (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As an example of intraspecific cooperative behaviour? Perhaps that is why the hand claws shortened: adults could no longer reach their mouth anyway!--MWAK (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Interesting concept indeed. If living species cooperate with another species in a beneficial way than it is plausible for 2 individuals of the same species to help eachother. IndoBoy Official (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nanotyrannus vs. Tyrannosaurus edit

Numerous articles scattered throughout the internet showcase studies suggesting that Nanotyrannus may be a valid genus that coexisted with T.rex. Since the old Nanotyrannus article on this website was subject to deletion I was hoping we could possibly bring it back or make an article about this debate. FishyGuy77 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neither is needed untill more conclusive evidence is presented. Currently there's still ongoing debate, which is covered on the Tyrannosaurus page. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
We don't need "scattered articles throughout the Internet", we have scientific papers, and that's what we're already citing. The Nano article wasn't deleted, it was merged into this one. The new paper has already received a lot of criticism from researchers, so it is unlikely to overturn the consensus, but should definitely be cited. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Already there have been several noted paleontologists who have dismissed this 2024 paper as not being convincing, so, no, this is definitely not the time to be resurrecting a dubious genus. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
But still, it may be a possibility that the genus could be valid. Though, I agree. We should probably wait until we have more evidence. FishyGuy77 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Research Shows Nanotyrannus Is Separate Species, Not “Juvenile T. rex” edit

Taxonomic Status of Nanotyrannus lancensis (Dinosauria: Tyrannosauroidea)—A Distinct Taxon of Small-Bodied Tyrannosaur

- https://www.mdpi.com/2813-6284/2/1/1

(looks credible but this is apparently a new publication)

- 189.122.84.88 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is in the article already and it is far from settled. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention the fact that its already being discussed in two other places on this talk page The Morrison Man (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
What was the point of you ignoring the two previous sections on this, and posting? To 'get your IP address in lights' or something? PAY ATTENTION to ongoing discussions on Talk Pages. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's possible that they missed the other ones, no need to assume ill intent. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we can make a separate page? But we need to proceed with caution. However I doubt there needs to be any consensus in the scientific community for us to recreate the article since we still have several similar articles still up. Maybe we should rewrite the article if we are going to republish it? Just a thought--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seeing as the validity of the genus is a highly disputed topic, remaking the page at the current time would be premature, and with a high likelihood that it would need to be merged back into Tyrannosaurus. Best to just wait untill there's conclusive evidence of the distinction rather than jump the gun and give ourselves more work. The Morrison Man (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the description of the Dueling Dinosaurs specimen may set it straight. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
structuring the Tyrannosaurus article like we did gave us a heck of a lot more work than making a seperate article on the controversial nanotyrannus will. IndoBoy Official (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note: article on the Nanotyrannus debate, not as a genuine taxon. IndoBoy Official (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis edit

As of today, a new species of Tyrannosaurus has been described in a paper published by Nature. This species, Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis predates T. rex by 6-7 million years yet is about as large. Given the utter depth at which this article goes into T. rex, how will we fit this new information on this new species into this page? For so long, Tyrannosaurus has been a monotypic genus, and save for that one little Greg Paul moment that was roundly rejected, no new species have been added til now. How are we going to proceed with this? DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

