Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 2

Narrower taxobox?

Just an aesthetic issue--I noticed that if we changed the taxobox image width to 200 instead of 250, the txbx is about the same width as the paleobox, making them sort of fit one atop the other, without the wider txbx on top of the narrow paleobox. The downside is the main image gets a bit smaller. Any thoughts?Dinoguy2 14:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks great, and good thinking Dinoguy. It is a little bit on the skinny side but it's no biggie. --Every1blowz 03:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the paleoboxes are as dead as the things they described, so the issue is no longer the same, but I'd just like to say I prefer wider taxoboxes. If the image is a horizontal aspect ratio 200 pixels is inadequate.John.Conway 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting page

When user Arpingstone (talk · contribs) added his image of the "animatronicTRex model" on May 17 he seems to have been editing an outdated page, and thus inadvertently reverted the T. rex page back to a very old version. People have since continued editing the T. rex article as if nothing has happened. Not only are there many mistakes found throughout the article now (page is named "Tyrannosaurus", yet we see "Tyrannosaurus rex" in bold, pronunciation is gone, the "Discoveries" heading doesn't work, spelling mistakes, etc.) but significant amounts of valid information have disappeared.

User Arpingstone's edits are shown here, notice major the edits throughout.

I've decided to revert the page to prevent any more collateral damage, and because evidently no one besides me has noticed yet. --Every1blowz 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Better to take the hit than lose all the more recent updates.Dinoguy2 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out most of the "T. rexes" and replaced them with either Tyrannosaurus or tyrannosaur. I tried to leave the initial reference to the usage of the term and any actual quotations (such as article titles) or links that use the specific term. Hope I didn't miss any, but it sure was a pain and time-consuming to do. As it stands, the article still needs editing; several paragraphs use Tyrannosaurus a dozen times or more and I probably wasn't as consistant about capitalization as I should have been. One more thing, the picture comparing sizes of a human to the tyrannosaur should mention how big the human is; although the 5'11" used previously was TOO specific and violated significant figure rules. "6-foot" ok with everyone?CFLeon 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

6 ft is always the number I see on charts when people are compared to something else, and even though 6 ft is slightly taller than the average male by about 2 inches 6 ft seems to be the standard number on these things. So yes, 6 ft is good. --Every1blowz 05:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also removed a line about the discovery playing an important part of the 'Bone Wars'; by the time Cope described Manospondylus, the Bone Wars were winding down, near the end of the direct involvement of Cope and Marsh. CFLeon 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about ICZN

In 2000, there was controversy regarding its name, because the dinosaur bones unearthed in South Dakota in June that year may have been part of a fossil known as Manospondylus gigas[2][3]. According to the rules of International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the system that gives animals their Latin designation, Cope's 1892 name Manospondylus gigas should have priority, because his discovery came first. However, in the ICZN 4th edition, which took effect on January 1, 2000, Chapter 8, Article 35.5 stated that any such discovery made after 1999 does not cause the older name to replace the newer, prevailing name and that Tyrannosaurus is to be a nomen conservandum. Therefore, regardless of the result of the discovery, the Tyrannosaurus name is still used by biologists today [4].

Looking at this info makes me wonder why they renamed Syntarsus Megapnosaurus in 2001 because the name Syntarsus had already been assigned to a beetle. Based on ICZN's Chapter 8, Article 35.5 that wouldn't have been necessary. Why rename Syntarsus but not Tyrannosaurus? Jerkov 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There are, rarely, cases when the ICZN will set the rules aside. This was one of those cases. The binomen Tyrannosaurus rex was conserved (hence nomen conservandum), I assume because of its widespread use in scientific and popular literature. Though the ICZN operates from a set of rules, its primary goal is to promote "nomenclatural stability," and sometimes it rules against the rules, if going strictly by the book would result in destabilisation of nomenclature. In the early 1990s, I petitioned the ICZN to conserve a technically invalid mosasaur name, Clidastes. "Edestosaurus" has priority, as the genus Clidastes was based on a single indeterminate vertebra. I cited many examples of Clidastes in the literature, and they subsequently ruled in my favour, declaring Clidastes a nomen conservandum. However, the people who make up the ICZN change over the years, and therefore ruling may sometimes appear inconsistent. Why save Clidates and not "Brontosaurus" and so forth? That's just the way it goes. And in this instance, unless I'm mistaken, Greg Paul discovered the beetle named Syntarsus had priority over the theropod named Syntarsus in 1993, before Chapter 8, Article 35.5 was adopted by the ICZN. Also, very few people are familiar with the name Syntarsus, while Tyrannosaurus is a household name. That said, Syntarsus still appears in much of the literature. See The Dinosauria (2005; 2nd ed.) for example, so, perhaps, though Paul pointed out the issue of priority, the ICZN may have never actually ruled on Syntarsus.

