Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recent edits

You are making a lot of drastic edits, including fixing image sizes to specific values, making images face away from the text, and creating a heck of a lot of whitespace, and this all conflicts with the manual of style. You've also removed an image which other users have continuously re-added again. Could we please discuss some of these changes before implementing them? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I quit reading when you put the word "drastic." You ought to read up on that particular word. Oh, and I ignore you because you prefer an amateur, cartoonish, non-sourced, non-cited, poorly drawn, crap drawing in an FA article. Good luck. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Both me and Steveoc have re-added the image. That it's a line drawing is irrelevant, since it is not anatomically incorrect. And I didn't write the manual of style, so blame it, not me. And oh, please be civil. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting my time. I'm sure there's a children's encyclopedia that would love the cartoon, crap drawing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page. It is for discussion of changes. That is good. And I'm simply following your own "advice": [1] FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a Featured article and should conform to WP:WIAFA; please see WP:NOT and stop adding images and WP:TRIVIA that are more fitting for a children's coloring book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Any major, unilateral change to an FA such as removal or replacement of images without prior discussion is unacceptable. I'm not sure if these images were present when FA was granted, but either way if there's debate about the style of a page or the content, please debate it rather than being a little too bold and changing an article many, many people have a hand/interest in. Doing it in a long series of piecemeal edits is also not a great idea without discussion, since it's many minor edits adding up to a major one, and I hadn't even noticed this going on until it was brought up here. I imagine the same is ture for most editors watching this page--we only see the latest, and it look minor, masking the larger re-formatting going on.

Orangemarilin: for those of us who don't have time to sift through the edit history, what changes to you propose to images, image alignment, et.c, and why? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is strange. Funky didn't 'add' the image, its been in the article for months. All he wanted was to have a discussion as whether to remove it (The image doesn't have any anatomical problems that I'm aware of) and the changes that were being made. Funky reverted asking for a discussion about the edits that Orangemarlin was doing. Orangemarlin then puts a warning on his talk page saying 'use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors' and then 'ignores' him when he tries to do just that! Now he’s being told to stop adding images and being treated like he’s a constant pest. Now I don't mind the edits Orangemarlin made, they are improvements but I don’t like the rude way they were implemented. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You can read up on WP:ACCESS, WP:MOS#Images and WP:MOS#Captions; guidelines that weren't enforced when this page passed WP:FAC more than two years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Any major, unilateral change to an FA such as removal or replacement of images without prior discussion is unacceptable. Completely fallacious. This article passed WP:FAC more than two years ago, and there is no reason an FA can't be maintained to current WP:FA standards, of which Orange is well aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I point out that if it is unacceptable to remove an image, then it is also unacceptable to add an image under the same conditions? I don't like Orangemarlin at all. I'm opposed to most of what he says (especially about sports). However, I don't see any problems in any of his edits right now. Most of the changes that Orange and Sandy put forth are actually improvements to a page that needed them. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think. And what's wrong about my sports!!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just redraw the image, and this time leave out the thick lines and solid colors. J. Spencer (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Now I don't get why Sandy brings up "adding trivia", since well, none of us have been doing that, its just a general IP obsession which happens time to time. That Tyrannosaurus chick image has been there for a pretty long time, I did'nt add it (though I've re-added it a couple of times when Orange removed it), and it adds to the article, and isn't anatomically incorrect. The reason why it is removed is because people don't like the style, and that's why I find its removal questionable, and why it should be discussed beforehand. And now that guidelines are being waved around, again, I can just say that I objected because guidelines in the manual of style were ignored! Images are not to have a fixed size unless they show diagrams or text, because different screens have different resolutions, obviously, so if we make images huge, it might look good on a huge screen, but on a small screen it'll look like crap. Why the heck do we need to have a huge image of a Tyrannosaurus arm? You see it perfectly at the default size, and now it squashes the text. And the MOS also states that images should "face" the text, which means that if we have a Tyrannosaurus looking either right or left, we should place it so it faces the text. And as for whitespace, that's self-explanatory (I really hate whitespace, for the record). I'd like for Orangemarlin, or Sandy for that matter, to explain why ignoring these three MOS guidelines for no apparent reason improves the article. I don't object to other edits that have been done simultaneously with these by Orange, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• When I came to the article, I found children's drawings and trivia were being added; I made no comment about who was adding those, and I'm not sure if you're talking about the same unencyclopedic kiddie drawing that I saw. In an article that already had too many images and poor image layout, a cartoon doesn't help. The image layout still needs a lot of work; there are too many images crammed in to some sections, with none in others, and layout needs work. There's no point in orienting them correctly when there are too many in each section and they are using forced sizes; if they could be better placed, then they could be correctly oriented (yes, several are facing off the text now, but if you are arguing for forced image sizes, I disagree, there is no need to breach that MoS guideline for most of these images). I also see whitespace that needs to be addressed; a starting place would be to first remove unnecessary forced image sizes per WP:MOS#Images, then decide which images can go in which section to avoid the jamups, and 3) then achieve a better layout within each section where images aren't facing off text or otherwise breaching WP:MOS#Images or WP:ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly belittling (deserved or not) the image in question by calling it a children's drawing or a coloring book is not helping your case here. I'm sure we can all bring a little more maturity to the discussion by actually making a case without randomly attacking the subject. How do you feel about the profile image in Oviraptor, which is a similar style? Is there a guideline saying that illustrations in a science article must be realistic to a certain degree? If so, what degree? Should all non-photorealistic images be removed? The WP:Dino image review, we don't have criteria for style, only anatomical accuracy and a vague notion of technical proficiency. So any input would be appreciated. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur baby covered with down feathers.

