Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

T. imperator and T. regina

Greg Paul's proposed split has been published: [1]

It is probably worth writing a few words about this, at least when the paper is out in final form. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said at Wikiproject Dinosaurs, I'm of the opinion that including the new names in the taxobox is a violation of due weight, given the extensive criticism they have raised, and the fact that it's unclear whether either of the two proposed new names might be synonyms of previously-established names. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that. For future reference: WT:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Splitting of Tyrannosaurus rex Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

To add to this: the lead author, Gregory Paul, has a reputation for unorthodox taxonomy (e.g. synonymizing Deinonychus with Velociraptor, heavily splitting iguanodonts, lumping most centrosaurines into a single genus). News articles have quoted several paleontologists heavily critical of the new taxonomy [2][3]. It's quite clear that both new taxa are highly controversial, and it seems unlikely that they will be accepted by a significant portion of tyrannosaur researchers any time soon, and even less likely that the specific names proposed by Paul et al. will hold up. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(Copied from the Dino project talk, as this is probably where we'll have to deal with a lot of passerby comments) Names that already have such a massive backlash against them should not be as fact here, but we can of course make redirects and mention them in the text (briefly), while mentioning the critique. They're validly published names after all, so at the least they'll end up as junior synonyms. Note that I just changed the new names to redirecting here instead of to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, which didn't really make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying we should not mention them at all; they certainly merit mention in the article text. Perhaps we should change the taxobox to only mention T. rex (i.e. to remove T. bataar and T. zhuchengensis as well), and put a "see text" note there instead? Ornithopsis (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I don't think there is enough evidence or support in the literature to place any other name in the taxobox, even with question marks. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This makes me suddenly realize T. zhuchengesis has been sitting there for over two years now and at no point has anybody seemed to realize that's not the species name of Zhuchengtyrannus (where it links and assumedly was meant to represent), that's the dubious tooth taxon. Or, for that matter, nobody removed it all, given I'm not sure if that lump has ever been supported in the literature (as much as I wish it was, personally). LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 13:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like a new section with duplicate information about the new species has been added. Should obviously be consolidated, but I wonder if there should just be one subsection about all proposed species, including Nanotyrannus? FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• And looks like Paul is unhappy about our approach, from the DML: "I am getting increasingly ticked off about the over reaction of what I am now calling the T. rex Cult.

Wikipedia. From what I have seen they have always automatically and quickly listed on the summary bar on the upper right under Other Species new paleospecies names that have appeared after being properly published in the academic literature. Only if technical research indicates otherwise are species names not listed there. T. regina and T. imperator were published properly vetted in a peer reviewed paper. There has been nothing yet in the technical literature contradicting the conclusions of the EB paper -- that will take awhile if it occurs. Yet the only mention of the new titles on the Wiki site is a discussion of the controversy in the main text. Apparently they are taking nontechnical criticisms of the new names by a limited sample of paleos in the news media as a reason to not properly list the species names.

Does anyone know of another example of this happening at Wikipedia? If not the nonscientific and over extreme response to the new Tyrannosaurus species is being made all the more apparent.

GSPaul". Mickey Mortimer provided a good response, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Paul clearly fails to realize that, as far as WP is concerned, splitting an existing taxon is not the same as describing a new one... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in to voice support for not accepting Paul's split due to the paper's many analytical shortcomings that have already been voiced by many others.Dysalatornis (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point the shortcomings aren't what matters, wp:undue is. We shouldn't give undue weight to a few days old paper with no widespread support by putting its conclusions in the most viewed region of the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Taken from Greg Paul's latest response: "So, our paper was the first to directly address the problem in the mainline peer reviewed. Wikipedia is not supposed to make judgment calls based on news articles, it is supposed to follow the technical literature as lately presented. Not read a NYTimes article and go from that. If this were a non iconic dinosaur under otherwise identical scientific circumstances they prob would have done so by now -- although as Tom H says we should see what they do in coming days."

