Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tyrannosaurus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Early text

Given the size of Tyrannosaurus, and combined with the fact that they were almost certainly warm-blooded, paleontologist James Farlow calculated the number of lawyers a grown Tyrannosaurus had to eat (based on a scene from Jurassic Park, in which a lawyer became T-Rex chow) to stay alive. Taken an average weight of 68 kilograms, 292 lawyers would be needed to keep one T-Rex happy - case dismissed!

Objection! Had to eat per what? Day? Week? Year? --Pinkunicorn

Ooooops, will change it right away --[User:Arco Scheepen|]

T.Rex is merely the best known (famous) -not the biggest predator (and therefore presumably the most fearsome). Several are larger. --rmhermen

Contentious but Unreferenced Stuff

As the article currently stands, the third paragraph under "Predator, Scavenger or Both?" contradicts factual material presented in the first two paragraphs under that section, but does not cite any references. Also, the third paragraph doesn't seem to be aware of the existence of the preceding material, since the question the third paragraph raises ("But why be so well armed if T-rex was a scavenger?") is already answered (because breaking bones is handy for extracting marrow).

There are similar but less severe problems for the last paragraph under the section "Adapted for running?" A citation for the consensus walking speed of T. Rex is provided, but no citation is provided that supports the claim that chickens and crocodilians are an inaccurate model for T. Rex locomotion. No information is supplied to suggest wind resistance is a significant source of resistance to movement for T. Rex, or chickens. It is unclear what a carnivorous diet has to do with locomotion in this context. And the point about muscle structure and the resultant uncertainty is taken, but it is certainly true that as a result of examination of bone processes a lot is known (as opposed to inferred or guessed) about the musculature of T. Rex.

Much of the aforementioned stuff is repeated under "Discussion of Horner's Claims." And the last two paragraphs under that section are redundant.

In short, this article needs some specific cleaning up and quite a bit more citation for the predator model of T. Rex lifestyle. I know something about the subject, but I don't know the literature, so I'm not sure I should be the one to do this. I'll give it a week or two and if nobody else steps forward, I'll do some surgery myself. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 17:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Predator vs scavenger

much as modern-day lions often take the kills of hyenas and other smaller predators.

This example is not good since it's usually the hyenas who steal from the lions.

http://www.wildwatch.com/resources/mammals/lions.asp and http://www.geocities.com/lions_of_safrica/scavenger.htm say otherwise. Actually, the theft ratio is highest for lions stealing from cheetahs and leopards. --user:Belltower

OK, I'll agree that both lions and hyenas are thieves of each other, but it's not clear which does most. There's no doubt that both will steal from the smaller cats. Eclecticology

What real difference does it make if Tyrannosaures Rex stole kills from other animals. Yes a lion my steal a kill from time to time but the bulk of their diet and indeed their morphology is exquisitely suited for bringing down prey. The same can be said of T. Rex

Most predators of which I am aware are not above stooping to eat someone else's kill if it is readily available

I think that T-rex was a predator because in the teen years of a T-rex the animal would put on 5-pounds a day until it was full grow around the age of twenty. I found this at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0811_040811_trex.html.

I coundn't see how the Rex could find this stuff laying around and gain that wieght. But I could see that if a T-rex was starving it would steal from a smaller predator, but mainly I think it was a predator.

Pictures?

What other pictures of parts of the T Rex to upload. I have the front arms/claws, the feet, the backbone and tail, and more (bigger) pictures of the skull. Any bigger pictures of the skull will show the armature which is holding up the fossil bones. Any requests? As you can see, the Field Museum has the holiday decorations up. I can't get rid of those til later, and it will take a trip to Chicago to get more pictures. There are pictures with people in them to get an idea of the size. Also, I have to shrink the images because they can be huge. Is there a use for the huge pictures. Ancheta Wis 01:24, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Doubts about T. rex?

I was watching a discovery program which questioned the widely held belief that T. Rex was a mighty predator. As evidence the small useless arms, the ratio of its leg bones (making it a slow runner) and poor vision is presented. This combined with good smelling leads paleontolgist Jack Horner to think that T. rex was not a predator but instead a scavenger. Has anyone heard about this, do the ideas have any support in the science community, and could someone write a section about it?