I specifically argued against forcing image sizes (unnecessarily big Tyrannosaurus arm for example), so I don't see why you bring it up. If the article has too many images, then let's discuss which ones have to go. And the image in question is the one here on the right, if that wasn't clear already. So let's analyse it. Is it anatomically incorrect? No, not as far as we know now. Is it unclear? No. Is it a "kiddie drawing"? I'd have to say no, from what I can see (as a student in animation), a fairly good amount of skill would have had to be present for one to create that image, in spite of its simplicity. By the way, the discussion here reminds me of this one[2], apart from the fact that only the style of the image is the issue now, not whether there is any anatomical inaccuracy, which should be the factor which determines whether we use it or not. FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a few issues under discussion at the same time here, and I think it would be helpful to separate them. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining "old" FAs

As SandyGeorgia said (00:14, 11 December 2008), this article was promoted to FA in 2006, when standards were less demanding, so work is needing to keep it close to current FA standard.

Unfortunately the "committee" process advocated by Dinoguy2 (00:04, 11 December 2008) doesn't work if the "committee" is slow to respond. In Oct 2006 I pointed out some serious scientific errors in Dinosaur, another "old" FA; nothing happened so in Jan 2007 I gave notice of my intention to fix these points; a few days later, after nobody objected, I fixed them; and a few days later the corrections were reverted, so that the article again contained the errors I'd pointed out 3 months earlier. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Philcha, you point out two issues. First, things do move slow. I'll have to admit, once I help get an article to FA, I kind of mentally and emotionally move on. It's hard to drag me back. Second, another problem is that you were advocating your point of view. I've seen across the project in these areas, and I tend to trust your opinion (as long as it's sourced). I'm going to look at that Dino article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality of images

This one has the potential to run for a long time. I have no strong objections to the image per se, but I'm not sure the article needs a reconstruction of a juvenile T rex'. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree here only because such an image is purely based on speculation. No juvenile tyrannosaurs younger than Nanotyrannus stage are known from any kind of fossil evidence. At the very least, this should be noted in the caption. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was Casliber's request for a restoration with feathers in the to-do list, which no one seemed to object to. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All paleo reconstruction images are based on speculation. For example if T rex was mainly a predator it was probably quite muscular, but if it was mainly a scavenger it might have been quite skinny, as unnecessary muscle might have been a burden to a critter that had little control over when it ate. "A reconstruction of ..." is enough warning. --Philcha (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that reconstructions require a lot of speculation but I prefer if they're based on something citable. Like a mount in a museum or published skeletal restorations. That’s the problem with that image. The youngest juvenile 'tyrannosaur' I know of is a ‘’Tarbosaurus’’ seen here [3]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Of course outward appearance is always speculation, but at least we can get the shape of the underlying skeleton right, ideally. There's no skeleton known at all for juvenile tyrannosaurs--we have no idea what they look like. We can guess, but there's literally nothing backing it up. At least in a reconstruction of say, Therizinosaurus, there's some bit of actual fossil being represented as part of a speculative whole. I'd also have a bit of a problem with a reconstruction of say, Xenoposeidon. Known only from a bone that would probably not apply to outward appearance much, and no other members of its family/close relatives to compare to. The illustration in Ultrasaurus is another example of this. There's no good reason to think it looked like a brachiosaur, or any particular sauropod, based on what evidence we have. I guess my point is that any picture of a baby tyrannosaur is not falsifiable. There's currently no criterion by which WP:Dino Image Review could possibly reject it. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to self... missed that image of the baby tarbosaur, wow! As the article points out, there's little difference between tarbosaur and T. rex skulls, so I wouldn't expect much variation in the juveniles. Based on the skull image, we can probably reject the image in question as inaccurate. The lachrymal ridge looks too big, the skull too long and not pinched enough at the snout. The forelimbs also look too big. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That settles it, then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And you wasted how many kb's of bandwidth, when I was saying this all along. Whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you weren't saying anything like that at all. You were merely talking about style, which sure is a waste of time. Now I'd like you to address the other issues, like white space, images facing away from the text, and forcing image sizes for no reason. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There's now another restoration of a feathered T. rex juvenile on Commons (on the right), but I'm concerned about the accuracy of it (as with many of Conty's image, too large eyes, odd proportions and posture). Any comments? I've put an image of Raptorex in the meantime, to show how a small feathered tyrannosaur would look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The legs look very oddly posed and human-like. The femora should be way more horizontal in a natural pose for an animal that isn't full-tilt running. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Raptorex NT.jpg is a different genus, so I'm not sure it should be an article in genus Tyrannosaurus. The build is also wrong for the larger, heaviest member of the clade, since allometry implies that the load-bearing members (legs, spire, shoulder girdle, neck) woudl be proportionately heavier in the giants than in the small critters. OTOH, I like that it's been added to Tyrannosauroidea, where it can make help the point that key features of the later, larger genera go a long way back. --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't optimal, and I'll continue to search for a more specific image, but as an example of how a small tyrannosaur would look if feathered, isn't it better than nothing? Some have even speculated that it is actully a juvenile Tarbosaurus, by the way. But yeah, if it's too inappropriate, it should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Selection of images

