Talk:Tyrannosaurus

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

Tyrannosaur Paleobiology: New Research on Ancient Exemplar Organisms

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 tyrannosaurs provide a foundation for comparison with other dinosaurs and living organisms.

Yutyrannus

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0405/Humongous-fuzzy-dinosaur-unearthed-in-China-video I'm telling you this one was covered from head to toe in feathers, literally. Now all Tyrannosaurs have to be depicted like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably. There are some good quotes from other paleontologists in various articles regarding probable feathers in T. rex specifically that we could include in the article at least. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it seems almost weird that the integument section doesn't mention that Yutyrannus, and only Dilong... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that T.rex was entirely covered in feathers. Animals entirely covered in insulation such as fur or feathers tend to use them to keep warm, which T.rex, with its massive size and bulk, certainly would not need. However, T.rex may have grown feathers on restricted areas such as the head, arms, and tail, parts that modern birds tend to use for purposes other than warmth such as flight and display.24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

just aded itAliafroz1901 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As per the feather lokation, skin impressions from the arms have been found so we know that they were covered in skales aditionly the tale and arms of tyrannosaurus are not highly out of the way-ish, I mene birds can spred out their "arms"(actualy wings) and tale(which resemble their wings anyway) but tyrannosaurus cirtainly couldn't do that, not to mention the fact that its neck wasn't flexible enough to allow it to cleen its feathers. and by the way mud walloers benifit from being "bald", sinse the mud gets stuk to the perasites on their bodies and takes them with itself when it fals off. Also mud can act like a sheeld between the walloer and the perasites preventing the perasites from geting at the walloer's body.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"skin impressions from the arms have been found so we know that they were covered in skales " They have? Where's the cite for this? AFAIK the only tyrannosaur skin impressions come from the legs and tail. As for being able to preen, how do you suppose Yutyrannus did it? Its neck is not longer or more flexible than tyrannosaurids. Obviously these animals had a different method of preening their feathers than modern birds. Assuming they did so at all. Preening is primarily to keep vaned feathers neatly cleaned and zipped (in flying forms) or oiled and waterproofed (in aquatic forms), which is not a problem animals with filamentous or downy feathers would have faced. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"skin impressions from the arms have been found so we know that they were covered in skales " They have? Where's the cite for this? AFAIK the only tyrannosaur skin impressions come from the legs and tail. here's the cite for this. Ok tyrannosaurs didn't preen their feathers, but you still haven't answered the other problems with hypotheticle feathered tyrannosaurus.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing on that page where it says skin impressions came from the arm. Can you quote the exact text? What other problems are there with a hypothetical feathered Tyrannosaurus that do not exist for the non-hypothetical feathered Yutyrannus that is nearly the same size as your average tyrannosaurid? The fact that mud wallowers were bald is not relevant until somebody proves that they were mud wallowers. There's no reason to think they were. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What other problems are there with a hypothetical feathered Tyrannosaurus that do not exist for the non-hypothetical feathered Yutyrannus that is nearly the same size as your average tyrannosaurid: well to begin with, Yutyrannus lived in a much colder environment and its of the primitive bilde(grasul body with long arms) which decreases its sirfice area-volume ratio. and feathers can provide shelter to perasites, so they arn't desirable for a animal that doesn't really nead them.

The fact that mud wallowers were bald is not relevant until somebody proves that they were mud wallowers. There's no reason to think they were. wel there are reasons to think that tyrannosaurus was a walloer sinse as I said above unlike feathers mud doesn't give shelter to perasites, but instead stopps them from geting at the walloer. and it can also act like sunblock, sheelding the walloer from sunburn. it also acts like a cooler and although lifting its feathers wil result in any feathered animal geting cooled, this is relatively short-lived in comperison to the relatively long-lasting cooling effect of mud.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of people have started really exaggerating how cold the Yixian formation was. The environment of T. rex would have been similar to Florida in climate, while that of Yutyrannus would be more like Virginia. Not a major difference, and not the ridiculous frozen tundra I've seen in some reconstructions lately! Not to mention the fact that big, much more advanced tyrannosaurids are known from Alaska which was probably even colder. You'll need to provide data that mud wallowing is more effective at shedding heat than feathers. Why aren't ostriches mud wallowers? MMartyniuk (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the Yixian formation had a max summer tempreture of 10 digrees C while that of tyrannosaurus probably had max tempretures of around 35-45 digrees C, a mager difference. Yutyrannus preserved feathers on its hips and foot and so its leg was likely covered in feathers as aposed to tyrannosaurus, indecateing that tyrannosaurus was not covered in feathers.