Minor nitpick--GSP didn't discover the beetle thing, he first suggested that Syntarsus was a junior synonym of Coelophysis. The guy who discovered the beetle situation re-named Syntarsus to Megapnosaurus in print and then announced it on the DML since he (rightly) guessed dinosaur workers would miss the paper in a bug journal ([1] you can read the thread and resulting controversy here). The situation with Syntarsus is not the same as the situation with Manospondylus--Tyannosaurus is (was) a subjective junior synonym of Manospondylus, while Syntarsus Raath 1969 is an objective junior homonym of Syntarsus Fairmaire 1869. It had to be replaced, just as if I'd named a new genus of lizard Gorilla in 2006. The question is pretty much moot if Megapnosaurus=Coelophysis, though I bet part of Raath's stance there is that he's pissed about the bug guys going over his head with a name he finds insulting to his work ("big dead lizard"). Better to sink it.Dinoguy2 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, thanks. Pretty interesting stuff. Jerkov 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, if you want to see bunfight - the ICBN (plants, not animals) there is big discussions with the genus Acacia being split up and most of the species not in the genus with the 'type' species so requiring a name change. The Australians have led the charge (successfully mind you) to have a new type species so the majority of species (and just about all australian spp.) remian Acacia while the African ones change instead.....(google it) Cas Liber 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh! Not that I keep up on this sort of thing, but I've never heard of a neotype being assigned for a modern species. Sounds like a close parallel with the Coelophysis / Rioarribasaurus situation.Dinoguy2 18:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Skeleton images

Hi Project - I've uploaded an image of the whiole skeleton - but - I have several others and choosing between them ain't easy. Any advice? Images to be found at:

• User:Ballista/images/OUMNH
• User:Ballista/images/OUMNH2

I look fwd to receiving comment. - Ballista 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is too little writing for the amount of pictures we have. I've removed the lowest quality ones, as the article will never get to FAC with those poor quality pics. I've then rearranged the best pics & resized some. We could allow more pics, if they are of good quality, but for now the pics on the article are sufficient. Spawn Man 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(Betterly phrased, hey I created a new word, betterly!) As you may have noticed, I have removed a large amount of pictures from the T rex article. This is because 1) The pictures were of extrememly low quality (almost no visibility at all!). I have kept the best images. 2) The page was too overcrowded with less relevant pictures. For the amount of writing we have, it does not need that many. I have moved some, deleted others. 3) I can't think of 3 right now, but I reassure you of the importance of 1 & 2. The article will never make it through FAC with bad pictures. Asthetics is everything people. And remember to put a period (full stop (.)) after sentences in captions for pictures. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. I did not know that (about full stops in images). Um - Spawn man is it worth putting the other collaboration stuff (and then deleting the original location) here as there seems to be a few places where T rex to do stuff turns up on. Cas Liber 01:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Didn't understand what you're asking sorry... Spawn Man 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, I meant this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration/Tyrannosaurus - would this be better coalesced into this 'ere orange or beige box on this page? Cas Liber 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if my response here is pertinent to this discussion but here goes - I rightly or wrongly kept my images on pages of their own (with links to the Project's pages), as they would have swamped any of the Project's pages, had I added them there. If you want to move them, fine by me. Sorry if this is 'off-point'. - Ballista 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting dinosaur behaviour

Musing: why does someone like Davegrupp bother to log in? (don't anyone bother to answer, please) - Ballista 05:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bite force

Houston, we have a problem, the t.rex's bite force is not 3k psi, it is stronger than that. The documentary, "The truth about killer dinosaurs" says 4 tons psi, via biomechanichal studies.--Triple-Quadruple 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, and when they publish that in a scientific journal, it will be cited here. :) Sheep81 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent.=)--Triple-Quadruple 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