Wikipedia is not a picture gallery, and images need to be used selectively. IMO if we have have plenty of images, as we appear to for dinosaurs, we should use those that illustrate the content rather than just providing eye-candy. In many cases diagrams should take priority over pure pictures. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Size and placement of images

There has been recent disussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Forcing Lead image (plus a more general Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style item that's now archived and I can't find it) and at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Image position. To sum up my own views:

• Images that illustrate specific content should be alongside that content.
• Layout of pages that use images has become more difficult as widescreen monitors have become more prevalent, as increasing the text width reduces the height of paragraphs, sections, etc.
• I dislike left-floating images, as this makes the text less readable by changing the postion of the start of the next line, so that users have to search for it rather than jump to a familiar X co-ordinate.
• The functions of images vary. Sometimes they convey a lot of detailed info, and a larger size than the default is needed. On other occasions they need give only a general impression of what something looks like, and a smaller size than the default is adequate. The majority of readers are unregistered and therefore cannot set preferences for image size or anything else. Hence editors have to pick image sizes that are appropriate for the purpose.
• Accessibility to users with poor vision (but not functionally blind) is irrelevant, as they will either have their browsers set permanently on "zoom in" or have software that zooms in for all apps.
• {{clear}} makes ugly gaps in the text and reduces the readability of articles.
• IMO all these points indicate that MOS cannot dictate a "one size fits all" solution and editors should be free to set image sizes. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to set image sizes, when it's appropriate. It's appropriate with pictures that contain text or diagrams. I agree with what Philca said, apart from the fact that I don't mind left-aligned pictures, having them all right aligned will clutter the right side. I think of Wikipedia as I think of books, where images are always in the section they are supposed to illustrate, and where images are aligned left or right as appropriate. As for the article needing a picture of a feathered Tyrannosaurus or not, here's a specific request for it made back in 2006 on the to-do list: "Need an image of a T-rex as if feathered. (I have emailed Ken Carpenter and Thomsa Holtz for leads...Cas Liber 01:59, 20 June 2006" FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're picking and choosing rules that appear to support your odd notion of what makes a featured article. Since I've never seen you involved in an FAC or FAR, your opinion means about nothing to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Then please leave. If you refuse to work with other eidtors, don't be surprised when other editors refuse to work with you. This kind of attitude is completely contrary to everything Wikipedia is about and should probanly be reported. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How am I supposed to respond to this childish bullshit? We're all faceless accounts, let's try to be a bit humble. Yelling about supposed credentials gets you nowhere. Featured or not, the MOS is clear. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a paleontologist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

White space, taxobox image, size forcing, etc.

I regret that I have to start a new discussion, but I see no other choice, since OrangeMarlin refuses to cooperate. OrangeMarlin reverts this[4] edit I made, where I removed white space, removed unnecessary size forcing of images, and put the featured consensus image back in the taxobox, per month old discussions, instead of the current, noisy image. He refuses to explain why, and simply refers to "accessibility", even though the version he reverts to is arguably much less accessible. Could someone else please voice their opinion about this, or, preferrably, could OrangeMarlin please explain his edit for once? And could OrangeMarlin please stop making empty threats on my talk page?[5] FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current image, Image:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg, and AFAIK it was agreed in summer 2008 that this image should be used. I can't remember which image it replaced. It's certainly better than the recent alternative, Image:T-Rex.jpg, in which something's tail in the bg appears to be growing out of T rex' scapula.

