Talk:Tarbosaurus

Evidence from morphological characters that Tarbosaurus is not congeneric with Tyrannosaurus
Hurum and Sabath (2003) demonstrated Tarbosaurus is not a species of Tyrannosaurus. This was based on the skull of Tarbosaurus being more primitive than that of Tyrannosaurus. Currie, Hurum, and Sabath (2003) conducted a cladistic analysis of the family Tyrannosauridae, concluding that Tarbosaurus is closer to Alioramus than to Tyrannosaurus. The conclusion made by Hurum and Sabath (2003) is based on re-examinations of the skulls of Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus.

Currie, P.J., Hurum, J.H., and Sabath, K. 2003. Skull structure and evolution in tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48 (2): 227–234.

Hurum, J. H. and Sabath, K. 2003. Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48 (2), 161-190


 * Did they show that T. bataar is closer to Alioramus than T. rex using cladistic analysis, or was this just a genericomertical exercise? If is was cladistic, what makes it superior to other analysis? John.Conway 16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, just read the paper -- still, I'm not sure this is the final word on the subject, it is one analysis that disagrees with a bunch of other (and excludes post-cranial data). John.Conway 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it confirmed that Tarbosaurus (Tyranowaurus) Battaar is a relative or even an ancestor of T,.Rex?
I need this info for my essay; plz someone help me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Didigo10 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus are both contemporaries that live in the same time period but from different parts of the world. Both are closely related to one another in terms of physical features and place in the family tree. There is a chance that both did share a very common ancestor.
 * No, Tarbosaurus lived at an earlier time than T. Rex. which only appeared appx. 3 million years before the K-P event.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of Mongolian tyrannosaurs
Olshevsky (1995) recognizes three species of tyrannosaurids from Mongolia: Tarbosaurus efremovi Maleev, 1955, Jenghizkhan bataar (Maleev, 1955) (Gorgosaurus lancinator Maleev, 1955 is a junior synonym), and Maleevosaurus novojilovi (Maleev, 1955). The diagnosis for Jenghizkhan is given in Olshevsky (1995): The genus Jenghizkhan differs from other members of the paratribe Tarbosaurini in its larger size (overall adult length about 14 meters) and its massively constructed, rugose vertical skull elements, namely, the postorbital-jugal bar and lacrimal-jugal bar. In Tarbosaurus efremovi these vertical elements are relatively slender, with quite smooth external surfaces. In Jenghizkhan, the lacrimal and postorbital meet above the orbit to create a continuous circumorbital flange from approximately the middle of the vertical ramus of the lacrimal around to the suborbital tuberosity ("postorbital bar") on the vertical ramus of the postorbital. The frontal is thereby excluded from the orbital rim, although a notch may be present at the dorsal apex where the lacrimal rugosity contacts the postorbital rugosity. In Tarbosaurus efremovi and most other tyrannosaurids, the frontal remains part of the orbital rim as a well-defined notch or discontinuity in the circumorbital surface, separating the lacrimal from the postorbital. These characters are probably not age-related, since they are present in the holotype juvenile skull of Gorgosaurus lancinator.

Once a paper describing variation within Mongolian tyrannosaurids is published, Olshevsky's proposed classification may become accepted. But Olshevsky himself continues defending the validity of Jenghizkhan and Maleevosaurus from Tarbosaurus.

Maleev, E.A. 1955a. Giant carnivorous dinosaurs of Mongolia [in Russian]. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 104: 634–637. Maleev, E.A. 1955b. New carnivorous dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia [in Russian]. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 104: 779–782.

Olshevsky, G. 1995. The origin and evolution of the tyrannosaurids [in Japanese]. Kyoryugaku Saizensen (Dino Frontline) 9: 92–119; 10: 75–99.


 * I'm not sure that anyone other than Olshevsky has accepted the name Jenghizkhan though. Cas Liber 01:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't even accept it any more. J. Spencer 01:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of Shanshanosaurus
Carr (2005) found Shanshanosaurus to be the sister taxon of a clade containing Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Although this taxonomic placement is tentative at this time because most portions of Carr's (2005) dissertation have yet to be published, there is a possibility that Shanshanosaurus could be close to, if not conspecific with, Tarbosaurus.

Carr, 2005. Phylogeny of Tyrannosauroidea (Dinosauria: Coelurosauria) with special reference to North American forms. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Toronto. 1170 pp. 68.4.61.237 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Relationships of the genera nitpickery
The additions look great, but there is a problem with the sentence "Whether or not Tarbosaurus is synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, the two are usually considered to be closely related." If Tarbosaurus is not synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, the two genera are closely related. However, if Tarbosaurus is synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, they aren't related genera: they're the same genera. Only the two species (Tyrannosaurus rex and Tyrannosaurus bataar) would be related. I thought of rewording this myself, but couldn't come up with a rewording that didn't sound cluttered or incomprehensible.