A google search turns up a few interesting hits[1].

T.rex right forearm, the claws are as large as a man's hand. The arms are as large as a man's arms. T. rex could do damage with them; they are not useless.

This image, taken at the Field Museum of Natural History, shows the size of the right arm. Bear in mind that the arms of this T. rex are as large as a man's arms, and that T.rex could definitely do damage with them. Note the claws; they are as large as a man's hand. Ancheta Wis 06:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Also, note the wishbone between the clavicles of T.rex. This is the first wishbone of T.rex to be found.

I think tyrannosaurus is thought to be some sort of overlord of prehistoric times or somthing (to most children anyway) because a lot of children's movies and other stories have a tyrannosaurus dominating every fight. (Pardon my grammar and spelling)

Images and templates

At Polish Wikipedia there are some images, that ilustrate everything about T. rex. That's all my pictures you can download them, they are under GFDL license. I prepare them for international use so there are, no texts on images (generaly, when I could do that). The word is: Tyranozaur.
I can cooperate with exchanging infos and images about dinos (write any questions on my discusion page in English).

You can make comparisons between human and dinos using my templates, at Media Wiki- Commons there are more informations, images plased at Commons are directly accessible at your language Wiki, like it was placed at your language Wiki file repository. But you must be sure that, file with the some name doesn't exist on your language Wiki file repository! -PioM

More predator vs. scavenger stuff

I don't have a reference for this on-hand, but I've heard it argued that the number of calories an animal as large as T. rex would require in order to survive would've prevented it from breing able to subsist on carcasses alone. In other words, it needed to eat too much and too often to just wait around for things to die.

I'm not a paleontologist, but I know enough to say with some certainty that the metabolism of T-Rex and dinosaurs in general can only be speculated in.

Another theory is that the tyrannosaurs as a group evolved in response to the enlarging, slower-moving and heavily armored prey animals that coincided with their own evolution. This parallel alone would, at least on the surface, seem to indicate predator-prey coevolution between the tyrannosaurs and the herbivores of their time. Under this hypothesis, the tyrannosaurs' "scavenger" adaptations actually served to help them prey on large, slow, well-armored prey such as the ankylosaurs, and so as a group they would not be expected to have evolved the features of smaller, more agile curosrial predators, but would have done fine with larger versions of otherwise scavenger-like features. Even vultures sometimes prey on defenseless and slow-moving animals, and when opposed by a tyrannosaur, very few contemporary species could've defended themselves adequately. A good solid bite from a Tyrannosaurus rex would probably be lethal to any land animal that ever existed, unless either heavily armored (allowing it more time to escape) or large enough to fight back and prevent recieving such a solid bite to begin with (such as Edmontosaurus and Triceratops) -- thus giving the animal some hope of surviving the encounter.

Wouldn't the large brain of Tyrannosaurus rex be a possible indicator of a scavenging lifestyle? Hominids were thought to have first begun evolving high intelligence while scavenging in the savannah, and Crows (also scavengers) are the most intelligent group of birds. It's also interesting to note that both Hominids and Crows are generalists, and many of the features of Tyrannosaurus rex seem adapted for any of a variety of functions, indicating that it too might have been a generalist (possibly leading to the theory above, that it would have to hunt and scavange in order to intake enough calories). --Corvun 09:42, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Higby Schweitzer

When one of us wikipedian get time, we need an article on Mary Higby Schweitzer. I thought she had to be really lucky from this article. [2]

Walking, running or hopping?

