Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Recovery of 42 skeletons from Eastern North America

The article still currently states: Beginning in the 1960s, there was renewed interest in Tyrannosaurus, resulting in recovery of 42 skeletons from Eastern North America. The source that supposedly supports that is the following: Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9.

I really doubt that the source would really say that as per:

1. No specimens of Tyrannosaurus have been found to date in the Eastern North America region.
2. In paleontology, the term skeleton refers to an individual that fossilised, leaving in the rock a sufficient quantity of its bones. Three bones from the same individual this is not a skeleton. Thus, still now in 2019, I don't think we can say that we have found a total number of 20 "skeletons" of Tyrannosaurus. The number of skeletons is less than 20. At least it is less than 40.

My above statements could be inaccurate since I'm not an expert (not at all). It would be lovely if, here in Wikipedia, somebody checks this, obviously somebody who possesses the document that is used as the source of the statement: "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons" (2008). To whom it may concern: thank you in advance. Kintaro (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I added the content and have just checked, it is just a typo, it says Western not Eastern. I will change it. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Szzuk, at least the typo has been corrected. I guess that the term "skeletons" had been used in 2008 by Larson et alii as a synonym of "remains" or "specimens", who knows, but, well... this is fair enough. Thank you for your help. Kintaro (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The ref qualifies the statement with skeletons (5-80% by bone count). I'm not sure why 5% or above is classed as a skeleton. Maybe that is just the minimum number of bones it takes to be certain it is a different animal to others found. Feel free to add that if you wish. Szzuk (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Szzuk, that's quite interesting, you stated The ref qualifies the statement with skeletons (5-80% by bone count). Do you mean that this 2008 document clearly states that a 5-80% bone count can officially be qualified as a "skeleton"? If so, we just need to add a "ref name" footnote that informs of that... what do you think? Kintaro (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Now we're on this, would be very helpful if page ranges could be given for the statements in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, FunkMonk, understood. Szzuk… any thoughts? Kintaro (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The ref wouldn't support that. If you want to add "(5-80% by bone count)" that would be OK, but not to say so officially. Szzuk (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine to me. Thanks Szzuk. Kintaro (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

This is a request to edit the "Intro" and "Description" sections of the article, regarding "Sue's" body, femur, and skull sizes.

The T.rex specimen "Sue" is 13.2 meters long , with a femur that is 54 inches long (137.8/138.0 cm) . Her skull was 5 feet (1.53 meters) long . 66.44.59.91 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate request, superceded by one below. NiciVampireHeart 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

This is an update to my previous edit. Please use this info. to edit the "Intro" and "Description" sections of the article:

The specimen "Sue" is up to 43 feet (13 meters) with a skull that is 1.53 meters long . Her femur is 54 inches, or 137 cm long . 66.44.59.91 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: regarding length of the skeleton in total: specificity is better. "Up to 43 feet" could mean any length from 0 feet to 42.9 feet. I am inclined to go with the current sources in the article, and leave that figure alone. With regard to skull length, that is already included in the article (third paragraph of the description section). It makes sense where it is, as the entire paragraph details the features of a T.Rex skull. As for the femur length, quoting from your source: "Other yet to be confirmed data on the 67 million-year-old dinosaur indicates that it had a femur, or thigh bone, 54 (137 cm) inches long." (emphasis mine). Not suitable for inclusion imo. NiciVampireHeart 02:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Message to Wikipedia (Correction)

This is a correct because you said that it had large flat scales on it's mouth but it doesn't have these type of scales. sure it did have small holes and evidence of scales on it's mouth but those small holes are foramina. Crocodillians don't have large scales on it's mouth, instead it had tough skin that cracked overtime. So yeah, hopefully you'd might change it. 2601:249:A00:B4E:2D61:F0BE:DD51:3C58 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like WP:OR on your part. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't OR, but it is unpublished in the context of Tyrannosaurus (contrary to Thomas Carr's claims, what appears to be large scales on the heads of crocodiles are apparently not, as pointed out by Darren Naish and others on blogs and social media, following some studies of crocs that do not mention the dinosaur). FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Correction in Size

Hey everyone, hope the day is going well. I wanted to discuss the Rex's size being stated at 40 feet in length and 12 feet at the hip. Sue is larger than this and there is a chance that we might find other individuals her size or larger. I want to make it clear this isn't my opinion I specifically remember Sue being larger than 40 feet in length. Here's the official link [1] Mcelite (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Reconcile the differences between:

• WP article on Sue size, 40 ft long, 12 ft tall at the hip
• Hutchinson analysis, table 3, 12.3 metres (40 ft) long
• Field Museum fact sheet, 12.8 metres (42 ft) long and 3.66 metres (12.0 ft) tall at the hip (wayback date 24 Oct 2012)
• Field Museum blog, "more than" 40 ft long and 13 ft tall at the hip (blog date 5 Feb 2018)

--Zefr (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is Sue even female? Male would be my guess. Szzuk (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay really looking at the sources there is a slight inconsistency. Should we state that the hip height is at 13 feet, and over forty feet in length so we're not getting too specific? I believe the younger source is valid because they have had more time to work on Sue.Mcelite (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There are some newer sources that give estimates based on computer simulations[2][3] and whatnot. We should definitely not use blog sources and museum websites, though. As for sex, as explained in the sexual dimorphism section of the article, it has only been determined for one specimen (Sue was once thought to be female due to some outdated interpretations). FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we just state that the Rex is over 40 feet in length then since Sue is over feet in length, and that's stated directly on the museum's official fact sheet.Mcelite (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk's point being that museum promotional materials are unreliable sources (not peer reviewed)... And this is unnecessary loss of precision... 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the decision, let's keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "size", "average size", and "maximum known size" or "size of the world record individual". Especially for species that don't seem to have had completely determinate growth. The statement "T. rex was over 40ft in length" is false. "T. rex could grow to lengths of over 40 ft." is correct. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with the phrase "could grow to lengths of over 40 ft" to be more accurate with the source material.Mcelite (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

'The most complete specimen measures up to 12.3 m (1 ft) in length though T. rex could grow to lengths of over 1

.3 m (40 ft),[2] up to 3.66 meters.......' I find this sentence in the intro reads funny because 40ft has been auto-converted to 12.3m so it seems like it just repeats the same information to the reader.

Regarding Sues length; I'm more inclined to go with Hutchinson's 12.3 because it's in a peer-reviewed article (Hartman's skeletal reconstruction also came to the same length [4]). There are missing vertebrae from the tip of Sues tail (Hartman's skeletal suggests about ~50cm worth) combined with articulation errors in the mount etc could potentially account for the difference. Maybe we should write something like, ' Sue is estimated at 12.3-12.8m in length', to appease both sources?

Scotty, who is being hyped in the media at the moment, doesn't have a published length estimate. The 13m comes from the press release/new stories. Persons et. al. 2013 don't mention total body length, only mass. They also state that most of Scotty's skeletal dimensions are close to Sue with several dimensions being larger; these are, however, mostly the width of limb bones, surface area of vertebra etc and they're often only several mm's or a couple cm's larger.) I'm skeptical of Scotty being 13m but if we don't include it I imagine we'll get a lot of triggered dino fans attempting to correct the article. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In cases like this, we should mention for example "author x proposed in an interview that Scotty would have been X meters long", so we make it clear it isn't a peer reviewed estimate. Similar to what can be seen for some claims in the Giganotosaurus history section, which mentions various news articles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine that we wait it out to see if something on Scotty comes out on peer reviewed but we should definitely mention it. As with Sue I know for a fact that she is 42 feet and that's coming directly from the museum not only do I live in the area and have been to the Field Museum too many times to count I've also met some of the paleontologists that have worked with Sue personally when I was younger. I'm not entirely against stating that lengths are estimated between 12.3-12.8m however with Scotty this does require us to make it clear that T. rex did grow larger than 40 feet in length. I know for certain that peer reviewed info has been written that it wouldn't be a shocker if a Rex larger than Sue was found I feel bad though I can't remember where I was reading that.Mcelite (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Theropod lip debate

There has been a debate if it had lips or had flat sensory scales. In March 2017, a paleontologist named Thomas Carr found a new species of tyrannosaur named Daspletosaurus horneri had evidence of sensory scales on it's jaws like seen in crocodillians but there is a problem. Instead of sensory scales on crocodiles or alligators, there is tough skin that has cracked. Instead of having flat scales, they had lips. According to Scott Hartman, crocodillians have angled teeth, curved mouth edges, and a different texture. Unlike crocodiles or alligators, theropods have much different texture and sharp mouth edges. Theropods had lizard-like lips. 2601:249:A00:B4E:E09D:D266:7692:5F6F (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

First, the debate is already covered in the article, and there is no scientific concensus. Hartman argued some things on his blog, which is not a reliable source, and he didn't even claim his view was the "correct" one, just that it was his personal opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per User:FunkMonk. NiciVampireHeart 09:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Idea