FWIW relevant references include the following refs[1][2] - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I dont know how we will proceed. All I know is that I have begun the proceeding by adding the new species to the other species list. IndoBoy Official (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
nevermind we need to talk about it. IndoBoy Official (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is generally commonplace to add new species to dinosaur genus pages without extensive discussion or hesitation. However, given the extreme popularity of Tyrannosaurus, it may be best to discuss the best way to proceed with this study. That said, T. mcraeensis should probably be left out of the taxobox, as suggested by the current format. It can be discussed in-depth in the body of the page. Note that the paper is not without its criticisms—Thomas Carr has expressed his skepticism regarding naming the specimen as a new species. Of course, his unpublished opinion should also not be given undue weight. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Leaving a new species out of the tax box is far from the norm for wikipedia articles and I highly advise against it. I believe we should add it into the tax box, move the debated species into their own articles and make a section for the new species to begin. IndoBoy Official (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
we need to completely change the other species section, I recommend moving each of the 2 debated species to their own article since both have a lot of studies associated with them and it would take up space for new T.mcraeensis information. IndoBoy Official (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what the best way to proceed with this is, but I agree with giving mcraensis more validity than the other species; it's temporally and spatially well-separated from rex and not sympatric like Nanotyrannus or Paul's species. While Carr might have his disagreements, I don't think they should be the end-all be-all. If evidence of the fossil being younger than it is or conspecific with rex comes out, we can change it, but for now I feel there's good grounds to treat it as valid. Geekgecko (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Apparently even the temporal difference is uncertain. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
we need to begin reconstructing immediately. I suggest moving the controversial species to their own articles and replacing the additional species section with one for T. mcraeensis. IndoBoy Official (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
We certainly don't need to do anything drastic at all before the dust has settled. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
My take on this is that we're in the same situation as T. regina and T. imperator again. This isn't a new specimen. This is an alpha taxonomy question of whether to split an existing one. I concur with suggestions to keep the taxobox as-is. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't compare it to those two, as Greg Paul has a history with needless splits and those were sympatric with rex, so them being separate species is dubious. At the very least here we have significant geographic separation, and possible temporal separation too, so I'd say mcraeensis has more validity than the any other potential second species. I feel the best course of action would be to list it on the taxobox as a debatable second species (perhaps with a question mark) and add its potential chronology on the fossil range under "earliest=". Essentially treating it as valid, but with a big asterisk. We can change if more opposing evidence comes out, though currently the burden of proof is on Carr and the others who disagree. Geekgecko (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
A 6-7 million year difference as well as all of the differences noted in the study should be more than enough to justify its validity. IndoBoy Official (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not necessarily by itself, and the exact age is unclear, the paper gives the lower range as 5 MY. FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
5-7 million years is still a large enough difference in time. Look at T. porsus and T. horridus or E.annectens and E.regalis. They have about the same difference or less. IndoBoy Official (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Dalman, Sebastian G.; Loewen, Mark A.; Pyron, R. Alexander; Jasinski, Steven E.; Malinzak, D. Edward; Lucas, Spencer G.; Fiorillo, Anthony R.; Currie, Philip J.; Longrich, Nicholas R. (2024-01-11). "A giant tyrannosaur from the Campanian–Maastrichtian of southern North America and the evolution of tyrannosaurid gigantism". Scientific Reports. 13 (1). doi:10.1038/s41598-023-47011-0. ISSN 2045-2322. PMID 38212342.
  2. ^ Elbein, Asher (January 11, 2024). "New Origin Story for Tyrannosaurus Rex Suggested by Fossil - Researchers say the species they named Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis predated the dinosaur era's great predator". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 11, 2024. Retrieved January 12, 2024.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024 edit

Include Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis in the species list PaleoOuedZem (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Controversial. See above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Cladogram? edit

There is a new cladogram in the same study that described T. Mcraeensis. Should we use it in the article or should we take precautions due to it still being in press. IndoBoy Official (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Either way, we could get one more recent than 2013 as the current one. FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd say that a better approach would be using multiple sources from the cladograms, as both the 2013 and 2024 ones are from papers with Currie as a coauthor, and those tend to find a topology not found by other workers (namely, non-Tyrannosaurid Alioramins, and Teratophoneins closer to Tyrannosaurins than Daspletosaurins; most other workers tend to find Alioramins, Teratophoneins and Daspletosaurins as successive outgroups within Tyrannosaurinae). Eriorguez (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I only need to modify the size of "Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis" edit

One of the Brazilian websites (I can give you the link) said that that species of Tyrannosaurus was bigger than "Tyrannosaurus rex" (and I can add the family tree) RogerMadruga (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No can do. The paper itself says that T. mcraeensis was smaller than the biggest specimens of T. rex. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply