Talk:Tyrannosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tyrannosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dinosaurs (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Tyrannosaurus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Tyrannosaurus:

Please be bold in editing the article and in editing/adding/striking out items from this list.

  • Information on hypothesized reproduction, if known, eggs and/or juveniles would be nice.
  • The phrase T.Rex is a fixture in popular culture. needs to be removed from the first paragraph. It has no place in the text before a general description of the species. Furthermore it is paraphrased toward the end of the article anyway. Although T.Rex has appeared in many films and videogames etc, it is not defined by its stasis in 'Pop-culture'. This attitude makes the article frivolous and robs it of its initial scientific merit.
  • The text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis.
  • Improve Tyrannosaurus in popular culture and summarise main points here.
  • Figure out status of the image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg.
  • Don't reference to Jurassic (movie). (I'm not sure what this means, however wrong the name of the movie is it does portray a T-rex well....?)
    That'd be Jurassic Park, most likely. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 02:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • 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 (UTC)) - getting there - Ken told me of an image in Nov 99 National Geographic so I will email them forthwith Cas Liber 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I had the issue in question but I seem to have misplaced it. I wasn't aware images from NatGeo were usable here--if so, I've got a ton of scanning to do... At any rate it might be better to ask around to amature paleoartists, browse through the artists on Dinosauricon, etc. There are plenty of great feathered rex illustrations out there.Dinoguy2 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mapping a timeline of geological and evolutionary history to Galactic rotation is linear (though cyclic because of the rotation) and profitable. For instance, T. Rex emerged just after the Andromeda Galaxy lined up with the Galactic Center. The Cambrian was three Galactic rotations ago, plants emerged onto land two, and animals about one.
What the heck? J. Spencer 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace the dino cards references with reliable sources that have a url or isbn
  • Include the word 'partially' in description of Soft Tissue section where it reads fossilized leg bone. Clearly if this contains soft tissue the specimen was only partially fossilized.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand fossilization. Fossils are hard (they're rocks), but they sometimes preserve soft tissues by turning them into hard material, see for example Burgess Shale or Cambrian explosion. Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Philcha, while most fossils are indeed rock (and may be completely remineralised) "fossils" can be any buried trace of life (except human artifacts), although some definitions do draw the line at the end of the last glacial episode 10,000 years ago - anything more recent is then not a fossil (cf Concise Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences). The soft tissue being referred to here is possibly unremineralised connective tissue including proteins (collagen) and amino acids. The T rex was certainly fossilised in the strict sense, but amazingly may retain tiny amounts of original unmineralised tissue - this is what "only partially fossilised" intends here, I believe. It would probably be better to say the fossil apparently includes original connective tissue. This has also been reported in a Hadrosaur.Orbitalforam (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The part about speed needs to be fixed. In order for a Tyrannosaurus to run at 45mph it would need massive legs muscles. The size of the muscles it needed for that kind of speed would be too heavy for it to lift. In comparison, the leg muscles it did have were already heavy enough, so that the combined wieght of the leg muscles and the body forced it to walk straight legged, like an elephant. So much leg muscle would also mean that some muscle would have to actually be taken away from the jaws to add to that(A creature can only have so much muscle in it before it becomes to heavy to move itself). Also that type of speed would be dangerous for a Tyrannosaurus. The skull of T-rex was extremely heavy, and those arms could not support its weight at all, so one fall could be fatal for it. Therefor the Tyrannosaurus could only run at about 15-20 mph. Sorry, I just had to get that out.:) Watch out for the Discovery ChannelMs. dino fanatic (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) show "Tyrannosaurus- New Science: New Beast". That's where I get all of this from.

  • I think it has been overlooked that the limb structure of the tyrannosaurus is almost identical to a kangaroo. Perhaps it didn't run at all.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8

Tyrannosaur Paleobiology: New Research on Ancient Exemplar Organisms[edit]

Brusatte et al. (2010) Tyrannosaur Paleobiology: New Research on Ancient Exemplar Organisms. Science Vol. 329. no. 5998, pp. 1481 - 1485.doi:10.1126/science.1193304

Tyrannosaurs, the group of dinosaurian carnivores that includes Tyrannosaurus rex and its closest relatives, are icons of prehistory. They are also the most intensively studied extinct dinosaurs, and thanks to large sample sizes and an influx of new discoveries, have become ancient exemplar organisms used to study many themes in vertebrate paleontology. A phylogeny that includes recently described species shows that tyrannosaurs originated by the Middle Jurassic but remained mostly small and ecologically marginal until the very end of the Cretaceous. Anatomical, biomechanical, and histological studies of T. rex and other derived tyrannosaurs show that large tyrannosaurs could not run rapidly, were capable of crushing bite forces, had accelerated growth rates and keen senses, and underwent pronounced changes during ontogeny. The biology and evolutionary history of tyrarovide a foundation for comparison with other dinosaurs and living organisms.

More subsections under Feeding strategies[edit]

The section "Feeding strategies" has been greatly expanded, but it is one huge chunk of continuous text, and it would help the reader if it was broken up into subsections. I can't even keep track on it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. DinopediaR (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, remember italics for binomials and genus names! Good work, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my best. DinopediaR (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is getting very long, perhaps it should be a spin off article? "Tyrannosaurus feeding behaviour" or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it is getting incredibly long and might be hampering page load time. I could always make a Feeding behaviour in Tyrannosaurus article and then put the info there, with a link to it under that section here, so as to speed up load times and make it more convinient. Would that be a good move for all of us? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, and it seems the page loads a lot quicker with the split. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)-
Yeah, this article should still summarise that info here, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have hesitated in splitting the article, since I think it is stronger as a whole than in separate parts. Readers could better relate and find connections between the different points/parts of the article. But I guess page load time and system performance is also important for usability. I think the summary for the feeding strategies could use a bit more work though, since it just seems to be a copy of an older version of the subsection and does not include some key points that were later added the longer version.DinopediaR (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are article size issues to consider though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline Even after the split, it exceeds the 100 kb recommendation.FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What kind of fresh water fish fossils were found in areas where the T rex fossils were found? I hypothesize that they camped the watering hole. 2601:7:1A00:6EF:A1F1:B3FB:655A:C5EB (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Up to 6.8 metric tons[edit]

What makes the 6.8 tonnes estimate for Tyrannosaurus rex more plausible or relevant than the more recent 8-9 tonnes estimates? as far as I know, they are not based on some Bone circumference or bone strength or some ecuations made, instead they are based on some of the most modern scanning technics known, and are based on the actual skeletons and their volumes rather than separate bones or comparisons with elephants.--Dinoexpert (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not call this figure specifically more plausible, actually I cannot find it in the paper cited as a source, which estimates the largest specimen at less than 6t based on femoral dimensions, but you may find some of the comments (specifically those by Greg Paul and Christopher Brochu) on the PLOS-study interesting in terms of the accuracy of the higher estimates: comments on Hutchinson et al. 2011 --Ornitholestes (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Femur dimensions estimates, when it comes to extrapolating to phylogenetically and morphologically disparate organisms are inherently inferior to volumetric ones, of course, a volumetric estimate is only as good as the model used and Greg Paul's are inaccurate, this are his skeletals of Stan and Sue, compare them to the ortographic images of the scanned skeletons from Hutchinson et al. study available here and Scott Hartman's skeletals. You find considerable scaling mistakes and conscious choices at articulated the bones that betray Paul's biases to making them as skinny as possible, like the scapular blade being too high in the torso or the concave gastralia that Hutchinson et al. already mentioned as inaccurate in their comments. Using a more accurate reconstruction and following a similar method to Greg Paul, Scott Hartman has estimated the mass of Sue at 8.4 metric tonnes. Now, for the article, since there's no paper that explicitly calls out the 6 tonne estimates as improbably light for the largest individuals I don't feel like we can outright replace it, maybe put up a range? Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

picture[edit]

I have a question pertaining to the science of the article. Some images may be science but others may just be there for show. The image should have something to do with the article text. Is there actual evidence on hard drives or cell phones that T-Rex does sex like this? Crooked Q (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MUJA 04.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014[edit]

It shows that sue (tyrannosaurus rex) weighs 9 tons and she is the most complete t-rex ever found so it doesn't make sense that in this article it describes that a t-rex can weight up to 7.5 short tons. The links should be below which confirms this information I gave.