Well, no one, except for an unsigned comment agrees with you Funk Monk. Time to move along. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Philca made the comment. Look at the edit history. Anyway, is there a particular reason why I seem to attract snide remarks from you? Could you please discuss content, not the editors? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I forgot to sign the comment does not weaken the points made - they would be just as valid from an anon IP (which most of our readers are). --Philcha (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I've just reverted a change of lead image by an anon IP, since File:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg has come out on top in few discussions. The image inserted by the anon IP is File:T-Rex.jpg. I think we may need some discussion. I prefer File:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg becuase it's less cluttered and more dramatic. Comments. --Philcha (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the skull-only image is less cluttered and more dramatic, so probably better. However it almost looks like it's suffering from a Luis Rey fish-eye lens effect sort of warping the proportions, and it would be nice to have a full-body shot.. though probably not that particular one. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think the "real" skull (AMNH 5027) fairly early in the image compensates for the angled lead image, no? FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can he move fast  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.192.170 (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 

There are now many more good quality, nearly full-body images of T. rex on Commons. Wouldn't something showing most of the body, in front or side view, be better than just the skull? Maybe [6] or [7] Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably. The current one was nice because it looks nice, and is also a featured picture. Those two other ones don't look as nice, due to several things (including noise, perspective, clarity), but yeah, they show more. I'd prefer one which was on par quality wise with the current image though. Also, aren't the shoulder blades too far apart on both? And aren't the radius and ulna nearly crossed in the first one? FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a tad, and the AMNH hasn't installed a furcula yet. But I'd say that's pretty minor. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Something like this would probably look good (on right). Another (maybe better) angle from Flickr[8], and a nice image of Sue from Flickr[9], better image of AMNH specimen (could be cropped) [10] FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Woah, nice finds! The one you posted is really cool and dramatic, though the Sue or AMNH show off the anatomy a bit better. I'd be happy with any of them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that a full-body photograph will do better than a simple skull shot. Tyrannosaurus has received a reputation; an image befitting and conveying that would be optimal. How many free images are there of that description? RadicalTwo (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, take a look at Commons and the ones I posted here. What do people think? I personally think the Stan mount is nice, the furcula is central, and the shoulder blades are very close. Also like the Sue image, and the gap between the shoulder blades isn't visible there. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is another image of Sue, but where the whole skeleton is visible:[11] And a full view of a mount at the Carnegie museum, though it's a bit noisy:[12] FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I like number 20. It was exactly what I was talking about. While the others show the skeleton isolated and static, that one shows it with humans for scale, and posed in a position that is both realistic and one befitting the reputation the T. Rex has obtained in the collective mind. RadicalTwo (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I still prefer Stan, as it's both accurate, drmaatic and clean with little distraction, easy to make out the skeleton at thumbnail size. The Carnegie is also good, but the background is the same color as the bones, making it "read" less even at full size. It will be difficult to see in the taxobox. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. And there's no real need for people in the image for size comparison, since two pictures with that purpose are found in the description section. Not sure which one of the Stan images to go for though, but the one already on Commons looks the best. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the Stan image after it was put in the theropoda article, looks nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, isn't this sculpture of the head[13] more accurate than the current one we have in the article? The current one seems to be based on the Walking With Dinosaurs Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that one looks heaps better. I always thought the current one looked horrible but there's so much variation in T. rex skulls it's hard to disqualify these things on accuracy grounds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty cool model, from the same museum as that feathered Deinonychus. I had to go to the German Wikipedia to find it, heh. Also, is it "safe" to use this hand diagram image?[14] Chances are it's drawn freehand, without any specific references, and thus doesn't match any existing bones. It seems like the ulna extends past the humerus, which is incorrect I think. But I could ask Conty about it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The arm diagram looks close enough for government work. The ulna should indeed extend past the rdius as shown, according to the skeletals I have. The only obvious error seems to be the lack of a deltopectoral crest at the top of the humerus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but you said past the humerus. Yeah, it shouldn't do that either. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done a quick photoshop job on the arm diagram and replaced the old version, how's that look? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Peck's Rex

Isn't there any info about Peck's Rex (MOR-980)? was it one of the five skeletons found in Fort Peck Reservoir in Montana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.217.141 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Furcula

Would you like me to crop & zoom File:Field fg05.jpg to focus on Sue's wishbone? -Philcha (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That might not work, it's so small in frame that you'd end up with a pixelated image. It would be nice if we could get our hands on this photo. [15]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I can do better than that. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

... was capable of lifting 199 kilograms ...

... estimated to have weighed only 29.9 kg ...

... top speed of 17.8 metres per second ...

This is downright silly. Don't they teach rounding in the fourth grade?

If they were rounded, laddie, then they wouldn't have been accurate. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The original post has a point. All these numbers are estimates based on reconstructions or mathematical models. It seems like false precision to cite the arm's lifting strength to the nearest kilo, even if we ignore the considerable range within a species. Can we state how much mass a gorilla can lift to the nearest kilo? Cephal-odd (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New paper on Tyrannosaurus parasite infections

If this article is to be kept up to date, this study should probably have a mention somewhere: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007288;jsessionid=46F0A1EFB5E7F840BE2194BA7F0AEC02 FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Rigby rex