I am not sure Paul actually knows how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

This does raise the interesting question of whether precedent exists. Perhaps Eiectus? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually think a good precedent here is Ornithoscelida; though it's a much different scope of taxon, in both cases rather than just introducing a new taxonomic unit (like a species based on previously undescribed material), you're actually competing with a refuting the existingly, previously universally recognized model. Which is why the due weight is absolutely not that we go and adopt either Baron or Paul's models in these cases. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm curious, where can these responses be found? --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• To respond to FunkMonk, the Nanotyrannus subsection is quite useful since people may come to this article specifically searching about Nanotyrannus, and should be kept as such. To respond to the Paul situation, he isn't entitled to have anything on Wikipedia. We are not paid to do it, and adding those controversial species took a precious time that could have been used to work on articles about species that wouldn't be invalidated in a week and are waiting since sometimes half a century to have their own articles. If anything, he should be happy we've considered his additions so quickly without waiting for a paper confirming his results. I hope we will learn the lesson in the future about adding so quickly informations from authors with an historic of hot takes, regardless of the publisher quality, without waiting for a paper confirming it, or at least the the scientific community consensus. Larrayal (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that GSP is essentially bullying the scientific community, as well as the wikipedia editing community, into doing what he wants by sheer volume of messages and density of text. Not that that means his species shouldn't be added, but it is a present concern. 2601:8C1:8401:5C80:D832:F549:BE66:BFEA (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC) TBA

I think we've all tried worse, and it's not like he's here edit-warring over it himself. I think it's safe to say most of us here have a lot of respect for GSP, and I for one own all his dinosaur books. So it's certainly not due to personal dislike of him or anything we're cautious here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with "we've all tried worse". He is attempting to apply a standard to himself that is not applied elsewhere; he also is not respecting the time of others and using a completely inappropriate platform to essentially spam an entire mailing list over this very article (and before people object to my use of "spam": multiple people have indicated that DML messages now go to their spam filter during this incident.) Respecting GSP means also calling out GSP for unprofessional behavior. 2601:8C1:8401:5C80:D832:F549:BE66:BFEA (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I mean more in regard to POV-pushers on Wikipedia, we have had people inserting their own WP:original research, or even hoaxes, over and over, resulting in a lot of wasted time for serious editors. At least GSP is mainly just complaining off-site. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, we all remember many similar situations that were more immediately troublesome. It is just also clear that GSP is reading this talk page, and as such, perhaps this would give him pause and reflection as to his conduct. 2601:8C1:8401:5C80:D832:F549:BE66:BFEA (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see what he hopes to accomplish by going to the media about this article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on his posts on the DML, Paul is drawing several analogies to cases that he considers to be precedent. However, Paul's paper has never been responded to in the technical literature, unlike the issues of Chasmosaurus russelli, Ornithoscelida, and others. Even still, we do not take a stance on the Ornithoscelida hypothesis on the dinosaur page. Mr. Paul, this is what we mean when we are talking about "undue weight". There has not been a published technical evaluation either supporting or rejecting your hypothesis, specifically that of anagenesis across three species. The past work noting trends in robustness and other aspects of morphology don't present a unified consensus with taxonomic implications. If you simply diagnosed a set of well-recognized morphotypes A, B, and C, there wouldn't be an issue here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The latest word from Paul:

Because Wikipedia is probably the primary information source for most people about fossil creatures including Tyrannosaurus they must maintain consistent standards. Until now when new species are named in a peer reviewed publication, in a day or two they are placed in the taxobox on the right side of the first page. Sometimes a question mark is used if there is some question about the name. Species may be removed from the prominent location when new peer vetted research makes that necessary. There have been no exceptions to this. Until now. Tyrannosaurus received special, discriminatory, nonscientific treatment. The new names are still not highlighted in the taxobox when this is posted, despite protest raised by the senior author. The Wikipedia editors made an arbitrary decision based on initial news accounts and podcasts featuring the problematic, nonpeer reviewed comments to limit mention of the new names to a brief section of text. Examination of the discussion on this decision appears to reveal a bias, driven in part by seeming ad hominem criticisms of me. Wikipedia needs to immediately place the new species in the taxobox, with question marks if the editors prefer. They should both be removed only in the event that future peer reviewed research, following the requirements detailed above, firmly establishes that there could have been only the one species T. rex. If future work is not able to do that, but does not strongly verify the two species either, then the names should remain in place, perhaps with question marks. That situation may remain in force for an extended period. If the species are supported then the question marks need removing. It is possible that one of the new species will be sustained while another is shown to be substantially weaker or errant, in that case adjust the contents of the taxobox accordingly to reflect the scientific complexities, rather than the simplistic scheme that is currently misleading readers.

Obviously, this accomplishes nothing. Paul does not get to dictate his own, incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A new study refutes claim that T. rex was three separate species

A new study written by notable paleontologists rejecting the idea of three separate species (T. rex, T. imperator, T. regina) was published in late July 2022. I think someone able to edit should add this information into the article.

The study:

Carr, T.D., Napoli, J.G., Brusatte, S.L. et al. Insufficient Evidence for Multiple Species of Tyrannosaurus in the Latest Cretaceous of North America: A Comment on “The Tyrant Lizard King, Queen and Emperor: Multiple Lines of Morphological and Stratigraphic Evidence Support Subtle Evolution and Probable Speciation Within the North American Genus Tyrannosaurus”. Evol Biol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-022-09573-1 86.58.104.54 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Height

Height What 94.21.78.149 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hip height is stated in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The T-rex was actually 40 ft by Length and 12 ft by Height. 209.122.80.237 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Please "Access to the rostral neurovascular canals of the Tyrannosaurus enables the reconstruction of many trigeminal-related soft tissue structures, functions, behaviors, and ecology in extant and extinct archosaurs." to Brain and Senses Bnguye48 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The section already includes text on the implications of neurovascular features for facial integument. The suggested sentence also does not make sense: soft tissue, behaviour, and ecology are easily observed in extant archosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022

209.122.80.237 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC) T rex was about 12ft tall and 40ft long some claim that t rex was 18 ft tall which is not true.T rex lived 68-66 million years ago and the 1st t rex to be discovered was found by Barum Brown.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Historical inconsistency

The article states that Barnum Brown made his first T. Rex find in Eastern Wyoming. In the book "The Monster's Bones", David Randall states that the first skeleton was found at Hell Creek, feet away from the site where the second skeleton was later found. As there is no citation in the article for the Wyoming location I suggest it be changed.

Randall is simply wrong. He probably thought AMNH 5027 was the second skeleton found but it was the fourth already. A omission in the article is that the discovery of this specimen or the Kaisen find are not mentioned.--MWAK (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

New Information on Dinosaur Intelligence as of 5 January 2023 (Notice as of 9 January 2023)

Recently, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cne.25453 suggested new ideas about dinosaur intelligence, such as new concepts about the intelligence of Tyrannosaurus Rex in particular. Madden Boseroy (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There is widespread skepticism about this paper among researchers and I do not think it is a good idea to reference it until it gains further consensus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus' Status as Largest Land Predator

The article is very conservative about Tyrannosaurus' status as the largest land predator ever discovered. While the holder of this noteworthy record was hotly disputed as recently as the 2000s, taking on almost the tone of a political argument, the picture has become much clearer over the last 10 years. Thanks in part to more sophisticated and accurate computer models, Tyrannosaurus' body mass estimates have been bumped up significantly, as the article itself reflects. On the other hand, the known fossils of the three only other true contenders--Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Mapusaurus--have been shown to have had their lengths overestimated, and were not as massive as equivalent tyrannosaurids to begin with. Spinosaurus, the only remaining theropod longer than Tyrannosaurus, has been shown to be less massive still, as well as mostly aquatic, casting doubt on its eligibility for the status of "land predator," or at least "obligate land predator."