When dicussing the way the T-Rex walked, why is it that people always get the idea that the T-Rex walked or ran? Isn' it more likely that it hopped around, since it had legs, arms and a tail like a Kangoroo ? Maybe it even killed its pray by hopping on top of them? seriously - ever thought of that? Anonymous

The T-rex wasn't built like a kangaroo. It doesn't look like a hopper to me. Alexander 007 05:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the "sliping" article isn't from my keyboard - maybe the author even meant "sleeping"? :-) actually I must say that my question was rather serious - and your explanation hasn't yet convinced me. What does the T-Rex have, that the kangaroo has not? Anonymous 17 June 2005

You seem to be looking only at the superficial outline of a T-rex's body---but the T-rex is not built like a kangaroo, nor is it the size or weight of a kangaroo---and it could not hop like a kangaroo. Case closed. Alexander 007 7 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

I agree with Alexander 007. You have to realise, Anonymous, that Tyrannosaurus weighed 7-8 tons. A kangaroo is maybe 100-150 (I'm not sure, but it is much less than Tyrannosaurus). When deciding on the movement of an extinct animal, you don't consider the shape of the animal, but the way the muscles are arranged. Tyrannosaurus had massive muscles in its legs that were designed to support its weight. The kangaroo, being much smaller, has massive muscles arranged to give it powerful forward/downward thrust. This allows it quickly burst out hopping if it feels endangered or if it just wants to get from point A to point B. Tyrannosaurus was designed for quick bursts of speed at around 25 mph. Kangaroos are designed for hopping over short distances.

No harm done though. Read more about Tyrannosaurus and Kangaroos! Shuuvuia

Or sliping? 81.63.79.237 12:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, not a hopping or a slipping (?) creature. What verb do you want to try next. Alexander 007 08:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hopping is terribly inefficient for larger animals. Remember that the relative energy expenditure is a function of the absolute height of the jump. Or: a larger hopping animal makes higher jumps, but this isn't compensated by the fact it's larger.--MWAK 21:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a reaonable explanation (better than just 'case closed' :-) ) - can you show this also by the physiognomie of the T-Rex? Does this reflect somewhere in the skeleton? -- Anonymous, 4 Dec 2005

Well, the hopping adaptations of kangaroos reside mainly in the tendon system. It would be difficult to translate that to a theropod skeleton, in order to see whether or not some smaller species hopped. But you weren't the first to think of this possibility, see e.g. http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Apr/msg00082.html. Also consider that none of the many small theropod foot prints found show a hopping animal. For a giant like Tyrannosaurus even running is suspect: the main reason Hutchinson thinks T. rex couldn't run fast (maximum 25mph) is that the leg would likely collapse by the impact of a larger vertical movement. Gregory S. Paul is presently working on a model showing that T. rex could still run if only it used a running mode that minimised that vertical movement. Still this would reduce speed, so the old 45mph estimates are definitely abandoned, I fear: about 35mph is the best we may hope for.--MWAK 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I’m removing the unsupported claim “T. rex also had very large legs compared to body length, suggesting it could have run long distances.” Frankly, saying T. rex could run long distances simply because it had relatively long legs is like saying a car is fast simply by looking at it without seeing what’s under the hood. Further, the leg structure (shin to thigh length) in T. rex is the exact opposite of what should occur in long-distance runners. As far as I know, long legs simply provide long-distance strides. This, however, only suggests that T. rex could be relatively fast while walking. Long-distance running has more to do with the efficiency of the heart than it has with long legs. If anyone insists on keeping the deleted assertion, at least please provide sources showing correlation between long legs and long-distance running. Thanks. --Every1blowz 13:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Even if it were a logical inference, unless there's a scientific paper that suggests T.rex could run long distances because it had long legs, or that it could hop, etc., any mention of such things would be original research and thus against the rules. People, if you don't have a cite for a claim, don't put it in the article.Dinoguy2 14:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dethroned as the Largest Therapod"?

"New finds have dethroned it as the largest theropod, but T. rex will very likely remain a point of ongoing scientific research and popular culture."

This is highly debatable. The two or three therapods now considered to be larger than Tyrannosaurus are known from very scant remains, and their size estimates overlap with those of Tyrannosaurus. Also, the Dinosauricon website's entry on Tyrannosaurus states that new fossils have been found in Asia of a T. rex (or possibly another Tyrannosaurid) that are so large, compared to those of more complete finds, that they suggest a Tyrannosaur much, much larger than the new finds which have supposedly "dethroned" T. rex as the largest therapod.