And to answer your question, seu is over 60 times as massive as the largest ostriches and even a small difference in the heet shedding facter of 2 methods would mattered quite a lot to her.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Well the Yixian formation had a max summer tempreture of 10 digrees C" Sorry, that's not correct. The Yixian had an average yearly temp. of 10C. It was not the same temperature all year long and existed at a seasonal, temperate climate. For comparison, the average yearly temp of Illinois and Rhode Island (basically the US mid-west, mid-Atlantic or southern New England states) are similar in climate. I can tell you from current experience our summer temperature is far more than 10C ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok but the southern half of tyrannosaurus's habitat was eather semiarid or arid, meening it would still be much hotter then the Yixian.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus is not a mammal!

" a lack of insulatory body covering is consistent with modern multi-ton mammals such as elephants, hippopotamus, and most species of rhinoceros." This is a flawed quote from the artical, as for one, Tyrannosaurus is not a mammal, two, Feathers do not work like hair, and three, those animals are built like bricks, while Tyrannosaurus was quite lanky. 74.109.193.163 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this, all of those animals are semi-aquatic or had semi-aquatic ancestors. 74.109.193.163 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey I didn’t find any flaws with the quote but I found some discrepancies with your post which I have listed below,

• 1 You assumed that tyrannosaurus is not a mammal so it would not conserve as much heat as a mammal of similar dimension would or at least, it is how I interpreted part of your post as saying. But this is wrong, because a reptile will conserve as much body heat as the mammal if its surface area to volume ratio is the same as that of the mammal.
• 2 You wrote that multi-tonne mammals are either semi aquatic or have semi-aquatic ancestors but all tetra pods have fish as their ancestors so your claim that some multi tonne mammals had semi aquatic ancestors is rather pointless.
• 3 I understand that you think, unlike modern day multi tonne land animals tyrannosaurus did not walough in mud or swim but where is the evidence supporting it. In fact there is evidence that all therapods swam so why should tyrannosaurus be an exception. Another mistake in your post you made was saying that tyrannosaurus is not a mammal although it is correct what difference does it make, none at all.
• 4 As you said, elephants are indeed more robust then tyrannosaurus but they have massive ears, trunks and other long appendages, which increase their surface area to volume ratio.
• 5 Further, you wrote that feathers and hair function differently but this is wrong because both act like a insulatory cover.