76.84.233.215 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/tyrannosaurus-rex-weighed-tons-estimate/story?id=14738660

http://www.livescience.com/16524-rex-dinosaur-weighed.html

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It appears to me that 9 tons is the estimate for Sue's weight when alive, whereas 7.5 short tons is the weight of the fossil, so there is no inconsistency. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

Mr. Granger- Actually there is an inconsistency since it says sue weighs UP to 7.5 short tons which she doesn't, she weighs UP to 9 short tons and maybe more not less. When we say what an average human weighs we wouldn't weigh their skeleton and say that's how much they weigh because it's obviously not true. The description also needs to change because this article contradicts itself when it's says that the largest t-rex specimen (sue) weighs 7.5 short tons which in the description it says that the largest t-rex specimen (sue) is approaching 9 short tons. First of all sues skeleton obviously doesn't weigh 7.5 short tons when they have estimations of her weight that are far lower than that and she is the most complete t-rex which would be the specimen they study off of. When they weighed her at an estimated 7.5 short tons they included flesh not just her skeleton. Also if sue's skeleton somehow weighed 7.5 short tons why have in the article that they have estimates of t-rex's weighing 6 tons, makes no sense at all. 76.84.233.215 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not Done: Every animal has a range it weighs. If you pick up and measure every single 30 year old human, you'll find that very few of them weigh the same. This is much different from extinct animals, which is why they are so much more variable. Do you known exactly how much flesh, fat, muscle, tendons, ligaments, organs, and other soft tissue to put on the skeleton of a dinosaur, absolutely not!!!! This is why when different people estimate the same dinosaur of even specimen using the same or different methods their totals can be off by so much. IJReid (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

IJReid- At least change in the second paragraph in the 5th sentence that the largest t-rex specimen (sue) weighs UP to 9 short tons and not UP to 7.5 short tons. This article said that sue weighed around 9 short tons in the description while then the article said that she weighs 7.5 short tons in the second paragraph. Now what i was explaining in the statement that you answered was that i was told by another user said that the t-rex (sue) weighed 7.5 short tons just with her fossil which her fossil alone obviously doesn't weigh 7.5 short tons or they wouldn't have lower estimates of her weight so it would make sense to change her weight in the second paragraph sentence 5 since some user did that in t-rex's classification. Please change this i don't want to respond again with something that is so obviously wrong. 76.84.233.215 (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —cyberpower ChatOnline 13:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

Sue the most complete tyrannosaurus rex specimen is 42 feet long not 40. This source is the museum where sue is being held Theshanerocks (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) https://www.fieldmuseum.org/happening/exhibits/sue-t-rex

Yes check.svg Donecyberpower ChatOnline 13:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Undone - the different information cannot be slotted into where there is an existing citation that says something else. J. Spencer (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Consistency With Other Pages[edit]

On the Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Carcharodontosaurus pages, they're all listed as being bigger than Tyrannosaurus, even though on the Tyrannosaurus page the highest weight estimate exceeds that of the highest weight estimates given for Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus while being comparable to that of the highest estimates given for Spinosaurus. This is more of a consistency issue than anything. I'd fix it myself except those pages are locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Fan 684 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the study that gave the 18.5t estimate was being grossly misrepresented on this page. The authors themselves steed in the paper that their upper and lower range models were extremely unrealistic (looking at the 18.5 model for Sue, that creature is basically Jabba the Hutt with legs and would not have been able to move). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Even still, it's listed and should be addressed as possible, however unrealistic. The Spinosaurus page for example gives estimates over 20 tonnes. Despite being very unlikely, the estimate is given(if that all makes sense).Rex Fan 684 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2014[edit]

I suggest changing

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 72 centimetres (28 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.<ref name="rextrack2007">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/october/news_12515.html|title=A PROBABLE TYRANNOSAURID TRACK FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION(UPPER CRETACEOUS), MONTANA, UNITED STATES |year=2008}}</ref>''

to

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 72 centimetres (28 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. <ref name=“manningetal2008”>{{Cite journal|last1=Manning |first1=P. L.,|last2=Ott|first2=C. |last3=Falkingham |first3=P. L. |year=2009 |title=The first tyrannosaurid track from the Hell Creek Formation (Late Cretaceous), Montana, U.S.A. |journal=Palaios |volume=23 |pages=645-647 |doi=10.2110/palo.2008.p08-030r}}</ref> <ref name="rextrack2007">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/october/news_12515.html|title=A PROBABLE TYRANNOSAURID TRACK FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION(UPPER CRETACEOUS), MONTANA, UNITED STATES |year=2008}}</ref>''

because I couldn't find any reference in the source originally cited to plans to do a comparison between the Montana and New Mexico tracks, nor in what appears to be the published description - new citation to this description added.

Louise Dennis (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Thanks for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Out of interest is there a reason the new citation wasn't included? (insufficiently high profile? behind a paywall?) It would be good to know for future reference. Louise Dennis (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)