I have heard that Rigby rex grew to 14 meters long,if so,t rex was longer that once thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan6534661 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Like all early rumors of new specimens, initial guesses were too big. Rigby's rex is the same thing as Peck's rex, around the same size as Sue (12-13 m). Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On the size note there is new evidence for t-rex and acrocanthosaurs weight. I posted this link on the Acro page but this page gets more attention so i will post it here. The link shows new weights for t-rex and acrocanthosaurus and i think wiki needs up dating to them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/4884881/Tyrannosaurus-Rex-was-a-lean-mean-hunter.html It does mention acro in the article but it is focused on t-rex.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That estimate is nothing new--the study you linked says 5.9 tons. The article says right now: "Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons)." Which is consistent with the new study. Mass estimates will always vary widely for fossil animals and there are as many methods for calculating mass as there are scientists. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the acrocanthosaurs? wiki's article on it puts its weight at 3t (i think) but as that article says, it is closer to 6t. And about the t-rex thing, i realised its article covered that after i posted the link.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Size Chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tyrannosaurusscale.png The figure of Sue in that chart looks like it has a hip hight of around 3.7m But Wiki's article itself states 4m, and is Cited as well. Which is wrong? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bite Force

I dont belive the article has nothing at all to do with Rex's bite force, which has been long considered to be the strongest of all land animals at about 6000 pounds. But a new study into its fused nasal bones has found that figure too low, way too low. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-T-rex-Had-the-Strongest-Ever-Bite-of-a-Land-Animal-55140.shtml It was over 20t, now something that immpressive definatly deserves a place in the article. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, u should put it on the article with the reference cited.Dan6534661 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Age of the T-Rex"

In the article it says that fossils are found between 68 and 65 ma, but here it says that they have been found between 85 and 65 ma. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.244.158 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

68-65 mya is correct. 85-65 is the entire duration of the Late Cretaceous. T. rex didn't live for the whole Late Cretaceous, only the very end. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They were probably referring to tyrannosaurids as a whole, or probably mistook tyrannosaurids for T. rex itself. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Size

The article says up to 13m long. However, Sue, the largest found, is 12.8m. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody probably rounded. Abyssal (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

30,000 hours?

I noticed in the notable specimens section there is claim that the "Field Museum of Natural History preparators spent 30,000 hours" cleaning Sue's bones, and that it took "30,000 hours of digging and preparing" to get Stan out of the ground. There are no inline citations for these figures, and it looks like subtle vandalism to me. Can someone please verify? Thanks. Thatoneguy89 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. From the article history, the 30,000 hours was attached to Stan first. The Sue pages at the Field Museum chalked theirs up to "over 25,000 hours", which could easily become 30,000 hours in a different source (which would suggest that the going rate for prepping a reasonably complete adult rex is 25,000-30,000 hours, for what it's worth. Not something you'd do in the basement on rainy days, I suppose). J. Spencer (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Smaller than Giganotosaurus?

Apparently so. Yet Sue is bigger than Giganotosaurus. Even wikipedias articles say so with rex at 13m and Giga at 12.5m. So i dont know why T rex is said to be smaller than Giganotosaurus when it was both longer and bulkier. But anyway why does the article still say it is smaller when it isnt? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For the love of god, these are estimates. 13m is rounded up from 12.8, which is the length of Sue's skeleton. The amount of soft tissue at the tip of the tail is unknown. The complete specimen of a Gig tail has never been seen by man. For all intents and purposes and as far as we know they are the same length. Let it go please. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You still do not get it do you? Wikipedia is flippen contradicting itself and you are to ignorant to realise. Here, here actually one of Wiki's sources), here, here and here all show that T rex is bigger than Giganotosaurus. You cant of actually read what i typed becasue i made no mention what so ever about 12.8 being rounded to 13, i even used 13m as Sues size for god sake. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The wiki article you cite as proof Wiki is wrong (guh-wha?) must have been vandalized at some point and not fixed. If you happen to real actual publications rather than teh Intertubes, you'd see Therion et al estimate Gig at 13m, not 12.5. As if there's a big difference, but as long as you're being a huge stickler for minute differences, at least get your stickling correct. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth in science reporting: "And in other news, an individual of Giganotosaurus may or may not be smaller in at least one dimension than what appears to be the largest of a handful of Tyrannosaurus individuals."

This was helpful for a while; it's good to go back and check sources periodically. It has since become tedious and annoying, particularly because it is becoming clear that there is no payoff except appeasing you. I repeat:

"Do you realize what size estimates are based on? Almost invariably, single individuals known from incomplete skeletons. For some significant fraction of dinosaurs approaching 100%, we have no clue as to individual variation, sexual variation, variation based on geographic area, variation over time (tyrannosaurs that lived at 67 Ma versus those from 65.5 Ma, for example), variation over growth, and so forth. Even when a complete skeleton is present, an individual is well shy of a statistically useful population. Is the type specimen of Giganotosaurus average, deficient, fully grown, male, female, or a monster among its own genus? We can say a few things about proportions, but you are deluding yourself if you think that a given size estimate is particularly useful for more than the individual it is based on. Furthermore, length is subject to the vagaries of how you measure it. Is it along a straight line? Is it along the curves of the body? Did you include intervertebral discs, and how much did you add for them?"