I was told I need to ask before I make edits, anyways should we remove tarbosaurus as another species along with zuchentyrannus, Its confirmed they are two genera at this point --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Current synonym status with a question mark seems about right for Tarbosaurus, as material at Tarbosaurus does not support any "confirmed" status either way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

There are still papers/palaeontologists who prefer to include T. bataar within Tyrannosaurus; I'm less certain about Zhuchengtyrannus; though I personally prefer it be generically lumped I don't know if this has any basis in technical writings. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, so it should stay the way it is?--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, especially with such a large paper as Carr's incoming and undoubtedly going to give some conclusions on this topic. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can't wait for it's release! When is it coming?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ornithomimus grandis?

Okay, Ornithomimus grandis is not Tyrannosaurus. They lived in two very different formations at totally different times. O.grandis comes from the Eagle sandstone which dates to the early campanian, but T.rex comes from Maastrichtian (possibly very late campanian) layers. O.grandis is a nomen dubium according to the dinosauria (2002) and remains such.--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That's why it says "a large species of Ornithomimus (O. grandis, now Deinodon grandis)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but it still says "but are now considered Tyrannosaurus rex remains."--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the dinosaur bones from Colorado and Wyoming which were previously classified into the pre-existing genus "O. grandis" but were then identified as belonging to T. rex some long time later  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk --Bubblesorg (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 01:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I meant the fossils of O.grandis were found in deposits that predate T-rex's existence --Bubblesorg (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the passage to make it clearer the fossils were *referred* to O. grandis, not named as O. grandis. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Facial integument

On March 2017, a new species of tyrannosaur named Daspletosaurus horneri which Thomas Carr thought that it had sensory scales due evidence of it and it had keratin sheath. Like crocodillians, it has large scales but the problem is that it does not have sensory scales but rather lips suggested by paleontologists Darren Naish, Scott Hartman, and Mark Witton but it did have evidence of keratin sheath. Mark Witton suggests that it's face was in cornified skin, large scales (like the thought of the sensory scales made by Thomas), and finally scales. 2601:249:A00:B4E:C1E7:3B29:1A39:ACBF (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see the preceding sections with the exact same request. What is said on blogs is not validly published. FunkMonk (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Bubblesorg added a photo of a supposed skin impression, which is nice, but there is no context. Where on the body is it, and in what museum? Is it a cast? And did you take it yourself? FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I took it sometime in 2019 during a visit to the Museum of Natural history in New York. --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool, could the museum and part of the animal shown be stated in the Commons description? Do we know which specimen it is/cast from? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, its part of the tail from what I saw, I think its a cast of the Yrex specimen--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Images with conflicting depictions

Hello I have a question about two images on this page.

In the section about feathering, it is said that a study showed, large species of this type had feathering, if at all, limited to a small patch on the back. A bit above that section is an image with a type depicted just like that. But further down at the Thermoregulation section, is another image with a "restoration" that directly contradicts the above. And I cannot find a line explaining that image. Isn't it technically wrong based on what was written above? And if not, what is it referring to?

Th other restorations also show limited feathering, mostly on the upper side. In any case, that was just one study, which reported tiny skin patches, there doesn't seem to be any consensus yet. FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Deinodon cristatus (Marsh)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Deinodon cristatus (Marsh). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Deinodon cristatus (Marsh) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Carr ontogeny paper

A few noteworthy conclusions of Carr's new paper on the ontogeny of Tyrannosaurus [5]:

• Most changes in ontogeny occur in the nasals and other bones of the skull roof, increasing skull strength
• No support for "gracile" and "robust" morphs — traits used to support it are individually variable
• No support for sexual dimorphism — aside from individual variation, all adult individuals were indistinguishable in appearance
• The number of teeth first increases then decreases with ontogeny
• The dentary groove is present in all Tyrannosaurus, although reduced in adults

