Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

UCMP 118742

I heard about this new specimen of T. rex. I'm really interested but I can't find anything good on it. Also, one guy is proposing that Giganotosaurus was actually smaller than Tyrannosaurus. [1] --Taylor Reints 18:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs)

Didn't have time to watch the video in full, but it looks complicated. I checked out Pterosauria and read the post, but I doubt it's a subadult. If the specimen's just a mandible so far, I don't think you'd really be able to tell (unless I'm missing something). We've already found rex subadults (like Bucky, for example), so that must have been one big rex to be that big as a juvenile. Crimsonraptor (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, you're right. How could they of estimated any age with just a maxilla. To do that you'd need a wishbone, tibia, etc. --Taylor Reints 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs)

I think I found the age reference [2]. Taylor Reints 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs)

Keep in mind that dinosaurs are not humans. A 16 year old human may be considered sub-adult, but not a 16-year old T. rex. You'd have to show that T. rex kept growing a really substantial amount during its lifetime to extrapolate that big a size difference between a 16 year old adult T. rex and one that made it to extreme old age (~25 years). Coincidentally according to published growth curves this is about the time the big surge in growth occurred, so if this was simply an outlier (got big a bit earlier) or if our age estimate of the specimen is off by a couple of years (not impossible given its incompleteness) the 20yr old size will change substantially. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it still has a maxilla 29% larger than FMNH PR2081 which would nestle it comfortably in the fifteen meter range, that is if it didn't just have a big head. Taylor Reints (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

More on C-rex

There is still little info on the article. A quick Google reveals nothing except some sort of kid's vitamin. Has anything else on the specimen been even published? Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not so far. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. This guy on Wikia was being a bit hyperactive over it, so that's why I asked. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 00:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus was fast

An interesting article here on a study which says that the muscle mass in the tail of Tyrannosaurus has been underestimated by up to 45%, which would make it one of fastest creatures in the ecosystem. I don't have access to the specific journal mentioned in the article, but it's an interesting theory regarding the hunter/scavenger debate which could maybe be included in the article, if it isn't already. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of the tail muscles being used for this theory (it always comes either from the legs or the foot bones), but it makes sense considering they attach to the leg bones. I'll try and see if I can add it to the article (under Locomotion, as it currently relates more to the actual speed of the animal than how that speed would be used). Interesting news item, I like it. Crimsonraptor (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus had to be fast to catch its fast-moving prey, because other than that, it would have to be a scavenger if it was slow-moving.--Dinoexpert129848 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Posture pic

The caption for the Charles Knight painting states that it depicts the animal in a "tripod" position; ie the tail acting as a third support. The shadow clearly indicates that this is not the case and it is actually a little unfair to Knight who generally depicted his theropods as highly dynamic with their tails raised off the ground (Leaping Laelaps being an extreme example).

Perhaps the caption could be adjusted to state that it depicts an outdated upright stance rather than tripod per se? Or substitute another pic that actually does show the animal using its tail for support. 203.59.139.230 (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that we do not even have a picture of Tyrannosaurus in a tripod stance available, so I guess you can just go ahead and change the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IP can't change the caption; the article is semi-protected. Can you do the edit? If not, I or someone else will as soon as possible. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the caption. Also there are images (i.e. [:File:AMNH rex mount.png]) in the history section that could be used to illustrate the tripod pose. de Bivort 04:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Would have edited it myself if not for semi-protection. 203.59.139.230 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You should sign up for an account! de Bivort 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But then they'd have to worry about all the free trial offers and blah blah. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 08:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're forced to look at Jimbo's face in annoying ads even if you have an account. But on topic, are there any actual scientific life restorations of tail dragging Tyrannosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually know...you'd think there'd be one though. Will Google. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Manospondylus Correct?

I heard that Manospondylus was not a nomen dubium, because it has to have three things to make it dubious and that is: the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years. So doesn't that make Manospondylus valid and Tyrannosaurus incorrect? --Taylor Reints 01:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are the cireteria for nomen oblitum, not nomen dubium. Nomen dubium has no definition that I know of, but either way, even if it is correct (I argued on my blog a while back that it probably is), it would go against the consensus in paleontology to use that name (the consensus being, let's simply ignore the rules rather than actually do something to fix the problem). MMartyniuk (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that since Tyrannosaurus is just a popular name were going to ignore the ICZN rules and make Manospondylus incorrect? --Taylor Reints 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs)

New ICZN rule here: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/priority/index.html Crimsonraptor (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That actually is NOT the new rule. Nothing in the current ICZN says a name has to be unused for 50 years. That's a misinterpretation of the old rule.My blog post on the subject. And yes, as it stands now, unless and until a paper is published which satisfies the actual rule, Manospondylus is technically the correct name. This is so annoying to deal with I'm tempted to bang out a quick paper that satisfies the ICZN rule and actually make M. gigas a nomen oblitum myself ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah.