Aliafroz1901(talk) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Tyrannosaurus was a very robust form. "Lanky" is not the first word that comes to mind :o).--MWAK (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1. We know from Thescelosaurus and other specimens that Dinosaurs were not warm-blooded, nor were they cold-blooded, but were in between, meaning they wouldn't give off as much heat as a mammal of equal mass.
• 2. Yes, all tetrapods had semiaquatic ancestors, 350 million years ago. I'm talking in terms of something like 10 million years at most.
• 3. All animals, except for apes, can swim. However, Tyrannosaurus most certainly did not swim on a regular basis.
• 4. refer to 1.
• 5. Feathers are much more efficient insulators then fur because they cover more surface area. If they functioned the same, we wouldn't have birds that are fluffballs such as Arabian Partridge or Emus living in deserts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.193.163 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Thescelosaurus isn't as advanced as tyranosaurus and any way the ecstra heat generated by the feathers would neatly ballence its body temprature. sekendly my point about the semiaquatic ansestry afare was that a ansesters lifestile does not make any diffrense. All animals, except for apes, can swim. However, Tyrannosaurus most certainly did not swim on a regular basis, how due you make that out seeing as tyranosaurus went extinct 65000000 yearrs ago, don't pretend you know so much about such a long-extinct creacher.Aliafroz1901(talk) 9:54, 19 june 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because its obviously not designed to be a swimming animal? Also, feathers do not generate heat, as I said. They are insulators, not heaters. 74.109.193.163 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct, insulation is the key term there. Think of it like a thermos. If you put something cold inside, it stays cold. If you put something hot inside, it stays hot. Thermoses do not heat things, they keep existing temperature constant. That's what feathers do. Additionally, if the body heat gets too high, the feathers can be raised to let heat escape. too low, and they can be fluffed to trap heat more effectively. They also act as sun block. Birds with naked parts, like ostriches, need strategically-placed feathers to shade themselves and avoid sunburn. Turkeys, which lack feathers on the head and neck, are prone to overheating in those areas because they have sacrificed the cooling effect of feathers for brightly-colored skin display. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because its obviously not designed to be a swimming animal, spinosaurus is as well suted to swim as tyranosaurus,this is because therapods swam useing a metheadd of swimming in between that of seabirds and crockodiles: they made use of there tales for propultion while hitting their feat against the lake/river botem. Some think that asian elephants migrated to Sri Lanka by swimming the ocean ( http://www.upali.ch/swim_en.html ), and they don't have a big tail and wide feet like a tyrannosaur did. About the feathers: an avrej adult tyranosaurus would weigh around 6-8 metric tuns and so would have conserved much more heat than an ostriche, not to mension the much hotter cretaceous climate. Additionally the feathers seen on Dilong are not branched as in birds but are more similar to fer being only able to genarate heat and quite incapable of acting like a thermos. Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The feathers of Dilong are too poorly preserved and densely packed together to tell if they are branched or not. However, the feathers of Sinosauropteryx were branched, and so it's likely that those of Dilong were too. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Theropod's tails are too stiff to swim with their tails, and Spinosaurs has short legs and a barrel shaped body for swimming. Your forgetting that Tyrannosaurus has a giant tail and huge legs that would dissipate heat much better than an ostrich, and would reduce efficiency of heat conservation. Also, recent studies suggest we've been overestimating the weight of Dinosaurs, so I doubt it was 6 tonnes. 74.109.193.163 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I tooke the 6-8 T estimate out of a 2011 study so I doubt the information is outdated. as for the swimming, trackways showing that therapods hit their tows against lake/river botems have been found so we know that they were active swimmers. About your argument that spinosaurus had short legs and a barrel shaped body for swimming: tyranosaurus itself is extremely barrel-chested and critics of the my therapod is bigger then your's paper s 12-20 T estimate for spinosaurus state that their equations are based on massive tyranosaurids the largest of which were extremely massive tyranosaureens. As per the tale tyranosaurus was not a fish eater so it would not have to venture into deap water (the place where you nead propultion). As per the legs I don't think that shorter legs help in swimming but it mite be so however As I stated some posts above it mite not be a swimmer but mite have waloughed in mud or waited into waterbodys. Your forgetting that Tyrannosaurus has a giant tail and huge legs that would dissipate heat much better than an ostrichI should think not seeing as ostrichs have legs about twice as large as those of tyranosaurus(in proportion to their body size) and remember that their long nek and the airsaks inside it increase their cerfece area-volume ratio considerably. Aliafroz1901 (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is outdated. [3] this is from 2012. Yes, they swam, I never said they didn't, but Spinosaurs lived basically their entire lives in the water. Short legs help with the center of balance which is key for swimming. Dinosaurs also have air sacs, you know. Tyrannosaurus also did not live in a tropical environment like ostriches. 74.109.253.158 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That link you posted is not a reliable one+no estimates of that "brachiosaurus"(actualy jirafititen) are as high as 80T the closest estimates put it at around 78.26 T and this comes from a 1985 publication and recent estimates(2009) du put it at around 23T. About the airsaks I ment that long neks increase the cerfece area with minimle increase of volume Additionally the airsaks of tyranosaurus likely did not fill its whole chest(Sereno et al 2008). As for the climate as I stated above the cretaceous climate was much hotter then the modern one and cretaceous northamerica was probably as hot as the modern tropics.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Much wrong here, aside from mis-spelling Giraffatitan. First of all, Sereno et al. 2008 is plain wrong, and has been disproved further by later research. For example, I showed a bird-like air exchange volume (which means massive air sacs proportional to geese) for Plateosaurus (Mallison 2010).

Secondly, sending Spinosaurus off into water is based on scant evidence; it certainly was not an aquatic animal. Not even semi-aquatic the way hippos are. Furthermore, heat dissipation is much reduced by plumage; large tyrannosaurids therefore very likely had little plumage. Add more or less plumage to air sacs and you can cool any animal you want - there simply is no way to claim it would overheat, as you just need to adjust your assumptions on those two factors a tiny bit. HMallison (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sending Spinosaurus off into water is based on scant evidence; it certainly was not an aquatic animal. Not even semi-aquatic the way hippos are, I never said that it was aquatic or that it was semiaquatic the way hippos are what I stated was that its lifestile would be rather similur to that of an elephant. About the airsaks: how would airsaks covered by feathers help an animal in kooling itself(I'm only an 11 year old so I'm no expert).Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so lets see:

• North America was temperate-Sub tropical, never has it been tropical.
• Those estimates are in short tons, which is why you think they're "wrong."
• I wasn't calling Spinosaurus aquatic; it was more like a giant heron, wading its entire lives. It would have waded and probably had to swim since it couldn't fly like a real heron.
• Feathers are much better insulators than fur due to their increased surface area, hence why an equal massed partridge and lets say a shrew will have very different insulation coverage.