OK, we should probably figure this out now before an edit war starts. How do we want to link all the various T. rex-related articles to each other? Sheep81 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good proposal. I personally feel that it should be kept as simple as possible. It is common that folk not trained in one of the biological sciences would not know that 'Generic' names have an upper case initial and that 'Specific' names start with lower case initial. Therefore, some punters might put in 'T Rex' or variations on that theme while seeking the T. rex dinosaur page. Is there any harm in having all conceivable variations (except, of course, actual article titles) pointing to a single disambiguation page? That was my initial intention, when reconstructing the disambiguation trail on the Tyrannosaurus page, on 28th June - sorry if I've unintentionally sparked a potential edit war. - Ballista 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: This may, of course, involve some 'double redirects' but I am not sure that is avoidable, in this special case. - Ballista 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects are always avoidable, if you use the 'what links here' tool on the toolbox. These should be carefully checked when changing redirects around. It's fine if the plan is to point redirect pages to the disambiguation page, but then they all need to point to the page, not to each other. That creates a double redirect, so people who type in the search term end up getting redirected to a redirect page. And then they don't get any information. If you change a redirect page, just make sure it won't cause a double redirect.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - good point - just not thought it thru' properly. When I re-organised the disambig page, did I avoid 'double redirects' or have I created any? Difficult to check own work thoroughly & accurately. Appreciate you checking thru' to make sure all's well. Thanks - Ballista 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You created one or two the other day, which I fixed, no problem. Then Sheep made one yesterday, which was also easily fixed. I believe all the T-rex redirects are correctly pointed now.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks - Ballista 07:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus refs

Hey all, I know that the collaboration for this dinosaur has come and gone (pity I wasn't able to spend more time working on it then), but I still think that we should have an "unofficial" collaboration on this dinosaur. To that end I have written up a list of 37 references which will be useful for the article and posted them here for public perusal. Thanks! Sheep81 17:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sheep. Thanks for collecting the refs. Nice work. Although I'm unsure what you want us to do with them. I saw on your sandbox that you were working on the T-rex article. So does this mean you will be adding the refs, and you want us to... do what? Sort out the best references? Or have you abandoned your plan to work on your sandbox article, and you want us to add the references ourselves? Or...? Sorry if this seems obvious, but I don't quite "get" what you want us to do here. Whatever it is, I'm more than willing to give it a go. :) Happy editing. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The sandbox thing is just for experimentation, mainly with organization, although I might end up making text edits there as well, not sure. I certainly don't want to rewrite the entire article myself. You can use the refs to cite assertions already in the article (assuming you can get your hands on them) or rewrite/clean up sections of the article or whatever else you like. The referencing in the article needs a lot of work... I don't think we should be citing news reports or peoples' personal websites when there are scientific papers available.Sheep81 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Understood.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, c'mon... Tyrannosaurus refs? Anyone? *tap tap* Is this thing on? Oh well, I guess I am not as clever as I thought. :) Sheep81 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your mike's on. Give me a little time and I'll work on them. One person shouldn't be left with the bulk of responsibility for sorting them, as you had to do with most of the others.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, umm-I sized up the images under the taxobox. Do we think htere are enough references on the page? Cas Liber 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a t rex skull pic into the article. If sue's brain pic causes concern in the FAC, delete it & replace it with the new skull shot, as it is a good one.... Spawn Man 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

References

In the third paragraph of Feeding strategies, it begins with "Some evidence..." - would it be nice to add references to this section to substantiate this? --HappyCamper 04:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Osborn

Minor point, perhaps, but we appear to have no 'link' to Osborn in the body of the article. I didn't want to put one in, in case I'd missed it and created a duplicate. - Ballista 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't miss it, it really was missing. Though, as a general rule, if paragraphs and paragraphs go by without a mention, it is ok to add another wikilink to the same article, so people don't have to scroll endlessly to find the wikilink again. They just frown on multiple identical wikilinks near each other.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Osborn was mentioned in the taxobox under the binomial name section.... Just a thought.... Spawn Man 07:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Force of bite

I find that the mentioning of 3000 lb bite force somewhat odd...Is this what the reference actually says? I would be under the impression that it might have been in different units of pressure, like 3000 lb / ft^2 or something like that...can someone double check? --HappyCamper 05:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it either, but that's what my ref says... Spawn Man 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See Pound-force and Muscular#The strongest human muscle. Further: "He compared the squeeze of SuperCroc to that of being trapped under the full weight of a Mack truck. The FSU researcher calculated the beast's bite strength at 18,000 pounds"[2]. WAS 4.250 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved text from article -- Environment