So then is there anything that clears this up? Crimsonraptor (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The answers so far are 'Manospondylus isn't diagnostic enough to know it's Tyrannosaurus' (possibly true, but messy since what are the chances that we have lots of Tyrannosaurus and none but one fragmentary specimen of a similarly-sized tyrannosaur genus from the same place and time - Manospondylus = Tyrannosaurus is far more parsimonious) or 'ignore the issue'. 128.194.250.115 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Shoot. Er...I agree with Dinoguy then on publishing a quick paper. :) Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 14:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

New paper for hunter/scavenger debate

user:Tigerstripe88 has requested this paper be incorporated:

• Carbone, Chris; Turvey, Samuel T.; Bielby, Jon (January 26, 2011). "Intra-guild Competition and its Implications for One of the Biggest Terrestrial Predators, Tyrannosaurus rex". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278 (1718): 2682. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2497.

I took a stab at it, please take a look. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The short piece you added is good, and probably enough for that particular source. The paper is severely flawed, I wrote about it here: [3] MMartyniuk (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Flawed is perhaps an understatement...I commented on the post, showing only ONE example of the flaws. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Jurassic Museum of Asturias 13/02/2011

Hello: I just want to mention that the two dinosaurs in mating possition appearing in the T rex article, are not T rexes, they are allosaurs. The majory of the fossil in the Jurassic Museum of Asturias are from Asturias which is in Spain (Europe), and how everybody know the T rexes never existed in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.97.31 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they are rexes. There are several differences in the size, skull, and fingers, among any others. And, as you said, the majority of the material is local, but not all. The Natural History Museum in London has a rex, but they weren't local. Famous dinosaurs are often cast and brought to museums around the world. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The museum also has casts of Camarasaurus and Plateosaurus, whic are not found in Spain either. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Infectious salvia

As this article is blocked, I have to write here. I think the chapter "Infectious salvia" should be completley removed, as

• the Komodo Dragon does NOT use infectious salvia, he possesses venom glands, a deep homology in the Toxicofera (see Fry et al (2009): A central role for venom in predation by Varanus komodoensis (Komodo Dragon) and the extinct giant Varanus (Megalania) priscus. PNAS 106(22), p. 8969-8974).
• Therefore this theory lacks its main justification, the comparison with the extant Varanus komodoensis. And by the way, this really venturous theory was not published in a well recognised scientific journal like Science or Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology.

So please remove those few sentences. Cheers, --87.144.122.78 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the section should reflect these are just speculations of Adler. I don't have the book, but I will read it and clarify. I have edited the section to reflect what appears to be going on in the text: that the scientist is merely speculating on what may have been. Preliminary speculation.

In addition, I'm not sure how Adler says it, but pieces of carcass have bacteria. It appears that Adler is saying T.'s flora were the bacteria that causes infection, not just whatever bacteria was in the carcass. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The theory was suggested in another book too (as usual, I can't rememeber the title...$%#@&), but that was the only time I'd heard of it so it wouldn't be a good backup source. Sadly the paper that started the theory doesn't seem to be online, otherwise I could give more info. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If we provide a platform for this theory, we could also accept the theory of that big egg-laying p*** (sry guys) for sauropods in Walking with Dinosaurs, and cite a Tim Haines book as source. I'd really appreciate if this chapter was removed, and especially the sentence "deadly, infectious bite much like the Komodo Dragon". And if you think logically, that theory is significantly weakened by the (now known) lack of extant, comparable behavior, and it is highly unlikely that Tyrannosaurus had venom glands like Sinornithosaurus (<irony>but who knows, maybe its a deep homology</irony>). So please remove this highly spectacular and not at all reasoned chapter. --87.144.118.80 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that all animals have deadly bacteria in their mouth, including humans. No animals are known to actually use this as a prey-killing strategy. Komodo dragons were thought to in the past, but this was summarily disproved when it turned out they used actual venom. So applying the same logic to T. rex no longer makes any sense. (And Sinornithosaurus almost certainly does not have venom glands. The supposed spaces are present in all dinosaurs, so it would truely be a deep homology if real also shared with herbivorous species.) MMartyniuk (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So by now, I'm signed up. I want this to keep the quality level of this article as high as it currently is. I personally would never include such a speculative passage in one of my articles, and this theory is kind of "proven to be wrong" by Fry et al (2009). By the way, Scientific American isn't that bad, but not as scientific as a source about such a odd theory should be. And as you said, this is not a prey-killing strategy in any extant animal, so the original reasoning of this theory is outdated. "infectious bite much like the Komodo Dragon is completly wrong, even if the passage about this theory will be kept. I still want it to be removed, unless you can give me a real evidence or a really good source. --Martin-rnr (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Debunked, then. Do we just delete the entire section on that or just note that the theory was disproved? Crimsonraptor (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As this theory is not of historic value (e.g. in comparison with aquatic-sauropods-theory), we don't need to include it in the article if it's disproven. Imo it's only one of the many hundreds of, let's say "interesting" theory about dinosaurs in popular media. --Martin-rnr (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, section removed! :) Crimsonraptor (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work, catching the problem, reaching a sound resolution via the talk page. Speculation should only be included if it is, of itself, the subject of significant coverage. Too many science articles on wikipedia report some editors pet theory. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the Komodo Dragon DID have a very "yucky" mouth full of Bacteria. It is in many books I've read. (no small amount).Dinotitan (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That was the original theory, but now we've found they are actually venomous. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should mention that it has been proposed at some point, and what the problems with the theory are. The poison thing was pretty well known at one point, so it's better to disprove it here than to leave it absent. People who read the article and know of the theory would never know that it isn't accepted otherwise. So the old text should be tweaked, and not have its own section. Here it is, by the way:

Infectious saliva

Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey. This theory was first proposed by William Abler. Abler examined the teeth of tyrannosaurids between each tooth serration; the serrations may have held pieces of carcass with bacteria, giving Tyrannosaurus a deadly, infectious bite much like the Komodo Dragon. However, Jack Horner regards Tyrannosaurus tooth serrations as more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Will this be placed in the diet secton, then? Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 00:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also be pointed out that the idea that Komodo Dragons use their "infectious saliva" to kill prey has been overturned by the discovery that they have true venom? The saliva is infectious, and no doubt so was that of T. rex, but the idea that it was a predation strategy seems laughable in light of this (it should also be noted that all saliva contains infectious bacteria, even, and especially, your own!). MMartyniuk (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated paragraph:

Infectious saliva

Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey. This theory was first proposed by William Abler. Abler examined the teeth of tyrannosaurids between each tooth serration; the serrations may have held pieces of carcass with bacteria, giving Tyrannosaurus a deadly, infectious bite much like the Komodo Dragon was thought to have. However, Jack Horner regards Tyrannosaurus tooth serrations as more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded. All forms of saliva contain possibly hazardous bacteria, so the prospect of it being used as a method of predation is disputable.

How does that work? Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, I don't think it needs a separate header though, just put it under feeding strategies. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Will add (minus heading). Really that heading was just to keep things organized. Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 12:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation of "Tyrannosaurus rex"

I've noticed in the archives a discussion about the correct translation of Tyrannosaurus rex. As far as my Latin goes, rex would be an apposition to Tyrannosaurus, so the most correct translation would be "tyrant lizard, the king" or "tyrant lizard, a king", or alternatively "King Tyrant Lizard", as in Oedipus rex, not "tyrant lizard king" as the article currently states. In fact, Binomial nomenclature#Species name supports my argument. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I decided to be bold as Osborn's article does not seem to contradict my argument. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, species name are usually appositional, and when translated are placed before the genus (species are specific, genera are generic, and in English the specifier usually comes first. For example, "emperor penguin is a specific type of penguin. King tyrant lizard is a specific type of tyrant lizard). This is why everyone criticized the name Mei long: If it wee incorrectly translated as in the "tyrant lizard king" example it would mean "sleeping dragon" as the authors intended. Instead, it literally translates as "dragon, sleeping". MMartyniuk (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Linnean names are always latinIZED, the words do not always come from Latin. And though tyrannus was already in ancient times LOANED from Greek, it is nethertheless a LOANWORD even in Latin. If we take the Greek word, the translation is rather "king" than "tyrant" (in the sense of an evil ruler), the word being almost a synonym to "basileus". To be frank, Tyrannus in Tyrannosaurus rex means the same as rex, only in Greek. A combination of using the Greek and Latin name for one Animal as the Linnean term is also found, e.g. the raven, which is corvus corax. --89.15.68.122 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarbosaurus

I think that this article should list Tarbosaurus bataar as a possible synonym of Tyrannosaurus rex. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has ever suggested that the species T. bataar is a synonym of the species T. rex. What they have suggested is that the species T. bataar belongs in the genus Tyrannosaurus along with the species T. rex. No sources in recent years have supported this subjective opinion, so it should be considered outdated. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Size

I've noticed that several old sources state that Tyrannosaurus grew to 50 feet (15 meters), although I have not seen this measure in recent sources. What happened to the 50-foot tyrannosaur? 70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know which sources? Could be certain fragmentary remains announced in the '90s that were grossly overestimated due to slight proportional differences. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, many pre-1990s figures are based on estimates with too long of a tail. J. Spencer (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Who was getting too much tail Spencer?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Peter Larson and Ken Carpenter talk about overly-long Tyrannosaurus tails in their book. They state that the tail of Osborne's AMNH reconstruction was about 10 feet too long; this was pointed out in 1970. The number has been revised downward since then, although I've seen several websites with theropod illustrations with ridiculously long, sauropod-style whip-like tails. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The cite is Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King, pg 401. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lame images

I'm getting a bit concerned about images amongst various dinosaur articles that have no support from a reliable source. This article is an FA, meaning that every statement is verified by a reliable source. But these images, which impart certain features and qualities of the animals, are based upon....nothing, but the artists imagination. Sure an image from some Natural History Museum is fine. But what credentials and expertise do these random artists have? None as best as I can tell. Besides, even if they have credentials in 3D imaging and dinosaurs, and worked for Spielberg on Jurassic Park, that means nothing to the project. Time for them to go. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the changes you've made. The accuracy of this image [4] is sourced to Darren Naish, a well-known vertebrate paleontologist. These images [5] [6] are by Nobu Tamura, a highly prolific paleoartist who has contributed a huge number of dinosaur illustrations to Wikipedia, and who is generally very attentive to accuracy. I don't know anything about the artist to this image [7], but based on my own knowledge of paleontology I do not see anything blatantly inaccurate about the image. Unless clear anatomical reasons for removing them can be provided - or unless they are immediately replaced with something clearly better - I don't think they should be removed. If every paleontology image required the artist to be a professional with credentials in order to be included, Wikipedia would have barely any paleontology images. Additionally, there is always this venue [8] for assessing the accuracy of dinosaur illustrations. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OM, most images I've seen in Nat history museums are far out of date. Those institutions simply don't have the budget to commission updated art every year to reflect new discoveries. Lucky for us, those images are not available to Wikipedia anyway because of a thing called copyright. Sourcing an image to a reliable publication (i.e., creating a visual interpretation of the data present in those sources) is no different than creating a written summary of the source, which is what makes up 100% of all Wikipedia articles. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, edit summaries like " I don't see a fucking citation?" are inappropriate. Please cool off. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I do think that the locations of the digital reconstruction images (both here and at Triceratops) might be poorly-chosen, as the width of the image disrupts the flow of the article. However, I do not think they should be automatically removed without discussion with "no RS" being the reason, when Darren Naish is clearly cited in the image descriptions. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, some of the images have been verified by paleontologists or compared with published information. Whether all of the images add anything to the articles is another question. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So that's how we roll here. Endorsements by editors. Great, there goes the medical articles. Some silly IP editor is going to write "jumping up and down on your left foot will cure diabetes." And based on this precedent, we accept it. It fails WP:RS on so many levels, but the dinosaur guys say it's all right to make verifiability workable as long as three or four editors say "sure, it looks good to me." Impressive. Some of the images are taken right out of publications, and, despite some concerns about copyrights, at least they were published. Let me draw some stick figures of a dinosaur, scan it into a png file, and post it here. Because at least I have a Ph.D., am published in reliable sources, and am the world's leading expert in everything that's ever been written about dinosaurs. I can make that claim because dinosaur articles have no standards on verifiability. This is going to be a one rocking good time.

The images are lame. But you guys own the article, don't give two craps about my concerns serious policy issues, and blast me the out of here by saying "these guys who made the images are blessed by the holy god of all things dinosaur." Seriously, I'm giddy that medical articles have a much higher standard than this smelly crap.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you demand something that is really not possible. While I'd be happy to kick nearly all reconstructions (because they are shit) from fossil taxa pages, the simple fact is that you can't even begin to source all the info contained in an image. What about colour - do you wish to add a statement to each reconstruction image explaining that we do not know dino colours, sourced to e.g., The Complete Dinosaur? Skull shape - find out what original publication the artist used and cite that? It is simply impossible.