It also bears mentioning that even a layman's glance at the reconstructed fossils shows a Tyrannosaurus far more athletic and agile than any of the other (comparatively clumsy) animals that are anywhere near its size. Even the smaller and more lightly built Spinosaurus looks as if it could hardly rear up on its hind legs, let alone run on them. --Corvun 17:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've also heard that the few therapods that could be considered "larger" than T.rex (Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus) were only centimeters longer, and significantly lighter. So if we're going on overall size icluding weight, T.rex is still the largest therapod.--Rob117 01:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Two points:

It is "theropod" :o).
The remains of Spinosaurus found by Stromer are very difficult to interpret; it's possible they indicate an individual that was a third longer than Sue. This individual was a subadult; later found fragmentary remains indicate specimens that are again over a third longer (not larger) than the Stromer one. For some mind-boggling details, consult http://dml.cmnh.org and search for "largest theropod". Especially http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Dec/msg00216.html might be very interesting--MWAK 21:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Paleo Template?

Why doesn't T-Rex have a Paleo Template project?

Manospondylus gigas

A few years ago there was talk about having to change T.rex to Manospondylus gigas, because a vertabra found and named in 1892 as M. gigas is now recognized as belonging to T.rex, which was not named until 1905. In 2000 this was solved by the ICZN making a new rule, so the name T.rex stayed valid. Should we put this in? [unsigned]

See http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/priority/ Rob117 23:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Lengis 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My edit summary

My edit summary from (02:46, 22 November 2005) stated: "Copyedit. The checkpoint is still 'frequently' manned according to sources, if not permanently. Please no not remove my edits, but add to them. Also, please add source. That's how NPOV is achieved." All I meant to type was "Copyedit", and the browser cache apparently filled out the space with an earlier edit summary that also began with "copyedit" for a completely unrelated article that I edited before. I just noticed this today. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I was wondering about that! Banana04131 03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Dinosaur Comics contains a T-rex as a main character. Lots and lots of comics, movies, TV shows, etc use T.rex as a character. While I'm not opposed to a pop culture section entirely (though preferably as a seperate entry), on its own this is pretty useless. Dinoguy2 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Baseless Assertions

From the most recent batch of edits by 83.131.61.72:
One would expect that scavenger might not need the advanced depth perception that stereoscopic vision affords, but rather a wide area of sight generated by sideways-pointing eyes. However, this is hardly a convincing evidence, since many modern-day scavangers, such as jackals and hyenas, in fact have binocular vision like their predatory cousins. Terms like "one would expect" are weasely (Wikipedia:Weasel_words).
"Hardly convincing" for who, the author? Provide a cite which supports or does not support the assertion. Do not clutter Wikipedia with personal opinions or observations.

Also, some theropod dinosaurs which definetely classify as skilled hunters had eyes positioned sideways, not gaining benefits of binocular vision (Deinonychus, an active predator if there ever was one among dinosaurs, is perhaps the best example
First of all, there is no source to back this up. I would not expect there to be, since Deinonychus is notorious for having strongly binocular vision! The statement is not only terribly misleading, it is flat-out wrong.

However, it also suggest that this particular Edomontosaurus managed to escape, which shows that even if it was an active predator, T. rex was sometimes unable to catch his prey.
While true, I think this statement is so obvious ('predators sometimes fail') that it is unnecessary.

Comparassion with modern birds, the closest living relatives of theropod dinosaurs, speaks in favor of such hypothesis; most of the largest birds of prey (vultures & condors) are scavangers, while the smaller ones (hawks and falcons) are active hunters.
Again, a statement which lacks scientific evidence. Either provide a cite to the paper that reports this statistic, or don't include it.
I'm including this text here in case the author wants to modify it and return it. For now, I'm reverting this stuff. Dinoguy2 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Another one-

Some scientists, including noted hadrosaur expert Jack Horner, claim that T. rex was unable to run quickly and was primarily a scavenger. Others insist that T. rex was a fast runner and primarily a predator.
This approaches weasel language unless anybody can point to a scientist besides Horner who thinks T.rex was an exclusive scavenger, which is Horner's contention (as opposed to the stated 'primary' scavenger). I'd venture to say all scientists think T.rex was a scavenger to some degree, so this whole statement is misleading. I'm fixing it, this is just fyi. Dinoguy2 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Assorted queries

The article gives the size differently at two points, 12m long and 6m tall (was actually "Over 40 feet tall, 20.4 feet in length", but that's clearly a transposition error or overlooked past vandalism), and 13m long and 5m tall (on the scale image) - are both correct (i.e., within the range of variation of measured fossils according to modern ideas of its gait) or is the former based on older, outdated ideas of a more upright body carriage?