In the times of Tyrannosaurus, the area that is now North America had both familiar and strange elements. The soft-shelled turtles, crocodiles, pike (Esocidae), and gar (Lepisosteidae) alive at the time were quite similar to those living today. Frogs and monitor lizards were other familiar animals. Ferns, horsetails, palms, magnolias, southern beech, poplars, and shrubs were some of the dominant plants; grasses had evolved but were not yet widespread. Conifers such as sequoias, araucaria, pines, and cypresses were common. The North American T. rex probably lived in many different habitats, because of its broad range but many of the fossil sites in which it is commonly found appear to have been humid, subtropical forests. Birds with beaks were already in existence, including waterfowl. Other inhabitants of the landscape were less familiar. There were birds with teeth and some of the giant pterosaurs still thrived, such as Quetzalcoatlus, which had an estimated wingspan of 12 m. Other theropods included dromaeosaurids, troodontids, and Ornithomimus, all of which appear to have been less than 4–5 meters long. Herds of Triceratops, Torosaurus and duck-billed dinosaurs (hadrosaurs), such as Edmontosaurus, roamed the land. Other dinosaurian herbivores included armored Ankylosaurus, boneheaded Pachycephalosaurus and Stygimoloch and small ornithopods such as Bugenasaura and Thescelosaurus. Mammals (predominantly multituberculates and marsupials) were mostly small, shrew- to rat-sized nocturnal animals. Primitive primates may have been around (this issue is open to debate). Snakes had evolved by this time, very similar to some snakes today.

Tyrannosaurus is believed to have required extensive geographic feeding ranges. Theropods the size of Tyrannosaurus arose in response to the retreat of the Western Interior Seaway of North America, 69 million years ago, which would have increased the size of the feeding range.

I have moved this text as per FAC. Looking at it, it has no real relevance to the actual article. However, I'll leave it here for a while just incase anyone has any objections.... Spawn Man 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably a better place is a spot on a Hell Creek Formation page? Will hava a look Cas Liber 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having been away a couple of days, it was a bit of a jolt to see such a large chunk of text deleted but, really speaking, it was an obvious anomaly we should have spotted. However, it's good material in another context - possibly perhaps an article of its own or in an article embracing this and wider (e.g. under its geological period)? - Ballista 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

copy edit - please comment

I have copy-edited as far as 'The neck of ...'. I have purposely stoppped, so there is less to revert, if disliked. Please let me know if this pattern of editing is agreeable, so I can finish it tomorrow. - Ballista 06:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I do prefer "lived in what is now" to "from", and "the skull was" instead of "the skull is", even though the skull is still around. I think I still prefer quotation marks around the meaning of the name, but the rest of the punctuation seems pretty sound. No objection here.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback - I accept that the 'quotation mark' thing could be contentious (one of the main reasons for asking for feedback). For my own purposes, I tend to think of quotation marks as speech marks, which therefore should only be used to quote someone's conversation or to quote exactly from a piece of text and I use 'inverted commas', for other purposes - perhaps I'm wrong, hence discussion ..... - Ballista 06:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Neck mucles

Is there any work published on whether the attachment points for neck muscles suggest a ripping mode of feeding, or similarly, the ability to execute quick head movements to evade prey defenses or catch fast prey? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Speed

However, there have been conflicting studies regarding the extent to which Tyrannosaurus could run and exactly how fast it might have been; speculation has suggested speeds up to 70 km/h (45 mph) or even more.

No citation given. Do we have footprints? If the height of the animal is known, the distance between successive footprints can be used to calculate the speed the animal was travelling at. There clearly will be publications on this matter. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I recall a TV documentary where it was said that due to T-Rex's size, weight, and the positioning of its feet, a top speed of anywhere close to even 25--35 mph would be physically impossible, as it would require "90% of its muscle mass to be concentrated in its legs, an anatomical impossibility", if I remember the exact words correctly. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? I think the documentary was.....not Walking With Dinosaurs maybe Dinosaur Planet. I'm pretty new here, are you supposed to cite television documentaries on WikiP? Furthermore, I believe the top speed estimated by the researchers was around 10--15 mph, possibly meaning T-Rex was a scavenger and not a hunter as previously assumed. But I'm no paleontologist, so don't take my word for it. I just think info like this should be included, but I don't know exactly how it should be done. --Wikiwow 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know there have been numerous published studies on T. rex speed recently, one of which is probably where the docco you mention got its info. I get the impression that most researchers think the 10-15 mph figure is about right for adult tyrannosaurs (younger individuals had more ornithomimid-like proportions, meaning they were probably much faster). Keep in mind that other dinosaurs contemporary with T.rex like hadrosaurs and ceratopsians were not very fast at all (IIRC, something like 5-10 mph on average). So T.rex was slow, but not as slow as its potential prey, which is all that matters. also, no, no tyrannosaur trackways are known by which speed could be directly tested.Dinoguy2 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at modern animals like rhinos and hippos: they're relatively large and heavy, yet I know for a fact some can run at top-speeds of 35 mph. If this is any indication of the speed of T-Rex's large prey (ceratorpsians, hadrosaurs, etc.), you'd expect they can run just as fast, maybe a bit slower cause they're definitely larger than rhinos or hippos. But even the African elephant, largest creature on land, can run at high speeds. Again, I'm no researcher, and you seem to know your dinos better than I do, but that's simply what I think. Oh, and I beg to differ about the tracks. I have read and watched multiple results from studies done quite recently actually, of dinosaur tracks, and speed has been calculated many times from uncovered dino tracks. If crime scene investigators can judge the speed of a car from the lenght of skid marks, I'm near sure paleontologists can do it with dino tracks. But as I see you are an "armchair paleontologist" from your User Page, I'm inclined to not argue with you, lest I look like a complete idiot/douche-bag in the process. Still, discussion is the foundation of growth, and I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter. --Wikiwow 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Adult T. rex weighed 5-8 tons, far more than the heaviest rhinos. Elephants don't run at all (there is no suspended phase in their fastest locomotion), the best they manage is a fast walk (25 mph according to [[3]] and other sources I've read]]). And Dinoguy is right - there are no trackways known from T. rex sized theropods. John.Conway 16:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, no trackways, but I think there *is* actually a print out there somewhere that I read about, but I believe it was an isolated single footprint, and it would be pretty tough to calculate speed from that! Sheep81 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You never know these days, people find weird ways...But if a trackway of T-Rex footprints were actually discovered, it would be possible to calculate speed, as scientists have done it before with various prehistoric and modern animals. That might shed some light on this whole issue. Still, trusting Conway and DinoGuy know what they're talking about, I'm inclined to believe T-Rex was a hunter as opposed to scavenger, though no one can really be 100% sure on these things. --Wikiwow 15:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was slow, it could have still been an ambush hunter. (And yes, the vegetation could have been thick enough for them to hide.) Personally, I prefer encyclopedia articles to lag behind the science a little bit. It's like chart hits that you still enjoy five years on. That's when you know it really is great music. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very unlikely anyone will find a way to estimate speed from an isolated print (I can't begin to think how that might work within even the largest margin of error), but you are right in that it is easy to estimate speed based on a series of footprints. However, it is also unlikely that a series of footprints will be of an animal moving as quickly as it can as animals only spend a very small proportion of their time moving at full speed, and the sort of mud in which prints are made might not be an ideal substrate on which to run.

It is important here to appreciate that the speed and hunter/scavenger debates are not contingent on one another. Virtually everyone believes T. rex was a hunter, regardless of whether they think it was fast or slow. John.Conway 20:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Two responses to that:

1. I don't think it's true that "virtually everyone" thinks it was a hunter, unless you are talking about the general public, rather than the experts. Not that I'm the expert, but everything I've read indicates that the "scavenger" hypothesis is alive & well.
2. Most dinosaur trackways show the animals moving in straight lines -- another behavior they likely spent little time doing. The likeliest reason for traveling in a straight line is in panicked flight from something, like approaching flood waters. And since mud tracks are pretty perishable, you'd need them to be buried quickly to preserve them, anyway. Mdotley 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It would have no evolutionairy need to be faster, as a hunter. But, am i right in remembering most of the ancestry and relatives as predators? And isn't it supposed that on the extreme scales of an animal like this (biggest, top-predator, long evolutionairy development) these traits are unlikely to change still? Sometimes i think of it as a landcrocodile, so that it would sortta hide itsself in a preferably crowded place (near water) and wait for something to get in reach (perhaps 20-25 mtr.)that way it could jump or sprint a couple of steps or attack from the back making use of these pitty arms.80.57.242.54 07:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

made a stub for Gilmore....

one less red link. ..and Maleev done nowCas Liber 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, spotted that, well done! - Ballista 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

T. rex's size

The article states "Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time, about 12 to 13 meters (40 to 43.3 feet) long, and 4.5-5 m (14-16 ft) tall, when fully-grown.[1] Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7,200 kilograms (8 short tons),[2] to less than 4,500 kg (5 tons),[3][4] with most modern estimates ranging between 5,400 and 6,800 kg (between 6 and 7.5 tons).[5][6][7][8]"

I am seeing some problems with conversion from kilograms to tons. Am I alone? Goliath74 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is no problem with the conversion. 1000 kg is equal to about 1.102 US short tons. You are probably mistaken with either the metric ton or the UK long ton. ArthurWeasley 17:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed image:

File:Sue'sBrain.jpg

CT scan of Sue's brain. The olfactory bulbs are the most highly developed part. Scan taken at Boeing, Washington.

As I said above, this image was to be removed & replaced with my new image. This picture has caused too many problems already, so it has been removed... Spawn Man 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This image is my picture of the display of the CT reconstruction at the Field Museum on the second floor next to Sue's skull, which was crushed by the aeons of time. The skull on the first floor of the museum is a lighter replica, unsmashed. The CT scan of the skull was performed at Boeing, as the caption already states. --Ancheta Wis 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the issue around this image has been solved, but I notice the image is still absent from the article. If it helps, I took another photo of this display. It can be found on my user page.Dinoguy2 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I reckon this new image is vivid, well-framed and interesting. I would like it to be added to the article. - Ballista 06:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC) - Sorry, should've added its location: Dinoguy's new image

Citation needed

"Famed paleontologist Jack Horner is believed to have found a T-rex skeleton 10% larger than Sue. Dubbed C-rex, this specimen is around 13-15m long(40-48 feet) and 8 tons in weight." - needs citation - Ballista 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove warmbloodedness section?

I am wondering if there would be any support for removing the warmbloodedness section from the article. The only reason such a section was created was because an FA reviewer thought that the feathers section was too non-specific, and wondered why there wasn't an equal section for endothermy, also a non-specific topic. However, the feathers section has now been expanded and is far more specific to Tyrannosaurus now, while the warmbloodedness section remains sadly non-specific. It just seems out of place to me and you don't see an "[Insert dinosaur name here] warm-blooded?" section on any other dinosaur article. Sheep81 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a mention somewhere in the text that, like other dinosaurs, T. rex may have been warm blooded should be enough, along with a link to the appropriate article. Maybe a new article on dinosaur endothermy is in order for this type of thing.Dinoguy2 14:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone had that idea before you. ;) Warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary Origins?

I've heard of information saying that Tyranosaurus evolved from raptors. Should this be included? -Izaak

No, this is false. Tyrannosaurus and its relatives evolved from small, Ornitholestes-like dinosaurs, for example, Dilong and Guanlong.Dinoguy2 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming they evolved from anything, that is. Mdotley 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New image for the taxobox?

In my opinion this image should definitely be incorporated into the article somehow, if not used as the main taxobox image itself. What do you guys think? Mgiganteus1 10:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather striking and I do favour your suggestion, at least for somewhere in the article. However, we are quite crowded. What about moving one over to Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, where there is a bit more room? Thanks for asking, before uploading. - Ballista 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I swapped the T Rex Carnegie skull picture for this one. They're effectively analogous, and this one is, from a technical standpoint, a much better photograph. Killdevil 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus egg?

?__Dragon Helm 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

While it's obviously a reproduction/sculpture or something, I doubt this is modeled after a Tyrannosaurus egg, as none have ever been found, to my knowledge. Maybe it's Tarbosaurus? I recall some eggs that *possibly* belong to Tarbosaurus discovered in Asia.Dinoguy2 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it, when I can (won't be soon). - Ballista 03:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Present at the comet strike?

Would tyrannosaurs have been around when the comet struck the earth and wiped its (non-avian) cousins out? Is there a Wikipedia page listing the very last dinosaurs?

To answer your question; yes, it would have been around, if a comet did indeed strike the Earth. T rex lived during the late Cretaceous, right about when the comet is said to have hit. However many other theories exsist. I'm not sure if there's a page on here about the last dinosaurs, but maybe if you went to dinosaur & checked out its extinction theories sections, maybe you might find a link there.... Have a nice day. Spawn Man 02:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongest bite?

". T. rex had the greatest bite force of any animal." From the current version. Is this defended? Is it defensible? Gcolive 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be based on the link to the Stamford press release that talks about their part in the experiment that was published by Nature([4]). That gives a very wide range for the force of the bite, with the upper end slightly stronger than the bite of an American Alligator (which apparently has the strongest living animal's bite). However, they finish (before the press release gets bizarrely truncated) with a statement that the estimate for the T. rex is a "feeding" bite, not a "snapping" bite. A snapping bite would, supposedly, put it significantly ahead of the alligator. Doesn't sound like the most convincing argument, but we aren't here to question Stamford's press release, so I guess that makes this statement defensible. Kayman1uk 12:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

MAIN PAGE!