"I'm saying that it's not really worth your time to worry about it [size estimates]. Based on the scanty information in hand, the sizes of the giant theropods are close enough as to be statistically the same, except for Spinosaurus. The big guys (Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, Tyrannosaurus, probably Bahariasaurus) so far all max out in the 12-13 m range (and only the authors know how they made those estimates), except for Spinosaurus which as usual was doing its own thing. Of these, only Tyrannosaurus has a described sample size remotely close to being worthy of the name "sample". It's reasonable to figure that they all, except for Spinosaurus, maxed out in the same weight band as well (7-15 m tons, depending on your methodology). There are some proportional differences, but big whoop. I'd be happy to just lump them all as "elephant-class" per Holtz 2008 (http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/DinoappendixSummer2008.pdf), which works out to 4-8 long tons (3.6-7.2 m tons) per his explanation; it's a little on the skinny side, but you get the idea."

I will not hesitate to repost these two paragraphs every time I see this discussion from now on, until it appears that the concepts of sample size, variation, and how measurements are made (or estimated) are making a dent in the conversation. J. Spencer (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt trying to point out how t rex says 13m not 12.8 or whatever. I was saying there was an error, which there was. Buts its now been fixed, end of. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What Happened?

To the size chart? It died.

Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, never mind... Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong wit this new version. Therizinosaurus has been changed to Deinocheirus (only in name), and Giga and Charcar have switched names? I'll revert back to the previous version. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur Height

So far the article has figures on their length but none on height. Are there any relibable figures and sources for their? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polish Winged Hussar (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll look around, but I doubt there's anything reliable. The problem with height is that it depends entirely on posture. Rearing or neutral pose? If neutral, how bent were the knees and ankles? It's very variable, even hip height, so most scientists just ignore the question entirely. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could write something like this: Height figures for the Tyrannosaur remain debatable, as it depends on the posture of the fossil (citation, citation) in the future as more fossils are found, height figures will become more definite.

Would that work?

Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar

No, because 1. debatable and variable are not the same thing and 2. it's original research. Anyway, even if we find a million T. rex fossils, the height will remain variable, because unlike a human, the head isn't centered over the hips, so its height will change from minute to minute in life. Readers should also be able to work the hegiht out themselves by looking at the scale diagrams. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late, but its already in the article anyway. Second paragraph, half way down it. "it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators, measuring up to 12.8 m (42 ft) in length,[1] up to 4 metres (13 ft) tall at the hips,[2] and up to 6.8 metric tons (7.5 short tons) in weight.[3]" Spinodontosaurus (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there ya go ;) 4 m tall. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Their Brains

What do we know about their brain (size, etc.) and do we have any relibable theories on their intelligence?

Polish Winged Hussar 15:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polish Winged Hussar (talk • contribs)

What's going on? Why won't my signer thing work?

Polish Winged Hussar 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polish Winged Hussar (talk • contribs)

We have endocasts of the brain (there's a picture under Feeding Strategies, but I don't think any study has tried to use that to determine intelligence, which is risky business.Make sure you're using four ~ after each post and your sig should work fine :) MMartyniuk (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus turpanensis

Besides Tyrannosaurus rex there is another Tyrannosaurus species called Tyrannosaurus turpanensis. But since this page is protected, I can't add it to the {{Taxobox}}. Just so you fellow users know.

JRLivesey, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just teeth, thought to belong to Tarbosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article is only semi-protected. You should be able to edit the page. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was fully protected this morning! JRLivesey, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the article's log, it has never been fully protected. Also, FunkMonk has removed the content you just added. I was about to remove it myself. According to this source, Tyrannosaurus turpanensis is a junior synonym of Tarbosaurus bataar. We appreciate that your edit was made in good faith, but material that is added should be sourced, and, when possible, correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has never been fully protected? I could have sworn that it was this morning! JRLivesey, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you perhaps logged-out without knowing it? If you weren't logged in, then indeed you wouldn't have been able to edit the page. J. Spencer (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I might have. I do keep logging out on accident. Also, Firsfron of Ronchester, this source says that Tyrannosaurus turpanensis was a species of Tyrannosaurus. JRLivesey, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Paleobiology Database attempts to catalogue every taxonomic act ever made. It doesn't only list the ones currently thought to be correct. No modern workers consider T. turpanensis to be a valid species, let alone a valid species of Tyrannosaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually can't find any mention of Tyrannosaurus turpanensis on the Paleobiology Database. When I do a search on Tyrannosaurus turpanensis on the site, it takes me directly to the Tyrannosaurus page, but without any mention of T. turpanensis. I do applaud your research, JR: you're using good reference sites (the paleobiology database is one of the better ones). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurs making tracks in the Hell Creek