In the absence of any comment, I've matched the size in the text to that on the scale image - MPF 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Feathers - I remember reading somewhere some evidence (or speculation) that T. rex juveniles had feathers (i.e., down, like a modern bird nestling) but that adults didn't: anyone know anything about this?
No mention of the recent discovery that T. rex skeletons can be sexed on the structure of a bone which is used as a calcium store (for egg-laying) in females, but not so used in males (matching modern bird bone anatomy). This should go in, if anyone has the details. - MPF 17:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

1. 13m is probably a little on the high-end of size estimates, but not that far off base (most T. rex would have probably been smaller than this). Keeping the text in line with the diagram is ok by me.

2. The ancestors of tyrannosaurids (i.e. Dilong paradoxus) had feathers. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume T. rex had them too, if not for the fact that small portions of preserved T. rex skin exist and show a pebbly pattern (not sure if these are actual scales or just bumpy skin as in some birds). So a few folks (like National Geographic) have speculated that maybe T. rex lost its feahters as it grew, but had them as juviniles (their reasoning being that smaller animals would need the extra insulation). This is all just speculation, so I can't see much justification for including it in the article, really.

3. The gender discovery you refer to was published by Schweitzer and Wittmeyer, 2005. Very interesting, and maybe someone who has the actual paper can write up a paragraph on it. IIRC it came from the same specimen that yielded preserved blood vessels.Dinoguy2 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! After posting these queries I noticed the medullary bone does get a mention in Dinosaur#Feathered dinosaurs and the bird connection (Reproductive biology para) - MPF 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rare?

"Its fossil remains are relatively rare; as of 2005 only 30 specimens had been found"

Isn't that actually rather a lot? For a large predator that is. John.Conway 11:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll say, most dinosaurs are only known from one!Dinoguy2 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I'm going to change it. John.Conway 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, that's a surprisingly large number for a top predator that one would expect to have had a very low population density - MPF 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tyrant lizard king or King tyrant lizard?

I was under the impression that species names were usually adjectives modifying the species name. For example, Microraptor gui means "Gui's small thief" not "small thief Gui", Struthiomimus altus means "tall ostrich mimic" not "ostrich mimic tall", etc. Thus shouldn't the species name come first in the translation? Shouldn't it be "king tyrant lizard" instead of "tyrant lizard king"?Dinoguy2 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Agreed, change it. John.Conway 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that the translation, when seen as a coherent whole, must also make sense in English. Now that language is not my native tongue, but it seems to me that there can be a king that is a "tyrant lizard", but not a lizard that can be a "king tyrant". However, as the species name is rex and not regalis, perhaps we should not see it as a coherent whole: the creature is then simply "tyrant lizard" and "king" :o). Or do you interprete it as a title: King "tyrant lizard"? --MWAK 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always assumed it was like "emperor penguin". Maybe a better translation to English would be "king tyrant-lizard"? John is better with the etymology stuff than I am, so I won't change it myself.Dinoguy2 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Try 'King of the Tyrant Lizards', which was the usual phrasing when I was a kid. CFLeon 21:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds too hyperbolic (cf. "king of the jungle"). The specific name is an adjective, not a title. Should we change Dilong paradoxus to "paradox of the emperor dragons"? Dinoguy2 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no more hyperbolic than getting 'United States OF America' from 'USA'. It's still an adjective form. 'Tyrannosaurus' is the 'tyrant lizard', 'rex' is the 'king' of the 'tyrant lizards', or the 'king of the tyrant lizards'. In one case the 'of the' is stated; in the other, it's understood. The basic meaning is the same in either case. But the original point is that the species name MODIFIES the generic name and therefore in English precedes it, as is more apparent with other species names: Canis familiaris ('Familiar Dog'), Canis lupis ('Wolf Dog'), Homo sapiens ('Thinking Man'), Homo neanderthalensis ('Neanderthal Man'). See how it works? CFLeon 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I do see how it works, and I think you'll find I argued the same thing in a few posts above ;)I do think "king tyrant lizard" sounds more encyclopedic than "king of the tyrant lizards", but, I'm not exactly fanatical about this.Dinoguy2 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Dinoguy, I wasn't directing the last bit to you, but returning to the original point of the thread. CFLeon 21:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyranno means Tyrant, not king. Rex means king. Oedipus REX means Oedipus KING, since Oedipus was the king of Thebes. The genus always goes together, so Tyranno and saurus will go together. Rex is the species name, so therefore,in decending order, species comes after genus. I am not positive, but I would bet that Tyrannosaurus, the genus, comes before rex, the speces; even in the translation of the name. Putting rex first would be like calling George Bush Bush George. Therefore, I would place my money on Tyrannosaurus rex meaning "Tyrant Lizard King", but an expert would know better than I. I have seen books with both translations. It is possible that both would work. Shuuvuia