I see that T. rex is up there on the main page today - great news. - Ballista 04:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty cool. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's being heavily vandalized. Can an admin lock it for today? Evertype 09:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We do not protect articles while they're on the main page as a matter of principle. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we just tidy up, when the s--t has died down a bit - not a great incentive for being on the main page tho'? - Ballista 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but the problem will hopefully be resolved soon.[5] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Teeth cross-section

The bones themselves were massive, as were the serrated teeth which, rather than being bladelike, were oval in cross-section. Like other tyrannosaurids, T. rex displayed marked heterodonty, with the premaxillary teeth at the front of the upper jaw closely-packed and D-shaped in cross-section.

So, were the teeth oval or D-shaped?

Tjunier 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (could be wrong), most of the teeth were oval-cross-section, but the front teeth were D-section, with the flat sides toward the "back" or "inside" of the mouth (a little like human incisors). This is supposed to have helped the critter bite chunks out of its prey. -- Writtenonsand 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

scales

29.9 kg is not 130 lb, plz correct

The article is editable, please help to improve it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rarity of Juvenile fossils

"However, this rarity may also be due to the incompleteness of the fossil record or to the bias of fossil collectors towards larger, more spectacular specimens.[28]" The former is much more likely, as any Tyrannosaurs beyond infancy would all be "spectacular" specimens relative to all but a few species of dinosaurs. It is not as though paleontologists are leaving anything but the most spectacular findings in the field. Also, positive identification in the field of partial finds (extremities, isolated ribs, vertebrae, etc.) is often not possible until the specimens are removed and taken into the laboratory for analysis. It is doubtful that any collecting bias behavior accounts for the paucity of juveniles among known fossils. Jerry picker 13:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, up until the last few decades, it was the primary goal of many museums to excavate large, spectacular specimens for exhibit. Most institutions today dig more comprehensive and science-based manner, but there are still many occasions where a museum (or private company) will be called in specifically to excavate a T. rex someone has found. Preservation bia s is most likely the major factor, but collection bias is also significant and deserves to be mentioned.Sheep81 08:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

Why does the very first sentence have to mention popular culture, as if it was the most important thing about this dinosaur? I'm moving it forther in the lead paragraph. Rain74 14:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope your edits are spelled better than this, though.  :-) Mdotley 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of popular culture... I note that in the popular culture section, the spelling T-Rex is stated to be incorrect, while T. rex is portrayed as correct. A quick glance over this talk page shows that many of the users here utilize the spelling T-Rex over the alternative. As it is the popular culture section (and not the science part of the article) it might be better to refer to T-Rex as an alternative to T. rex. Language is what it is; it's not necessarily what we say it is (yes, I'm another one of those "the dictionary is wrong unless it's the OED, and even then..." people). As people use the spelling T-Rex in unscientific settings, it seems like it would be right at home in the popular culture section. It shouldn't be marked as incorrect, but rather as an alternative spelling to be found in popular culture. The reason I'm not adding this (very) minor change myself (and instead find myself writing this little blurb) is that I know that some individuals (this is not a dig at anyone in particular; it's just a general observation) are highly resistant to idiomatic changes like this, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes (particularly since it's a featured article and I can't log in from here). So please, feedback is requested. 137.48.216.67 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Various businesses have capitalized on the popularity of Tyrannosaurus rex by using it in advertisements. Such as the aunt jemima corporation where on one of their adds aunt jemima was seen boiling her slave master in her famous maple syrup and serving him to a hungry family of T rex's, and after a scene of the dinasaurs devouring the slave masters corpse the youngest dinasaur remark "aunt jemima I love you"☺"

Bad formatting, spelling mistakes, no source. --204.193.132.7 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, cut the vandal some slack. At least he spelled Tyrannosaurus correctly, which is more than we can say for most of them. 137.48.216.67 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

True. I was also impressed by the little smiliey icon, I've yet to find the keycode for that. --204.193.132.7 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This dinosaur has had nearly as much (perhaps even more, until recently) of a cultural impact as a scientific one in the United States as well as other countries. In my opinion, that IS one of the most important things about the animal. Sheep81 09:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

About Locomotion section...