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought there'd be more on Nanotyrannus, but all we get is "whereas it is present in “Nanotyrannus lancensis”, which otherwise has been shown to be an invalid taxon (Carr & Williamson, 2004)." I guess he considers the case long closed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are some decent images we can steal, but yeah Carr treats CMNH as just another juvenile Tyranno at this point ... Redirect time maybe? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we had a disucssion about this at the project page, does anyone even support it being distinct anymore? FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, Larson, but considering it has multiple features that identify it as a juvenile Tyrannosaurus (per Carr 2020) I think this might be the final nail in the coffin. I'll migrate information over. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So will a merge be in order then? I also agree that Nanotyrannus has (at least) some features that it shares with Tyranno, so I'll be in favor of the merge (if it happens). Also, I don't know if you've seen this merge discussion between Stokesosauridae and Tyrannosauroidea, it's not so clear for me why it's initiated though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed some people have the misconception that Nanotyrannus is assigned to Tyrannosaurus because it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid from the same time and place. Maybe worth adding some shared characters that unite the two rather than just focussing on possible seperating characters? Jonagold2000 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we would need some more discussion of the ontogenetic changes in general. I think the current Nanotyrannus section in this article is a bit too bloated, much of the info on individual specimens could be moved to specimens of Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Mentions of the Hadrosaur tail injury

The article seems to mention with great confidence that the bite marks on Edmontosaurus were caused by T.rex. A 2014 paper argues this may not be the case. It is now also likely it could have been Hadrosaurs steeping on each others tails. Are they any counter papers to this? The paper is called Paleopathology in Late Cretaceous Hadrosauridae from Alberta, Canada.--Bubblesorg (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There was a paper just a few weeks ago on the topic, instead arguing for biomechanical stress as the main cause. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean this https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/palaios/article-abstract/35/4/201/584648/SKELETAL-TRAUMA-WITH-IMPLICATIONS-FOR-INTRATAIL?redirectedFrom=fulltext--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

should we include it?--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Issues with the Nanotyrannus section

Just dropping by to suggest some fixes to the subsection on "Nanotyrannus", which seems to be in a bit of disarray (I have a lot on my plate these days tbh so unfortunately don't have time to do it myself).

• Is Nanotyrannus really a "highly controversial topic"? From how little support it has in the published literature this seems like quite a bit of hyperbole. If it was that heavily debated it would still have its own article.
• One of the sources (72) just links to an author's ResearchGate profile and others (73, 89, and 90) just contain the links to papers instead of being properly formatted.
• "In 2013, Carr claimed that all of the differences claimed to support Nanotyrannus have turned out to be..." - some rather jarring repetition here and probably not the best wording, also this could be merged into a paragraph.
• Genus names are not italicized in multiple paragraphs.
• Some sentences are lacking citations.
• The whole last paragraph seems very dodgy and irrelevant IMO, and appears to be entirely be sourced to The Fossil Forum, which is not a reliable source. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, the majority of paleontologists are in agreement that Nanotyrannus is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex. However, it is a controversial topic because of the back-and-forth over the years between academics, often with Dr Carr putting forth new papers to counter papers that claim Nanotyrannus to be its own genus. With Bloody Mary now in museum hands, the topic should be settled soon.Life is a voyage (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As for the last paragraph, it deals mainly with the issue of commercial paleontological companies, private diggers and the international fossil markets' handling of tyrannosauridae teeth from the Hell Creek Formation and Lance Formation. Although the three parties have little to no bearing on the status of "Nanotyrannus", they do influence the general public's and non-American's view on "Nanotyrannnus" due to the sheer number of non-academics who share their beliefs. The link to The Fossil Forum is not intended to reflect any paleontologist's view but is meant to explain the methods which many non-academics use to classify the two teeth types. There is also a source in the last paragraph to a paper in the The Journal of Paleontological Sciences that briefly discusses the two teeth type.Life is a voyage (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above I think, the section doesn't really need to go into tiny details, and certainly not by using borderline unreliable sources. We have the specimens of Tyrannosaurus article to discuss the finer points about specimens and their individual histories, but the genus article should deal with the bigger picture. And that articles doesn't even have a section for the Nano holotype yet, so there is plenty of opportunity to dump some of the info there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the status of Tyrannosauridae teeth is a unique enough situation to warrant at least a paragraph under the Nanotyrannus column. According to Changyu Yun of Inha University, some Japanese museums such as The Kanagawa Prefectural Museum of Natural History still separate "Nanotyrannus" teeth from Tyrannosaurus rex teeth. In addition, I disagree that the sources provided are borderline unreliable. One source is a paper in The Journal of Paleontological Sciences. The other source is from an independent digger who has donated specimens to museums. I acknowledge the importance of academic sources in Science. However, paleontology is unlike other fields of Science. Non-academics and independent diggers have contributed to paleontology in the past e.g. Mary Anning and the Sternbergs, and many are still doing so. I admit this is a touchy issue that warrants its own separate discussion. However, I beseech the editors not to dismiss the knowledge that a digger with decades of experience can help bring to our understanding of theropod teeth in the Hell Creek Formation and Lance Formation.Life is a voyage (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That much detail isn't required for this article, and independent diggers generally don't make critiques on taxonomic validity. I think all we need from the current section is:

"At the Hell Creek and Formations, other tyrannosaurid fossils were classified into separate genera—such as "Aublysodon/Stygivenator molnari", "Albertosaurus megagracilis", and "Dinotyrannus megagracilis"—but are now classified as juvenile Tyrannosaurus specimens. In 1988, Robert T. Bakker, Phil Currie, and Michael Williams split off a complete 60 cm (2.0 ft) skull CMNH 7541 into a new species "Nanotyrannus lancensis". However, the 2001 discovery of a juvenile tyrannosaur skeleton BMRP 2002.4.1 (nicknamed "Jane") prompted arguments that "Nanotyrannus" was actually a juvenile Tyrannosaurus. Proposed differences which distinguished "Nanotyrannus" include at least two more teeth in both jaws, proportionally larger hands with phalanges on the third metacarpal, different furcula morphology, and a groove containing pores on the lateral surface of the dentary bone. These had been refuted by paleontologist Thomas Carr who argued these traits would have been lost with maturity. In 2020, Carr demonstrated that CMNH 7541 fit within the expected ontogenetic variation for Tyrannosaurus, and 44 specimens assigned to "Nanotyrannus" seemed to lose apparently diagnostic characteristics of the genus the more the specimen aged. Therefore, "Nanotyrannus" actually represents juvenile Tyrannosaurus."

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't all that detail be necessary? Tyrannosaurus is the most popular dinosaur of all, and the issues of its juvenile status has been a hot topic over the years. Paleontologists over the years have raised good points to support their side of the argument on why they believe it is, or isn't a valid genus. While I agree that independent diggers generally don't critique taxonomic validity, they still have a tangible influence on the general public perception on paleontology. Folks who have seen a "Nanotyrannus" exhibit in a museum, read about it in a book, or owns one of its tooth could now refer to this article and gain an understanding on why the fossil/specimen was identified that way. That way, they can refer to the latest developments e.g. Carr's 2020 paper and come to a conclusion for themselves.Life is a voyage (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, this article is already bloated as is, the longest dinosaur article here, so additional info on individual specimens should go to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the section is already twice the length it should be, and has significantly more detail compared to the other sections (we therefore also have a balance issue); we need to apply Wikipedia:Summary style here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've made a section for Nano here where we can relocate/place further details:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty, I had a little bit of time so tried my best to shorten and balance out the subsection as best I could[7] and move the more in-depth content to that article. It's not perfect and could still use some more work, so anyone's free to look it over and tweak/cut it down further if necessary. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice, now the section in the specimens article seems very large compared to the rest, but that's of lesser concern, as the one here is a featured article and has higher priority n hat regard. Later on, we might want to evaluate the text in the specimens article, and that article is overall a mess to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Earliest fossils

Shouldn't the article mention that some of the earliest fossils of Talk:Tyrannosaurus appear to be from around 83 million years ago? It mentions that the latest fossils were found about 68 to 66 million years ago.  selfworm^Talk) 15:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert Nano please

No, no, no. There is a new Nanotyrannus specimen showing signs of adulthood (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YSbM0fr59k&t=216s). The fight is not over, please revert nano--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I found this video while looking around, its from the contreversial documentary series, Dino hunters--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

An old TV show is not a reliable source. Anyway, Carr stated even juveniles had fused nasals, "Juvenile T. rex started life with snouts that are strengthened by fusion of the internasal suture", "As in the phylogenetic transition, fused nasals are seen earliest, rostrally wide nasals are seen in large juveniles, and the increased nasal cross section, peg-in-socket nasomaxillary suture, and increased tooth strength occur simultaneously in subadults."[8] FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Small typo

There's a typo in the "Skin and possible filamentous feathering" section. Criticisms is misspelled as criticsms. Could someone fix that for me? 68.110.111.227 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Extinction

Am I missing something, or is the article missing information on when/how the T-rex became extinct? I know this is a bigger topic, but a summary and link to other articles would be a good inclusion. Popcornfud (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The intro says the following, but yes, it should also be stated under for example paleoenvironment, as he intro should not have unique info: "it was the last known member of the tyrannosaurids, and among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event." FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

In the article there is this text:

The generic name is derived from the Greek words τύραννος (tyrannos, meaning "tyrant") and σαῦρος (sauros, meaning "lizard"). Osborn used the Latin word rex, meaning "king", for the specific name. The full binomial therefore translates to "tyrant lizard the king" or "King Tyrant Lizard", emphasizing the animal's size and perceived dominance over other species of the time.