So what can we do? First, we can use pics endorsed by scientists. Second, we can use historical images. Third, we can stop using art and stick to the very few recons published in scientific papers.--HMallison (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion isn't new, by the way, and all arguments put forth above have been made already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Archive_4#Illustrated_reconstructions_of_extinct_species FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you don't seem to understand how policy intersects with paleoart here, nor do you seem to have much respect for the artists who bust their ass helping Wikipedia communicate scientific information to the public. I would like to take this as a personal opportunity to thank Arthur Weasley, Dinoguy, Apokryltaros, SteveOC 86, and our other paleoartists who I might not be familiar with on a screen-name basis. Thank you. Thank you for your hard work, skill, knowledge, and generosity even in the face of bad-faith wikilawyering. Don't bash peoples' lack of credentials, Orange Marlin; no one in this thread but Heinrich Mallison has any "real" credentials. If you have specific scientific issues with specific images, you can raise them at the WP:DINO's image review; there's a link at the project page. Try not to insult other editors or disrupt articles. Abyssal (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of images, the lead one was changed on the basis of being higher qualit than the old one, but it seems to be even more unclear and shows less of the animal than the old one. The composition is arguabl worse as well. FunkMonk

Paleopathology

Is there any objection to me adding a section on paleopathology? Abyssal (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In 2001, Bruce Rothschild and others published a study examining evidence for stress fractures and tendon avulsions in theropod dinosaurs and the implications for their behavior. Since stress fractures are caused by repeated trauma rather than singular events they are more likely to be caused by regular behavior than other types of injuries. Of the 81 Tyrannosaurus foot bones examined in the study one was found to have a stress fracture, while none of the 10 hand bones were found to have stress fractures. The researchers found tendon avulsions only among Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus. An avulsion injury left a divot on the humerus of Sue the T. rex, apparently located at the origin of the deltoid or teres major muscles. The presence of avulsion injuries being limited to a the forelimb and shoulder in both Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus suggests that theropods may have had a musculature more complex and functionally different than those of birds. The researchers concluded that Sue's tendon avulsion was probably obtained from struggling prey. The presence of stress fractures and tendon avulsions in general provide evidence for a "very active" predation-based diet rather than obligate scavenging.

No one's expressed any objections, so I'm adding this to the article. Abyssal (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some confusion?

As I told in the Tyrannosaurus in popular culture discussion page (here) I think there's some confusion between two Tyrannosaurus paintings by Charles R. Knight. Can anybody bring some help to clarify the question ? Kintaro (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article. End of the story. Kintaro (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

New Tyranosaur theory

Recently people found 68 specimens of tabosaurs very close together including juveniles. A new theory has emerged, we belive tabosaurs along with other tyranosaurides might have been pack hunters. We have some evidence such as the size of its brain showing enlarged sensory organs and the new fact that juveniles can run at speeds of 40 miles per hour. Here is link http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/dino-gangs-videos/#icpgn=vvdsc . Hopefully however wrote will add this new theory to the pages information and Im glad to have help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.233.106 (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Define "new" - this theory, virtually accepted as fact now, has been around for a decade at least. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Accepted as fact? By whom? AFAIK only Phil Currie and maybe Bob Bakker support it. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Bipedalism

What advantage can the animal have derived from being bipedal? You can't imagine leopards etc walking on their back legs only. I can only think that it's increased height must have helped it. Does anyone know anything about this? SmokeyTheCat 07:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

All theropods of any size are bipedal, so that wouldn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, all theropods then. The question remains. Bipedalism is very rare so I am curious. All modern hunting animals use their front legs to grab their prey. The theropods couldn't have done this as their forearms are too short. SmokeyTheCat 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You must mean virtually all Tyrannosaurs - many theropods had arms long enough to be useful in holding on to prey - aka Spinosaurus, the various raptors, etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's by no means rare to see a bipedal carnivore. Have you forgotten about every sort of carnivorous bird that has ever existed?--137.146.143.192 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Arms