And to answer your question, air sacs covered by feathers help because they lower the animal's mass, therefore aiding in heat dissipation 74.109.253.158 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC).

Either way, I'm not going to decide for you if its bald or covered in feathers, however, I was trying to point out the reasons given in the article are just plain wrong why it would be bald. 74.109.253.158 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, btw, Spinosaurs WERE semi-aquatic, like hippos, now that I research it: [4] 74.109.253.158 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those estimates are in pounds: I converted them into metric tuns and how can airsaks covered by feathers lower the animals mass I can only think that they increase the cerfice area-volume ratio. I agrea the quote you posted above is flawed.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, your right, they are in pounds. Well, because the air sacs are just filled with air, it can reduce (sometimes greatly, like in some Sauropods) the "weight" (and as such, mass) of the animal. Feathers just help insulate. 74.109.253.158 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well actually most modern studies find that airsaks do not effect the animals mass much. The problem with sauropods is that their neks and tales are much longer then their torsos.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll delete the wrong information.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

doneAliafroz1901 (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Air sacs decrease the mass per volume (outside), thus less heat is produced, and massively increase the surface on the inside, which can transfer heat to the air that is about to be expelled. That's a major cooling factor. HMallison (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but elephants have hollow trunks and lungs, which funktion the same way as airsacks.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Air sacs function by pulling air one way thorughout the body. Thel engs of an elephant work like bellows, and are central in the torso. Air breathed in by an elephant does not get channeled to every part of its body to cool it down, it just goes in the lungs and out again. In saurischian dinosaurs, the air sacs invade every part o the body including the bones, and flow in one direction, carrying warmth out of the body in the process, which is far more efficient in cooling the animal than mammal-like lungs. The lungs of a mammal and the air sacs of a dinosaur are incredibly different. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lenght

In this paper the mounted skeleton of Sue was laser scanned and ended up being 12.29m, I'm under the impression that the 12.8m claim was an estimation and is older than the mount, assuming the mount is a more accurate (up to date) reconstruction, should it be reasonable to change the lenght of Sue in the article?

There was also this quote "Again, the Sue specimen tends to have the greatest lengths of the four adult specimens and the other three are markedly similar in most dimensions. However Sue's tail is reconstructed beyond the 27th caudal and could be artificially foreshortened as a result (cf. its tail length vs. that of Stan). Yet an alternative explanation, based on the number of actually preserved caudals (none in the CM 9380, 15 in MOR 555, 31 in BHI 3033, 36 in FMNH PR 2081), is that the seemingly foreshortened tail in the Sue specimen is actually more representative of the actual tail length, whereas other reconstructions have overestimated tail lengths. More complete Tyrannosaurus discoveries would resolve this issue more conclusively"

Could it be that the original 12.8m estimate was based on the older reconstructions with too long a tail? Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Sue was 13m.24.36.130.109 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

13m is rounded up from 12.8m, but that is my doubt, was 12.8m an initial estimate based on the then contemporary long tailed T. rex reconstructions? or is it that the mounted skeleton at 12.3m is more accurate, given how Sue had the most caudals preserved that seems more likely, this however doesn't really make it smaller, if that is what you thought, just shorter tailed. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

that paper was the very reasone why I changed the discription section to say that sue was you see: I had red the paper and the authars rounded sue's length to 12 meaters. I will change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliafroz1901 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

O I see, somebody beat me to the change.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly has Sue been changed to 40 ft.? Didn't they find Sue at 42 ft. long? Alos, I've heard that scientists in England say that T. rex could grow to be ~50 ft. if they lived their maximum age. Is this true? --Justisaurus (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

42 FT = 12.8 meters and 50 FT is the old estimate. Old reconstructions had extremely long sauropod like tales. Larsen and Carpenter think that such reconstructions overestimated the tale length by about 10 feet.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Unmentioned most complete T-Rex ever found

Your article about the most complete T-Rex specimens found does not mention the one that is tied for 2nd place. Sue, in the Field Museum in Chicago is #1 at approximately 80%. The other 2 that are over 60% are Stan in the Black Hills Institute, and Ivan in the Museum of World Treasures in Wichita, Kansas. All three were discovered in the Hell Creek Formation in the corner area of No. Dakota, So. Dakota, and Montana. Please correct and update your article about the T-Rex. Thank you. Dr. Jon Kardatzke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.66.71 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

ok i'll update the article, but I need a sitation for that. If a sitation cann't be provided then this new specimen can't be mentioned.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Size comparison image