Just like "rex" in Latin, "τύραννος" means king in Greek, this is attested by one of the most famous literary Greek pieces, Oedipus Rex, translated to Latin from Greek Οἰδίπους Τύραννος, meaning "Oedipus the King" in both. Greeks defined the word τύραννος as a "monarch, ruler of a polis", as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant, with the idea of an usurper king in mind, but rather neutrally, not with the absolutely negative connotation of today of someone who has an immense power.

The source cited for Osborn regarding this says:

I propose to make this animal the type of the new genus Tyrannosaurus, in reference to its size, which greatly exceeds that of any carnivorous land animal hitherto described.

This would be akin to call the lion king (as in mrigendra in Sanskrit); nobody would say the lion is a tyrant, and there's nothing in Osborn to back that translation, that seems only justified in the likeness of the Greek word with the modern English word "tyrant". Trucoto (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

†

† - What does this mean? Wikipedia should be immediately readable by educated laypeople. This symbol is not common knowledge among English speakers. Kdammers (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It denotes an extinct clade in a taxonomy infobox. It would be nice to have that explanation readily available via some link in the infobox, perhaps near the top the Scientific classification article, or in a separate legend link for the infobox. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Was it ever even agreed on anywhere that we should add those symbols everywhere? I think they're kind of distracting clutter. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost every taxobox for extinct creatures has these, so if it were to be removed, I think it's gonna be a painful work. It's not in every subdivision of the taxobox, the synonyms (if the taxon has) don't have them, perhaps it's because the taxon itself already has them? But yeah, sometimes I've seen these symbols being linked to the page extinction, and it does kind of make sense, so perhaps we could go with that? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't like them either, and I'm not entirely sure if they meet the neutral point of view since they are Christian symbols. Do we have evidence that these symbols are widely used in paleontology/biology? If not, we should avoid them. That they are generally used in other articles is not a strong argument imo, but it suggests that a broader consensus is required before action can be taken. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Until a few years ago they were only used for recently extinct taxa, but someone added them to prehistoric taxa in the meantime for some reason. I remember some discussions about it in the past, but I don't think any conclusions were reached. If we did want them removed, it could just be done by a bot. I think a new discussion of the daggers and their use would be in order? FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes – I wonder whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life would be the most appropriate venue for such a discussion? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps TOL with a heads up in related projects? Because it would also affect non-paleo articles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the wikiproject Tree of Life would be better? Considering that not only extinct animals use daggers. Also, I used to add the daggers often to extinct taxa that don't have them because it seemed that most other articles have them, and it looked like that was the convention, but I'll stop now if it's necessary. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

As a non-paleontologist, I actually found the daggers useful -- once I figured out what they meant. My preference would be to use the symbol (it's a dagger, not a cross, so I dont' see a NPOV problem) consistently but to have a bot ensure all such are linked to the Extinction page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the daggers, if you know what they mean, do help identify easily if a creature is extinct or not, so that's an advantage, but as stated above, many people aren't aware of its meaning, so yeah, that's the main disadvantage. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, in Germany it is indeed called "cross" but in English that seems to be a separate character [9], where I'm unable to see the difference. The article Dagger (typography) also has some sources indicating its use in biology, so my argument on this was quite weak. I agree that it should be linked, always. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it would help to link the dagger to Extinction—akin to {{KIA}}—so the reader could quickly hover to clarify the meaning. IDK, I find the markers useful as a non subject-matter expert, but I understand the POV concern (and the concern on if they actually appear in relative literature and such) Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• It seems that people tend to vote in favor of keeping the dagger, and that there is a clear consensus to link it to extinction. The dagger seems to be, in most cases, generated by the Template:Extinct. This is good news, since we would only need to change that template, and the link is present in the articles at once. I left a note at Template_talk:Extinct#optional_link?. Please add your comment there supporting/objecting the link, and when we have a consensus we could ask an admin to change it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Bite strength of Tyrannosaurus

We have a peer-reviewed source contradicting the claim in the lead that Tyrannosaurus had the greatest bite strength of any terrestrial animal. Per MOS:LEADCITE: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." This material has already been removed at least twice, demonstrating that it is challenged and needs a cite.