It's important to note that size is conventionally measured as mass, not length or height, which is why the African bush elephant, not the reticulated python or the giraffe, is uncontroversially considered the largest living terrestrial animal. I would further like to note that all of these length and mass estimates are borne out on their respective Wikipedia articles. On the Carcharodontosaurus article, it unselfconsciously describes the animal as the "5th largest theropod overall according to most estimates." The Mapusaurus article calls its subject "slightly smaller in size than (...) Giganotosaurus" at "over 5 metric tons (...) at maximum." The Giganotosaurus article, in turn, admits that Tyrannosaurus "has been considered the largest theropod historically," that "the incompleteness of (Giganotosaurus') remains have made it difficult to estimate its size reliably," and that "some writers have considered the largest size estimates for both specimens exaggerated," listing this allegedly exaggerated estimate for the largest specimen at 8.2 metric tons, which even then is still well below the by far more accepted 8.87 metric tons listed in the Tyrannosaurus article. Finally, the Spinosaurus article puts the maximum weight for its subject's up-to-date reconstruction at 7.4 metric tons, before noting that the newest studies consider even this relatively low mass an overestimate which "cannot be considered a reliable body size estimate."

As a result, this otherwise great and cutting-edge Tyrannosaurus article smacks of being unduly cautious and downright dated whenever it comes to placing its subject in the size hierarchy. Especially the following phrase in the otherwise beautiful lead sounds like it hasn't been updated in a decade: "Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it is still among the largest known land predators (...)." And in the Size section, in "T. rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time," the qualifier "one of" sounds almost absurd followed by the staggering but uncontroversial updated mass estimates--that comfortably exceed even the most exaggerated estimates of any of the other theropods in the accompanying infographic, as I pointed out above.

I suggest that this article be edited to plainly inform the reader about what the majority of scholars seem to have concluded: Tyrannosaurus was (by a nontrivial margin) the largest (i.e. most massive) land predator ever discovered. Only one theropod dinosaur, Spinosaurus, has been discovered that was conclusively longer. However, Spinosaurus was both less massive as well as not an obligate land predator.

At minimum, the awkward, apologetic statement in the lead "(Tyrannosaurus) is still among the largest known land predators" should be revised or omitted so that it doesn't convey the impression that some unexpected recent developments have been eroding Tyrannosaurus' relative size, contradicting popular perception in dramatic fashion along the way. The opposite has been the case: 1. Tyrannosaurus' relative size has increased significantly. 2. The new sensationalist attitude is much closer to trying to "top" Tyrannosaurus, that anything but Tyrannosaurus must be the record holder, whereas Tyrannosaurus itself is "old news." I hope go-to sources like this Wikipedia article haven't added any fuel to the flames here.

If this suggested remedy is still too much, then at the barest minimum those other theropod articles should be edited to no longer unanimously defer to the subject of this article as an almost undisputed record holder, in order to make the Wiki more consistent.

I wasn't bold enough to just go ahead and cut open this beautiful article without consulting the community, so I'm hoping this can be the spark that inspires somebody to make some positive revisions. Needless to say, the question "Which was the largest known land predator?" has taken on historical, almost mythological proportions. Calling public interest "high" would be an understatement.

tl;dr: Tyrannosaurus is the largest land predator ever discovered by a nontrivial margin; size is measured by mass; the article makes it sound like other land predators approaching or exceeding Tyrannosaurus' body mass have been discovered, even though the articles for those land predators disagree, and the math from all the mass estimates even in the articles themselves contradicts this; the record for the largest land predator of all time is noteworthy and interesting to the public 2001:9E8:8FC:AE00:983:4A5B:7C9:C387 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)