Tyrannosaurus, along with all the other theropods in the picture, looks much more fat and rotund than what is usually depicted. While I do realize that the layers of muscle and flesh that covered the bones of the animal in life would make it look slightly larger than what we see from fossilized skeletons, that doesn't mean they were reptilian pigs! The old image that used to be there looked much more realistic in my opinion. No offence to the artist of the new image, of course.--24.36.130.109 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the paper Brz linked to above estimets seu at between 9.5 and 18.5 metric tons, so the depicted therapods might be to skinny, not "to rotund".Aliafroz1901 (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also see this paper, specifically figure 10: [5] I based the 'fatness' of the version in the size comparison on the best estimate from that paper. The older version was based on Gregory S. Paul's restorations which are definitely far too skinny. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, Bates co-authored the paper Brz linked to, so the image will have to be changed somewhat.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the same guy as before, but I am logged in now and not just an unsigned IP. Anyway, you guys are probably right now that I think about it. More than half of the dinosaur restorations I've ever laid eyes on are based on ones by Greg Paul, so I'm largely unfamiliar with other dinosaur depictions. But I've since looked up similar illustrations to the ones on this page, and Greg's dinosaurs now seem half-starved by comparison. I now agree with you that the page is fine as it is, at least on the topic of how meaty\skinny, large theropods would have been in life.--Dinolover45 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

an edit war

I've recently got involved in an edit war with user:SaberToothedWhale, user:Dinoguy2 and user:Debivort. User:Dinoguy2's edit summarys support my edits and so he was likely seeing the edits mixed up. As you can see from his edit summary he stated that heddings shouldn't mention info not discussed in the tecst, while reverting an edit that changed a section hedder to fit exactly the same criterion.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The info is mentioned in the text. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes the info is mentioned, but not discussed. Hedders should only mention the section's subject.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "However, skin impressions from large tyrannosaurid specimens show mosaic scales..." begins a multi-sentence discussion about skin. de Bivort 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "However, skin impressions from large tyrannosaurid specimens show mosaic scales..." begins a multi-sentence discussion about skin: it begins a discussion about the presence/appsence of feathers, not a discussion about skin.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't consider that a discussion about skin (and feathers, yes) then I don't think there's any room for reasoning on this topic. de Bivort 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a tidbit about the "Wyrex" (BHI 6230) specimen that shows mosaic scales from patches of skin impressions (more than a dozen), mostly on the bottom part of the articulated tail. It was discovered in 2002 and excavated from 2002-2004. A photograph is included of a skin patch on p. 46 of the ref cited. Not sure if they have published on the skin in detail yet. This should settle the matter on what the title should be. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Soft Tissue

"Soft tissue and proteins have been reported in at least one of these specimens. " This is incorrect in the first place. Since then they have all been proven to not be soft tissue/proteins. So it should be clarified or better still removed as it adds nothing to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide any saurces for what you have said-its a polisy here that we can't use are opinion as a basis for changes that don't have reliable published saurces supporting them. Its also werth noting that if a paper is only about an year or so older then another and critesises the older paper its better not to present the more recent papers results as fact-its highly possible the paper's results have not yet ganed the support of the concensous of the sciontific comunity-a much better method is takeing the avrage of the standpoint taken by the papers published in the last 8 or so years and even then the soft tissue theary nedes to be presented as a possibly correct theary (with note of the adishanal objections) since its a rather new theary-if year after year more and more papers critesiseing this theary are published compared to the ones supporting it then it can be presented as a disproved theary.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy - first sentence of WP:OR. Regarding soft tissue. Since they extracted mass spec protein sequences from T rex material, doesn't that imply the presence of soft tissue? Lastly, can you please run your comments through either a translator from your primary language or a spell checker? They are hard to read, and it diminishes your credibility, I'm sorry to say. de Bivort 16:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

The current information on T. rex footprints is incorrect and needs updating. The final paragraph indicates that, '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.[78]'

The track found by Dr Phil Manning was described fully in the peer-reviwed journal Palaios in 2008 (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, 23, 645-647.).