I add that I am not myself a paleontologist, and cannot say with certainty whether the peer-reviewed claim is nonetheless WP:FRINGE in the sense understood in Wikipedia policy. Or perhaps Deinosuchus, as a crocodilian, is not considered a terrestrial animal. So I'll bow out of this discussion from this point (I did not originally insert the claim, though I made the effort to see if it had peer-reviewed support.) But the claim that cites don't belong in the lead is not supported by Wikipedia policies, and featured articles are not exempt to editorial correction.

Another possibility, of course, is to leave this controversial claim out of the lead completely, and leave that discussion to the article body. I would be inclined to favor that. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The claim in this article is also contradicted by Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus, which has the same claim about Deinosuchus. However, of its citations, the only one to mention Deinosuchus is this one, which still states that T. rex would have been the "hardest-biting terrestrial animal ever known". So I think it is that Deinosuchus is not being treated as terrestrial. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

I have several requests about the opening paragraph of the section "Speed":

1. Change the comma before "mostly" to a colon.

2. Delete the sentence "Estimates that Tyrannosaurus had relatively larger leg muscles than any animal alive today but it was so massive that it was not likely to run very fast at all compared to other theropods like Carnotaurus or Giganotosaurus" and its accompanying citation.

The grammatical butchery was introduced in edit 990814210, reverted in 990820793, and introduced afresh in 990824367. The original sentence, introduced in the otherwise excellent edit 873026139, ended "[... today] indicate that fast running was possible at speeds of 40–70 kilometers per hour". From the cited source ("Tyrannosaurus was not a fast runner") and the context, it is clear that the intended meaning was that these speeds were consistent only with unprecendentedly high muscle-mass estimates and were therefore unlikely; however, the emphasis is misleading and the issue is adequately addressed in the next paragraph.

3. Change "had the pattern of" to "show evidence of".

4. Delete the sentence "It was most likely just a walker seeing as if it fell it would not beable [sic] to get back up resulting in death", restoring its citation to the previous sentence.

This is implausible, it contradicts statements earlier in the article (the ending of the section "Posture"), and it is not in the citation given. It was introduced in 1005235081 and reverted in 1005238931 for lack of sourcing; the reversion was itself reverted in 1009864410.

Thank you! 2601:240:D200:FEF:82FA:5BFF:FE19:F8E4 (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done all of them. Thanks for helping to improve the article! Link20XX (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Source Please

@Jakegaming7788: Can you please provide a WP:SOURCE to support your claim of juvenile dinosaurs?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: isent it pretty obvious looking at these animals that a lone 6 ton tyrannosaurus wouldnt dare attack an adult 8 ton triceratops when there are pleanty of tasty juveniles around? Jakegaming7788 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware that we're not supposed to engage in WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH? So I repeat my request that you provide a WP:SOURCE that supports your claim.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jakegaming7788:, do not modify my original citation request without permission or consultation if you can not be assed to provide the requested citation for your self-admitted WP:OR claim.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

And before you revert my edits again, please show a source that is a scientific paper from a scientific journal, and isn't some random blogger's personal musings, here, please?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

In the paragraph on energy efficient locomotion of T. rex, the study by van Bijlert et al. 2021 is mentioned, but not explicitly cited. The link is here: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201441 I suggest the study is cited explicitly. The title of their paper indicates that they investigated preferred walking speed, a concept which has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_walking_speed . It might be nice to link to that page as well for interested readers. 145.90.111.61 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Which paragraph ? Run n Fly (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

___

I was apparently unclear. I suggest this paragraph:

Studies published in 2021 by Pasha van Bijlert et al., indicate Tyrannosaurus may have walked leisurely at average speeds of roughly 2.9 mph (4.7 km/h). Using a 3-D model of Trix, the Tyrannosaurus specimen used in the study by van Bijlert, muscles were added and simulated to help the researchers understand its locomotion. Animals resonate at certain frequencies when they walk, and when they move at certain step rhythms they can move very efficiently without expending too much energy, and the same would have been true for Tyrannosaurus, but according to van Bijlert's methods, previous studies failed to account for the impact the tail of Tyrannosaurus had on its walking speed. According to the authors' results, when Tyrannosaurus moved, its tail would bounce slightly with each step like a rubber band as a result of its preferred walking rhythm, resulting in a rhythmic, energy-efficient form of locomotion similar to that seen in humans and elephants; living animals that also prefer similar rhythmic walking speeds.