Would T-rex's arms have been visible when it was alive. You can see vestigial limbs on the skeletons of some snakes, but they are not visible on a living animal. Perhaps this was the case with tyrannosaurs too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes they would have. The presence of tendon avulsions demonstrate they were likely used while subduing prey. Abyssal (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus' arms were not vestigial in any sort of way. So yes, they would have been visible.--137.146.143.192 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Height at hips

In the 2nd paragrpaph it says "up to 4 metres (13 ft) tall at the hips" but on other websites i'm sure it said something like five to six metres tall, what's going on?! B903hd11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by B903hd11 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Which other sites are you talking about? did they say 5-6m tall at the hips or just in general (which could mean standing in a Godzilla pose)? MMartyniuk (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Largest tyrannosaur

The article states that Tyrannosaurus was the largest known tyrannosaur, but doesn't its record for being large get more generic than that. If I am not mistaken, it is also the largest coelurosaur, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Senter & Robins in 2010 gave a range of extrapolated possible hip heights for Deinocheirus, the upper end of which range surpassed the known hip height of Sue.--MWAK (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

may not be true so dont count on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.75.73 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Popularity

What exactly is it that the public loves about Tyrannosaurus? I'm not judging them, T.rex happens to be one of my favourite theropods as well, but I can't help but wonder what they see in it that they don't see in other similarly sized theropods such as Saurophaganax, Acrocanthosaurus, and Mapusaurus among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a question or concern about the article? de Bivort 16:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but you don't have to be rude about it. You have to create an account to chat on other sites which I don't like doing. And yes, I am the same writer of the above comment, my username is only different because I'm logged off at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Tyrannosaurus has always received a great deal of attention from the media, and the more attention it receives, the more attention will be given to it. Had Allosaurus been covered by the media instead of Tyrannosaurus, hardly anyone today would care about Tyrannosaurus, and many people wouldn't know what it was. It's simply a matter of which one got popular first.

In answer to your quest for a place to post questions without registering, I actually just opened up (a few hours ago, incidentally) the Bone Bed dinosaur forum (the URL is lotp.tk) so guests may post without registering since I figured (correctly, it would appear) registration must have been deterring guests. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, wasn't trying to be rude. de Bivort 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think part of it has to do with the catchy simplicity of the name "T. Rex", it's very easy for children to say and for adults to say to child. Thus, young children, boys in particular, love to play make believe games about the animal. That's only a small part of it, but I think the simplicity in which the name can be said by the average adult and child lends to its popularity. Just a theory, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonhalliwell (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I presume the main reason is simply that it has been presented as the "largest terrestrial carnivore of all time" in almost all popular science books about dinosaurs since William Diller Matthew's The Dinosauria of 1915.--MWAK (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody really started to refer to it as "T. rex" until the late 1980s when Bob Bakker and Jurassic Park popularized the shortened name. When I was a kid it was simply "Tyrannosaurus". I think being the biggest carnivore helped, as well as its early popularity, early display of the skeleton in major museums, etc. It also helps that it's from one of the most well-known dino faunas. You'll notice most of the most popular dinosaurs are from either the Morrison formation (Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, etc.) or the Lance formation (Tyrannosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Triceratops, "Trachodon", etc.). That's no coincidence--artists and science popularizes heavily relied those well-sampled formations in the early 20th Century. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And it is an American dinosaur :o). I think it's true that predominantly naming it "T. rex" was a late development, though I'm not so sure we can blame Mr Bakker for this: see e.g. T. Rex (band). But from an early stage onwards it was common to use the full species name, Tyrannosaurus rex. In The Dinosauria it is the only dinosaur of which the specific name is mentioned by Diller himself (he also cites some quotes and at the end of the book other paleontologists reflect upon their work). The true culprit might be Osborn who deliberately gave a grandiose name. He was a follower of the school of orthogenetics and was convinced Tyrannosaurus rex was the final development of an evolutionary trend (literally understood, as a causal genetic process) of increasing body size in the Theropoda.--MWAK (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

I want to change the name of the "Tyrannosaurus" Page to Tyrannosaurus Rex

24.84.14.76 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, most dinosaur articles are about the genera. In this particular case, it happens that historically more than one Tyrannosaurus species has been named, so that is an additional argument to let the article title coincide with the generic name.--MWAK (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Marking as answered given the above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Manospondylus section

Doesn't it fit better in the history section? Seems a bit out of place now, since it has more to do with dry priority than actual classification. Some of it is also repeated there, which seems superfluous. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I made the move to the end of the History section as it deals with the recent re-discovery of the type specimen. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:57, 8 May 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. [9] 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: [10] 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)

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)