I recently watched either National Geographic or Discovery, but it was showing marathons on dinosaurs. One of the programs had info on the T-Rex, stating that Juveniles had longer leg bones and something else, enabling it to run faster than adults. It also said they could've huntd like lions, the faster ones herding the prey into the slower yet more powerful ones. I doubt I can really cite the source, though. So, should this be in the article, or just leave it alone until there's some news article on it? Abby724 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Found the feathered image.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/feathered_dinosaur/images/primary/feathery_dino1.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/feathered_dinosaur/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html

There's some extra info I posted just in case... Abby724 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

These are all pictures of Dilong paradoxus, not T. rex. Though they'd be cool on the Dilong page if we could use them.Dinoguy2 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops... I just searchd feathered T -Rex and didn't really bother to read anything... sorry. Abby724 01:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Weight issue

I'd rather not edit somebody else's work, but in the Life History section it says:

weighed only 29.9 kg (130 lb),

Isn't 29.9 kg more like 65 lbs rather than 130?

Good catch. 29.9 kg = ~65.9 lbs. I'll correct it.Dinoguy2 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurids vs. Tyrannosauids

I assume the former is the actual term. Is this true? If so, and if no one else does, I will change instances of the latter to the former as I see them. Paul Haymon 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is Tyrannosaurids. Good catch. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the confirmation (and for fixing it, I assume). Paul Haymon 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I ran spell-check on it, searching for all variants of "Tyrannosau", but the current revision contains only correct spellings and derivations. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks-- Paul Haymon 06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

T. rex

The intro to the article now includes the cumbersome phrase "Known colloquially in the Anglo-Saxon countries as T. rex (by convention the genus name is abbreviated as the first letter)". Unless I'm mistaken, the convention of shortening a Linnean binomial by abbreviating the generic name is used in all countries, not merely the "Anglo-Saxon" ones, whatever that means. Can't we just change this to "Known by the abbreviation T. rex..."?Dinoguy2 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes please! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope no-one minds - I've made the suggested alteration, as I was here & had the time. Excellent proposal and can't think why I haven't suggested it myself! - Ballista 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Most featured?

Could we please get a reference for the statement "Tyrannosaurus are the dinosaurs most often featured in popular culture." ? (That may be so, but Sauropoda have certainly given a century of significant competition.) Wondering, -- Infrogmation 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Growth Curve

I am not an expert on T. rex, however, something strikes me as being very strange about that diagrammatic growth curve. There was virtually no growth until the dinosaur was 5 or 6 years old, there then followed a number of years of very rapid growth until growth tailed off at approximately 20 years of age. We are told elsewhere in the article that more than 50% of T. rex fossils are within 6 years of sexual maturity, indicating that this is when they are likely to have died (though I'm not sure at what age sexual maturity occured). Thus, T rex had virtually no weight (not much more than a kilogramme or so) at the point that the parent died. It could be that T.rex offered no support to its offspring, though for the offspring to be so small for so long suggests that care would be essential. Could someone that understands these things check on this, and in particular, check to see if that growth curve has any basis in fact. Thanks Dalekmikey 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am an expert on "T. rex" and yet I have no idea.

The graph is taken almost directly from a recent (2004) scientific paper. The scale bar on the vertical axis is in 1,000kg increments, so anything below 100kg or so would be pretty hard to visually differentiate from zero. A two-year-old specimen found in Montana is estimated to have weighed only around 30kg. The young almost certainly had a different ecological niche than adults. Sheep81 08:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor proofreading

This text exists within the article:

"In this light, scavenger hypothesis adherents have suggested that the size and power of tyrannosaurs allowed them to steal kills from smaller predators.[44]

...

Scientists who think that Tyrannosaurus was able to run slowly point out that hollow Tyrannosaur bones and other features that would have lightened its body may have kept adult weight to a mere 5 tons or so, or that other animals like ostriches and horses with long, flexible legs are able to achieve high speeds through slower but longer strides."

Note the capitalization of "Tyrannosaur" in the second block of text and the uncapitalization in the first block.

My question: Is "Tyrannosaur" always supposed to be capitalized or not? Paul Haymon 06:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Examiners

Under Discoveries, do we really add anything by listing all the paleontologists that examined each specimen? If there is a dispute, listing the experts on each side might be useful, but otherwise, I don't see the point of it. Mdotley 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Predator or scavenger?

This BBC News article suggests that despite the common belief that T. Rex was a predator, it may have actually been a scavenger instead. The article cites Dr. Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana, US. --JHP 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right but this is well-covered (& referenced) in the article, under "Feeding strategies". - Ballista 05:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Time frame of T. rex

Is it possible to be more specific about when T. rex lived? This would seem to be a pretty important fact about a prehistoric animal. Nareek 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto that. This appears to be (one of the few) dinosaur articles that does not list when the species lived. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

NEW Flesh of T-Rex uncovered

Can someone include this in article????

http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science/T-rex_soft_tissue.html "when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible."

This is already in the article.Dinoguy2 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)