    Gentlemen, does it really matter? In popular culture he is crowned King of the Tyrant lizards. And there he will remain.

Gaz 11-6

I don't know why I never had Tyrannosaurus on my watchlist and so missed this and all other threads to date. I have reworded the derivation bit, to make it more readable (not to alter its drift) and I think it does the job fine, as it is, without bothering ourselves over this word-order thing. As well as this thread, there's been some very important stuff going on, so congratulations to everyone involved and sorry not to have contributed. - Ballista 06:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nimba Creations Model pic

I think including this pic on this page is decidedly stretching the limits of 'fair use'. Note the rather explicit copyright notice on the pic. On the page about the company, maybe fair use, but not here as well. Suggest removal. - MPF 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, remove it. I don't like it much anyhow. - John.Conway 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Guanlong

I added a quick note on Guanlong. Personally, I think we should add a section on evolution/ancestry/relatives. -- Writtenonsand 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that sort of thing would be more appropriate on the Tyrannosauroidea page.Dinoguy2 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Appropriate", perhaps. But every news article on Guanlong has mentioned Tyrannosaurus (or T. rex), so the lay folks will be expecting to see a mention on this page (and very few if any popular-press articles have mentioned the Tyrannosauroidea. :-) )
IMHO Guanlong would have to be linked from Tyrannosauroidea, as you say, but should also get a mention on Tyrannosaurus/Tyrannosaurus rex. -- 201.51.230.198 12:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but if its going to be here, I recommend putting it down with the Other Tyrannosaurs section. There's no reason to include Guanlong in the top paragraph aside from the fact that it happens to be in the news this week. There was a similar flare of public interest in early tyrannosaurs when Eotyrannus and Dilong was found, and i don't see those dinosaurs mentioned anywhere in this article, so I hope the need to mention Guanlong isn't due to the paleo equievelent of a fad...Dinoguy2 14:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the article

What exactly was the rationale for the moving the article from tyrannosaurus rex to tryannosaurus?--Every1blowz 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs. In short, the wikiproject states that genus names only should be used as article titles, and there was no good reason to exempt Tyrannosaurus (the only exemtions now are those where the genus name is preoccupied by another article, such as Dilong and Mei). Also, the article is not limited to the single species T. rex, as it discusses T. bataar and even "T". torosus.Dinoguy2 23:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand the move this article is now in a strange state were it's not neutral toward the genus level but mentions "T-Rex" everywhere. Even the infobox!

This has to change.--Technosphere83 16:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Feathers

Tyrannosaurus had feathers! Sure! Do iguanas have feathers? Do Komodo dragons have feathers? How about gila monsters? No? Then why do you think that tyrannosaurus had feathers? Evidence does indicate a lack of feathers in tyrannosaurs, so it would be safe to say that it didn't have 'em! I don't know why all the "feathered dinosaurs" craze, but it sure is "crazy" to believe that! Check out the picture of deinonychus drawn by John Conway. Looks pretty silly, doesn't it? Can you imagine a tyrannosaurus looking like that? Scorpionman 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I doubt that T. rexes had feathers, but I'm bothered by the illogical arguments above, which Scorpionman uses to convince us they did not.

