Talk:Tyrannosaurus

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

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.

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: [3] 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)

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)

But it is really indeed proteins in the purified Tyrannosaurus bone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.177.75 (talk) 07:47, 17 October 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)

Regarding the Tyrannosaurus sexual dimorphism

If you all read Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King (Life of the Past) book by Peter Larson and Kenneth Carpenter, Larson state that he don't believe that the differences between individuals are only indicative of geographic variation and he also state the Tyrannosaurus specimen MOR 1125 aka B-rex, is a robust specimen. Medullary bone had been found in the specimen's femur by Schweitzer. Then it is really confirmed that female Tyrannosaurs are larger and heavier than their male counterparts? But I still having doubt about Larson's statement anyway. I personally don't believe what Schweitzer discovered in the specimen's femur is indeed medullary bone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.176.102 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bite Force

Why its bite force is never mentioned?, i have heard that a group of Scientists made computer models to estimate its bite force and cocluded that was somewhere between 3 and 6 tons of pressure, or even 8 tons using a minimal force from bite marks. Can you include a new section with the title "Bite force"?--Dinoexpert (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it is mentioned: "...other skull-strengthening features are part of the tyrannosaurid trend towards an increasingly powerful bite, which easily surpassed that of all non-tyrannosaurids." References 17, 18, and 19 if you're interested in looking them up. Now that you mention it though, that does seem a bit light on the info considering the amount of research that has been done on the subject. Anybody else have thoughts? Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)