In the T rex section: Footprints

A second footprint that may have been made by a Tyrannosaurus was first reported in 2007 by British paleontologist Phil Manning, from the Hell Creek Formation of Montana. This second track measures 76 centimetres (30 in) long, shorter than the track described by Lockley and Hunt. Whether or not the track was made by Tyrannosaurus is unclear, though Tyrannosaurus and Nanotyrannus are the only large theropods known to have existed in the Hell Creek Formation. Further study of the track (a full description has not yet been published) will compare the Montana track with the one found in New Mexico.[74]

The last two lines are incorrect, given Manning et al (2008) published the track from the Hell Creek Formation in the journal Palaios. Manning, P. L., Ott, C. and Falkingham, P. L. 2008. The First Tyrannosaurid Track from the Hell Creek Formation (Late Cretaceous), Montana, U.S.A. Palaios, V23, 645-647. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philliplarsmanning (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Albertosaurus sarcophagus - Tyrannosaurus rex Coexistence

According to Wikipedia's fossil ranges, A. sarcophagus lived from 75 to 67.5 million years ago and T. rex lived from 68.5 to 65.5 million years ago. That means that Albertosaurus and T. rex overlapped in time for approximately 1 million years (from 68.5-67.5 MYA). And heres the final test: Albertosaurus lived in Alberta, Canada (as its name means "Alberta lizard") and T. rex lived all across Western North America, including Alberta. This means that they both coexisted and just like the Albertosaurus libratus - Daspletosaurus torosus co-living I think this should be mentioned in the Albertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus articles. For it is astonishing that an albertosaurine (such as Albertosaurus sarcophagus) and a tyrannosaurine (such as Tyrannosaurus rex) coexisting considering that they may of had very similar niches. DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) 3:50 PM, Friday, July 16, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

That seems awfully long for A. sarcophagus... I was under the impression that it's only "definitely" in the Horseshoe Canyon Fm, but I forget which part (HC Fm as only early Maastrichtian has become a kind of meme since the 1990s, but a lot of it is late Campanian as well). J. Spencer (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The age of T. rex is also off in the article. The 68ma seems to have come from the Schweizer paper in 2005, which... see message here. [16] The authors considered the base of the Hell Creek to be 70Ma! More reliable data puts the Hell Creek formation at 67-65.5Ma ago, so I've changed he article and added a ref. Albertosaurus also probably has too generous a fossil range right now. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why is B-rex dated to 68 million years ago as this site says in the quotes;

"Paleontologists at North Carolina State University have determined that a 68 million year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil from Montana is that of a young female"

(paying attention to age not that its a chick)? DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) Saturday, July 17, 2010, 18:52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.6.247 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the Schweitzer paper I mentioned that was using inaccurate dating. Or they rounded up the date for the press release. News sources and web sites can't trump scientific papers. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

3 fingers?

I was browsing the WikiProject:Dinosaurs archived talk pages, and stumbled upon this [17] Apparently T. rex had three fingers. Can anyone corroborate this with any other literature. I was reading the article, and it doesn't seem to mention the apparent third finger. --Spotty11222 (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but one is really a 'palm' bone (metacarpal) and would probably not have been visible externally. See the diagram under the forelimb anatomy section. It's also mentioned with the source in the second paragraph under Description. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I wasn't too sure about it. --Spotty11222 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009

(UTC)

Tyrannosaurus was originally assumed to have 3 fingers until the first arms with clearly only two functioning fingers came to science(possibly Sue?). Paleo Kid (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think T. rex came to be portrayed as two-fingered when it was discovered that its close relative Albertosaurus was two fingered. I could be wrong, though. Abyssal (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I mean Gorgosaurus. I still haven't gotten over them being synonymized and then de-synonymized. Abyssal (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. There are photos floating around of the AMNH mount with 3 fingers, and the mock-up of the proposed fighting mount has them too. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

New Section called "Origin"

A few weeks back somebody created a section on this page (called "Origin") and forgot to add a reference, so it got deleted. Is it okay for me to revive this section? I would like the section to discuss the ancestry of T. rex, not Tyrannosauridae or Tyrannosauroidea, but T. rex. The main focus of this will be on Daspletosaurus, Bistahieversor and other possible candidates for the direct predecessor of it.

DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are their any professional sources that address this? MMartyniuk (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I do, there was just so many though, I'll just give you the Google search. That was the Daspletosaurus search. All I could find on Bistahieversor was that it shared a common ancestor with T. rex in Tyrannosaurinae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call web site sources professional, better search here: [18] MMartyniuk (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That search brings up an interesting source: Starring T. rex!: Dinosaur Mythology and Popular Culture. Perhaps this could be used to improve some of our problematic dino-related pop culture sections? mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I found one source: Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: Chapter 7; "The Phylogeny and Taxonomy of the Tyrannosauridae" by Thomas R. Holtz Jr. for this new section, but many more on Google web. Another source (its not on Google scholar, though) is Jack Horner's and Don Lessem's book, The Complete T. rex. I've read it once and in one chapter it discussed the classification of Tyrannosauridae, mentioning that Daspletosaurus could have been the ancestor to T. rex.