The text might read:

Tyrannosaurid and large theropod dinosaur tracks are very rare in deposits of latest Maastrichtian age (Lockley, 2008; Manning, 2008). Tracks initially attributed to Tyrannosaurus rex have subsequently been identified as belonging to their prey, hadrosaurs (Thulborn, 1990; Lockley and Hunt, 1994). Tracks that were purportedly made by T. rex from the Mesa Verde Group of Carbon County (Utah) were given the suitable ichnospecies Tyrannosauropus petersoni (Haubold, 1971). Lockley and Hunt (1994), however, noted that this ichnospecies was Campanian in age, which predates T. rex by several million years, and indicated that it might have been made by a hadrosaur. The ichnogenus Tyrannosauropus (Lockley and Hunt, 1994) is now considered nomen dubium. Tyrannosauripus pillmorei was described from the Upper Cretaceous Raton Formation (Northern Mexico) by Lockley and Hunt (1994), who made a convincing case for a tyrannosaur affinity, based on track size, age, and a distinctive hallux trace. No Tyrannosaurus rex bones, however, have yet been discovered from the Raton Formation. While this does not reduce the importance or validity of the Raton track, until now there have been no reports of large theropod tracks in rocks containing tyrannosaur body fossils in close geographic and stratigraphic proximity. Lockley et al. (2004) described a tridactyl theropod trackway from the Lance Formation of Wyoming, which was attributed to a possible tyrannosaurid affinity based on size alone. Subsequent fieldwork by the authors of this paper at the Wyoming trackway locality supports the theropod interpretation (Lockley et al., 2004), but given the transmitted nature of the tracks, it is difficult to assign a clear taxonomic affinity for the traces. The track described by Manning et al (2008) is the first to be found in a formation bearing tyrannosaurid (T. rex and Nanotyrannus) body fossils that displays clear features consistent with the morphology and geometry of a large theropod pes.

The morphology and stratigraphic position of the large theropod track in the Hell Creek Formation (Manning et al 2008) is consistent with what would be predicted for a tyrannosaurid dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus rex and Nanotyrannus are known from this formation and are represented in the area surrounding the site. Such taxa are potential track makers in this case, though given the conservative features of theropod pes, the Manning et al (2008) track may well belong to an as yet unknown large predatory dinosaur. Fossilphil (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one problem with your request. Just because no bones from Tyrannosaurus rex have yet been found in the Raton Formation does not mean they did not live there. It is a very rare event for bones to be preserved as fossils, most are either eaten by predators or simply dissolved in the ground, animal and plant matter require specific conditions to fossilize. And besides that, a lack of body fossils may just mean tyrannosaurids were rare in the region, but that does not necessarily mean completely absent. I'm fairly sure most terrestrial ecosystems in western North America and central Asia during the Maastrichtian had tyrannosaurids as apex predators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - no sure if this is, as it is a case of WP:TLDR. Mdann52 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

T.REX SIZE

This page clearly said that T.Rex was no more than 40 feet (12.3 meters) long, but i Did a research in the official page of sue, and they clearly said that T.REX (Sue)was 42 feet (12.8 meters) long, I dont know which is true!!! --Dinoexpert (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The latter is true, Sue measures in at 12.8 meters long, and the very largest individuals of the genus may well have been nearly 14 meters. So yes, the article's statement that Tyrannosaurus rex's maximum size was 12.3 meters is incorrect. This page could use some editing around that topic.--Dinolover45 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is the old page of Sue, the new one states 40.5 feet (12.34m) even though it wrongly converts it as 12.9m on the vital stats section. This is in line with the figure obtained in a 2011 paper where the whole mounted skeleton was laser scanned resulting in a total length of 12.29m, it goes on to show that the Field Museum didn't even measure it themselves as they went with an older, longer estimate (12.8m) instead of their own research at making the mount, the older estimate is longer because the tail was reconstructed too long (this topic was touched higher up in this talk page). Also, there is no published individuals bigger than Sue, and Wikipedia is no place to speculate, it'll help if you go to the tyrannosaurus rex profile at the theropod databse, there you'll find what happened to all the alleged "larger than sue" individuals (hint: they were all hype). Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

too long tail???, only 1.5 feet longer is not so much, also 12.3 meters is too low for such a big animal, and how do you know its the old page, 42 feet sounds more reasonable to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoexpert (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If 1.5ft is not so much then why you consider 12.3m as too low? "to me" is the keyword here and I know is the old page because you can only get there using the internet archive wayback machine. The mount was laser scanned and it resulted in 12.3m, the current Sue page says 12.3m (40.5ft). Read the paper given as source for the 12.3m, the discussion about the tail is below table 3. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)