1) Iguanas are lizards and are distant relatives of T. rexes. Like many dinosaurs, T. rexes were much more closely related to birds (hollow bones, possessing a "wishbone," etc (for a good view of "Sue's" furcula/"wishbone" see my photo [3].) Iguanas are cold blooded. There is evidence suggesting that at least some dinosaurs were warm blooded. If so, it would create the need to keep their body temperature above ambient temperature and that could lead to the evolution of feathers. Indeed, fossils have been found of non-bird dinosaurs with primative feathers.

2) The same goes for komodo dragons and gila monsters. They are lizards, far more distantly related to T. rexes than are birds.

3)It is unfair for Scorpionman to compare the T. rex, whose skeleton bears a remarkable resemblance to the earliest known birds, with slitering lizards that look no more T. rex like than you or I.

4) Whether or not we can "imagine a Tyrannosaurus looking like that" has no bearing whatsoever on how a Tyrannosaurus actually looked. Indeed, no matter how one tries, it remains a great challenge to imagine how a T. rex looked. They are so wonderously beyond human experience. That in part is what makes them so popular and endlessly fascinating. Can I imagine a menancing beast towering a dozen feet over my head with a head almost as long as I am tall, full of foot-long serrated teeth? Barely.

I personally doubt T. rexes had feathers because of their emense size, for the same reason that hippos, rhinos, and elephants have virtually no hair. For such massive mammals, dispersing body heat is more of a challenge than conserving it. As the size of an animal doubles, its body surface area increases four-fold, but its mass increases eight-fold. That means that the amount of metabolic heat increases around twice as much as does its surface area for dispersing that heat. Elephants evolved massive flat outer ears packed with blood vessels that they can fan in the air to disperse a lot of that heat. We don't know if T. rexes had anything like that. But it is likely, considering the warm environment in which it lived, that it did not need an insulating layer of feathers to keep it warm. If it was warm blooded, a greater challenge for it would have been to stay cool, especially when active. Askolnick 14:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, not all lizards slither. Some, like the Australian frilled lizard, run on their hind legs rather like a dinosaur. Scorpionman 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, there is no proof that Tyrannosaurus had feathers, but Tyrannosaurus wasn't really a true reptile. Dinosaurs (especially Theropods) were a sort of missing link between birds and reptiles, for the sake of this comment, let's call them Reptavians. As Scorpionman correctly stated above, Iguanas, Komodo Dragons, and Gila Monsters don't have feathers. They are not Reptavians though. They are true reptiles: Lizards. Tyrannosaurus is not a lizard.

It has been proven that some smaller Dinosaurs had feathers, therefore, it is logical to assume that Tyrannosaurus POSSIBLY had feathers, though not to fly, but maybe for display, or to keep it warm as an infant during colder seasons (which were on the increase by the end of the Cretaceous period).

Scientists for a long time have wondered what the use of Tyrannosaurus arms were. The reason they are so short is so that they don't weigh down the front of Tyrannosaurus' body, which is already being taxed by its enormous head. Too much weight on the front of its body would cause it to faceplant everytime it took a step. Therefore, why did Tyrannosaurus have arms, when it could easily trade the weight for a larger, more distructive head (although I do admit that Tyrannosaurus may not have evolved to the point of losing their arms for a larger head by the time they became extinct)?

If tyrannosaurus's arms were useless, then why couldn't they be covered in display feathers, for use in attracting a mate? Big, vividly colored feathers on a male Tyrannosaurus would be "sexy" to a female.

Why couldn't this be possible? Even if the arms had some other purpose, they could still double as platforms for display feathers. Birds do this today. Have you ever seen a large bird on the Discovery Channel trying to court a female by spreading its wings out? Same concept. I doubt however, that a fully grown Tyrannosaurus had feathers on its body, since its neck wasn't all that flexible (it was fairly flexible though). It wouldn't be able to clean those feathers in the back of its body. Dirty, parasite ridden feathers would most likely turn off a female. Droamosaurs had much more bird-like bodies. They were much more flexible, so they could easily have a full body of feathers, since they could easily pick out parasites and clean their body.