TDReints ^{Talk Page}/_WikiContribs 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

All in favor for a new section?

TDReints ^{Talk Page}/_WikiContribs 4:01, 8 August, 2010 (UTC)

As long as every claim is fully sourced, go for it! MMartyniuk (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a title like "evolutionary history" or simlar be more appropriate? FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Watch Out!

There is a guy who has joined Wikipedia that is from a forum that i use, but he claims that Gig was 50ft+ and rex + spino were 30ft. Just better warn in advance. His name is Giganotosaurus Fan. I am isueing this on the Gig, Rex and Spino talk pages cause those are the 3 he will likely vandalise. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) H Get lost spinodontosaurus.Giganotosaurus Fan12345 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is this for real? de Bivort 19:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has been trolling the forum for months, he is seriously stupid. I wouldnt be to suprised if we suddenly find the spinosaurus page says it grew to 30ft max... Spinodontosaurus (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep it civil guys. Abyssal (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to, but i was just warning you of what he will likely do. Im just surprised he hasnt yet. he even told me to f*ck off for correcting him. (multiple times) Spinodontosaurus (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's best you assume good faith for now and let him establish his own presence as an editor. Maybe he's turned a new leaf. If you're right and he's going to troll here it will be recognized and corrected quickly enough. de Bivort 20:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just give people the benefit of the doubt for now. But I myself wouldn't put it past a lot of people to underestimate the size of the Spinosaurus and the Tyrannosaurus all for the sake of the hyped up Giganotosaurus. I love the Giganotosaurus as much as the next guy. But 50ft PLUS!?!? that is a bit much. And putting the Spinosaurus and the Tyrannosaurus at 30+ft!? let's just be a little rational here.Dinotitan (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of stopping him contributing. But so far all he has done is post insults on my talk page (which i erased). Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

oh and he has made a new account (why he told me if it was secret i dont know) called Giga RULEZ, he has already tried to vandalise 1 page, the Mapusaurus page. And he even did it with his older account saying virtually the same thing: [19], though both were reverted. I am saying this here because they are the same and may still vandalise this page in particular. Though on his Giga Rulez account he has done a ediut and he didnt vandalise, though it was on a plant. Im keeping and eye on him but i though i sould warn the community. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checked his user contribs. Don't sweat it. Vandals are a fact of life. He'll get banned soon enough, and destructive edits by him will get reverted just like all the others. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

chicken drawing

What utility does the chicken / trex illustration provide? It seems to contradict the caption (whose meaning is muddled anyways), in that it shows a regularly proportioned mega-chicken running alongside the dinosaur. de Bivort 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Caption and image are taken from here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000321 FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not convinced its more than a cute distraction. What do you think? de Bivort 23:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since people have never seen a rex before, a chicken is something we can familiarize ourselves with and get a better understanding of the topic (as we can see chickens quite often). And of course, birds=dinosaurs, so in a way it's almost accurate. At least I think that's the consensus here. (But yes, it really does catch the eye---) Crimsonraptor (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the caption says "a trex can't run fast [based on chicken allometry]" but the picture looks like the chicken and t rex are keeping pace with one another. Phrased another way, the caption says that "a chicken would need super huge muscles to move as fast as the speculated t-rex" but the image shows a chicken with normal muscles. de Bivort 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's just say it's kinda hard to imagine a chicken with huge legs twice its size and then actually draw it (I can't even imagine that---and I can imagine some pretty weird things). And if you look closely at their feet the chicken's actually slightly behind the T.rex. Crimsonraptor (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reiterating my point that the image doesn't withstand much scrutiny when coupled with its caption. de Bivort 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a book out there that explains how they did the 2007 locomotion study mentioned in the article, with the same picture. It's put a little more simply there. The book is one of those Tom Holtz/Luis Rey (who, by the way, created the very illustration) collaborations, this one I believe. Crimsonraptor (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So, what does the book say? de Bivort 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, first of all, sorry I haven't replied to this in a while. I've been very busy lately. But, in answering: Where the picture appears in the book (page 309 for those who are interested), the caption is simple, saying that Hutchinson and Garcia (the scientists who did the study) used computer models to try and find how fast a rex was, they made comparisons with modern animals. Including a chicken. My best guess is that, although the artist made the piece to be comedic, it does sort of make sense. Wild chickens, which are not domesticated or anything, can run pretty fast. Even the fat ones they use for shrink-wrapped meat in the supermarket can still manage a good speed. If a chicken was super-sized, it would still have the same proportions as a regular-sized chicken. So its leg muscles would still be proportianate. And that kind of equals to what a T-rex could run like. I do vote for the caption to be changed now, though.

And I know this is completely off-topic here, but why is Jack Horner a "major" advocate of the predator/scavenger debate? I can't think of anyone else who supports the idea. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)