Be changed to this:

_______

A study published in 2021 by Pasha van Bijlert et al., calculated the preferred walking speed of Tyrannosaurus, reporting a speed of 1.28 meters per second (4.6 km/h; 2.9 mph). While walking, animals reduce their energy expenditure by choosing certain step rhythms at which their body parts resonate. The same would have been true for dinosaurs, but previous studies did not fully account for the impact the tail had on their walking speeds. According to the authors, when a dinosaur walked, its tail would slightly sway up and down with each step as a result of the interspinous ligaments suspending the tail. Like rubber bands, these ligaments stored energy when they are stretched due to the swaying of the tail. Using a 3-D model of Tyrannosaurus specimen Trix, muscles and ligaments were reconstructed to simulate the tail movements. This results in a rhythmic, energy-efficient walking speed for Tyrannosaurus similar to that seen in living animals such as humans, ostriches and giraffes.

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Feeding Strategy

The section 'Feeding Strategy' contains a statement that is extremely unclear and cites a reference that does not seem relevant. 'A debate exists, however, about whether Tyrannosaurus was primarily a predator or a pure scavenger; the debate was assessed in a 1917 study by Lambe which argued Tyrannosaurus was a pure scavenger because the Gorgosaurus teeth showed hardly any wear.[172] This argument may not be valid because theropods replaced their teeth quite rapidly.' In the above, no explanation is made as to why a study of Gorgosaurus teeth would be applicable to T-rex feeding strategies. Or why teeth with little wear would be an argument for scavenging. Also, a 1917 argument about dinosaurs is more than likely to have been superseded more than a century later. Finally, an examination of the Lamb [note 23], includes almost no discussion of the issue, for Gorgorsaurus or any other dinosaur. The entire 80-odd pages of the monograph are listed in the citation; the one, brief discussion I was able to discover about the issue was on pg. 19. Overall, this is an extremely flawed couple of sentences and should be replaced immediately.

Well, the point is that according to later Dinosaur Renaissance researchers, a tradition persisted throughout the middle of the twentieth century that large theropods were scavengers, which prejudice would be merely based on the scant observations by Lambe. That is why Lambe is cited here.--MWAK (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Image addition

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I believe the image added by Mikail2009 [10] is not needed or desireable in the article in its current state, and has not been vetted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Thoughts? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Tyrannosaurus rex?

Do forgive me if I am coming off as ignorant. But, where is an article for the species t-rex? Wikipedia only has an article for its genus.

I looked at [| EOL] they have a article on the species of T-rex. EOL also has an article on the Tyrannosaurus genus as well.

Plus the T-rex species is literally the most well known dinosaur species out there. It should have it’s own species article rather than be merged with a genus article.CycoMa (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Also the T-Rex isn’t the only species in its genus. There are reliable sources out there that mention other species in this genus.CycoMa (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the literature about additional species of Tyrannosaurus. T. rex is the only agreed-upon species. If we had to change the article for literally every reliable source that gets published then this article would never be stable.

There is therefore also nothing a species article for T. rex would cover that is not already covered by this article. So there is no point to a separate T. rex article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This line

While this line is very iconic-"Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America, on what was then an island continent known as Laramidia." it is slightly misleading as Laramidia had mostly fused with Apalachia by the maastrichtian. --Bubblesorg (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

I noticed that this article was chosen for a student project. Aren't featured article supposed to be off limits? I had to remove information that was added to the feeding behavior section. We spun that off into its own article for a reason. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there are any guidelines for this, unfortunately. I've brought the issue up before. FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarsAtlantica.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding a possible extended range for Tyrannosaurus like other dinosaurs that may appear before they legit appear.

In the article we should have a possible (not definenant) range of 73mya in the taxobox for the following reasons.

1. Zhuchengtyrannus (73mya), Tarbosaurus (70mya)and "Alamotyrannus" (69-66mya) have at times been synonymous with Tyrannosaurus.

2. Random fossils of possible Tyrannosaurus in USA, Canada & Kazakhstan have been dated 70mya. 1.145.20.152 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Southern Tyrannosaurs

The presence of Tyrannosaurus in the Ojo Alamo, Javelina and other southern formations is highly debatable, and should not be presented as fact like it is on this article and presumably others. There is a chance the tyrannosaurs are Tyrannosaurus, but until it is 100% confirmed, we should treat this as no more likely than the existence of T.regina and T.imperator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:B610:AC00:516A:DFD5:D4:4BFB (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)