I do not believe that I should squash out others beliefs, but I don't really see any reason why Tyrannosaurs couldn't have feathers, at least in accessible places for its head. I would also like to note that Tyrannosaurus was probably immune to human beliefs on what is cool, and wouldn't think that feathers cramped its style. Therefore, just because someone thinks that T-Rex would lose some of its "coolness" just because it has feathers should rethink this. Other dinosaurs would have been just as threatened by Tyrannosaurus, no matter if it was puffy or not. Amen to the coment by Askolnick. He has done his research! I agree that Tyrannosaurus probably didn't have feathers ON ITS BODY, as Askolnick put it. Just because they didn't have them as an adult doesn't mean that they didn't have them as infants. Infants were more birdlike in form, becoming much more heavily built as they aged. Finally, we walk upright, but we are not Dinosaurs. Just because a lizard runs upright doesn't mean it is a Dinosaur. The Australian Frilled Lizard can only run on its hind legs for short bursts. It cannot walk fully erect like a Tyrannosaur can. That is just how God in his almighty wisdom decided to make the lizard. Accept it. Shuuvuia May 16, 2006

All valid points. However, several tyrannosaur skin impressions are known, and they all show scales. Granted these are only from small areas of the animals bodies, but the simplest, most parsimonious assumption at the moment is that T. rex had scales, not feathers. This evidence, combined with the discovery of scales on one compsognathid, feathers on another, and feathers on a smaller tyrannosaouroid, just means that we don't understand the relationships of basal coelurosaurs very well (if I had to place a bet, I'd say Sinosauropteryx is more advanced than true compsognathids and tyrannosaurs and Dilong is more advanced than true tyrannosaurs). Therefore, assumptons about the presence of feathers based on relationships in these animals are very spurious, unlike the relative certainty that, say, maniraptors all had feathers. Dinoguy2 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true. I am not saying that feathers are a key characteristic of Dinosaurs and I seriously doubt that Tyrannosaurus had feathers covering its entire body, but I still think it is possible that the arms were used as display platforms. This is only my theory (although I am sure Paleontologists have considered this, so it really wouldn't be my theory), and it is most likely incorrect. I did, however, overlook the fact that Tyrannosaurus was in a different family, and that feathers may be unique to some families but not to others. Thank you Dinoguy for correcting me. Shuuvuia

Some paleontologists have thought of that, you're right. Gregory S. Paul, for example, re-drew drome of his tyrannosaur images to include a fan of feathers on the arms. I think, if tyrannosaurs had any feathers, the arms would be a good place to look.Dinoguy2 13:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of that, though I may have heard it some time and just forgot. Thanks!Shuuvuia

Change the image......??

Hii.... I think it'd be better if we can get another image for the taxo-box (or whatever you call that boxy thing) i seriously got a scare when i saw that image.. its too dark and scary...can we get another one which is preferably a side view of the fossil?? i am not saying that the image is bad...but its just too good and distracting from the article... but then..its just a thought....Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 10:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be the advantage of the Sue pictures. We now have tons of Field museum images and could easily select alternative pictures from them. I could post others if that would be helpful. The Field Museum is well-lit with light colored walls; hence the Sue images would be lighter than the current intro. image.

But Jayant, even the plant-eating dinosaurs had huge claws and spikes on their feet (I know because the O'Hare airport has/had a dinosaur replica to look at in one of the airline terminals). It was not a very peaceful era, was it. So even Sue is still fearsome to gaze upon. --Ancheta Wis 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And Jayant, although the image may be scary, thinking about seeing a live, hungry tyrannosaurus standing right in front of you is sure to be a lot more frightening. I'm just trying to put things in perspective; and besides, this article needs good images like that to give it a little more life, although personally I would prefer a picture of a tyrannosaurus with skin and flesh. Scorpionman 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)