Attempts at rewording include:


 * 1) "If Tarbosaurus is not actually synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, the two are usually considered to be closely related." (Workable, but clumsy)
 * 2) "If Tarbosaurus is synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, the two species T. rex and T bataar would be closely related." (Which sort of sounds silly because it's so obvious).
 * 3) "If Tarbosaurus is synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, it represents a second species of Tyrannosaurus, called Tyrannosaurus bataar. If it is not synonymous, then the two genera are closely related." (Possibly overly long)

Firsfron of Ronchester 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "Even if Tarbosaurus is not synonymous with Tyrannosaurus, the two are usually considered to be closely related." Sheep81 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, Sheep
Really does. :) There is a broken link: Ref #26, Brochu, Christopher A. (2000). "[0001%3AADREFT2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1 A digitally-rendered endocast for Tyrannosaurus rex]". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20 (1): 1-6.  Firsfron of Ronchester  01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * those stupid URLs never work from that site. I've replaced it with a not-quite-as-good link. Sheep81 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fingers": 2, 3, or what?
"tyrannosaurids, a group already renowned for their disproportionately tiny, two-fingered forelimbs." - From Tyrannosauridae: "It was once thought that the tyrannosaurs had only two fingers on each hand, but paleontologists have since discovered that T. rex had three (two primary fingers and one small vestigial finger), raising the probability of the fact that the other tyrannosaurs had them." -- What do we want to do with this? Okay as it stands in Tarbosaurus, or modify? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what's tricky about sticking to published sources on cutting edge topics. Yes, I'm sure if T. rex, the most derived tyrannosaur, retained a 3rd finger, then all of them probably did. However, there's no direct evidence of this and the logical answer has not actually been published, so should we mention it here? Wouldn't that be OR? Maybe the best solution right now is just remove the reference to two-fingered hands completely. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's a big deal. The Third Metacarpal, which is apparently all that Rexie really had, has been known for a while in several other tyrannosaurids.  To partially repost from Talk:Tyrannosaurus:
 * "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (1985), p. 71, the second page of tyrannosaur skeletal illustrations, shows a hand of Tarbosaurus with a 3rd metacarpal. Similarly, if you go to the first Dinosauria (1990, p. 182 in the paperback edition), both Tarbosaurus and Gorgosaurus (then Albertosaurus libratus) have 3rd metacarpals. In the 2nd edition (2004), Daspletosaurus and Albertosaurus proper are also mentioned as having them, and it is assumed that Tyrannosaurus had one as well (p. 124). Finally, and to seal my required killjoy moment of the day, "third digit" may be technically accurate, but it's not a finger in the sense that most people are used to dealing with, and it's not like Tyrannosaurus really had Allosaurus hands; it had two "finger" fingers and an inanimate bony rod per hand." J. Spencer (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to rewrite Tyrannosauridae in the style of Tyrannosauroidea very soon. In fact I'm already working on it. So this won't be an issue anymore. Sheep81 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. " it's not a finger in the sense that most people are used to dealing with" True, but the hands of alvarezsaurs are not really "hands" in the sense people are used to dealing with--they're still technically hands... how do the other two recently discovered "digits" of alvarezsaurs compare with the third digit of tyrannosaurids? Seems to be a similar situation of a group thought to have a unique digit count found to have the standard theropod three, but with some highly modified. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This may be evidence that coelurosaurian theropods came up with "flipping the bird", and it was so adaptive that an odd number of digits greater than 1 per hand was retained even where having fewer than three might have otherwise been useful. J. Spencer (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  "This may be evidence that coelurosaurian theropods came up with 'flipping the bird'"  -- A perfect example of how dangerous critters tend to come up with elaborate display mechanisms to avoid mauling each other unneccesarily. :-)  -- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
This article is well-written, well-organized into clear and concise sections, and easy to understand. It meets the citation requirements for GAs. It also appears to be complete, and contains all of the important elements needed to cover the topic (anatomical description, biology, ecology, discovery). The illustrations all have appropriate copyright tags and go well with the text in illustrating the topic. I believe that this article meets all of the Good Article criteria, and it will be listed. It's probably not far from WP:FA, either. Though I would recommend a good copyedit, to clean up any minor issues with grammar, style, and prose. It might also be good to seek an A-class review with WP:DINO, or WP:PR, to make sure all of the details are thoroughly covered (though I think the completeness aspect is good enough for GA). Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Picture Thought
Looks to me like this Tarbosaurus has been drowned in a flood and fossilized. Other dinosaur pictures also look like a big flood drowned them. 60.230.212.29 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think it looked like it drowned. What evidence is there that drowning was the cause of death? Any dinosaur corpse will go into that position due to contracting of the ligaments (neck back, tail up). Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A dinosaur dies and its legaments contract, yes I can understand that. But how long would a Tarbosaurus corpse, in order for it to be fossilized, take. I was thinking that a dead dinosaur would be eaten and its bones scattered. 60.230.212.29 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It is possible that the body was buried in sand rather quickly, either wind-blown or carried by a flash flood common in desert environments. Many Mongolian dinosaur show exceptional preservation without being disturbed much. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that animals in deserts can be buried quickly in a variety of ways, the fact that there's little moisture so they'd tend to become 'mummified' or dried out providing some immunity from bacteria and fungus that would normally help break down the corpse, etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is true that this poor dinosaur could of died in a flood. (Just was not healthy enough to picked for going on the Ark I suppose.) I guess other ways of making sure of how it died would be to test the contents of the "rock" it is embedded in.121.215.60.117 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To continue an old discussion, we don't have many photos of skeletons that are taxobox material. The one we have now may seem too upright, but that is mainly due to the angle of the camera, seen from the side the same skeleton looks almost ok. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In a horrible twist of fate, the best image we have of a mounted specimen is this, the one that was illegally smuggled to the US... But I'm pretty sure it's too contentious for us to use. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or what, now since it is exhibited in Mongolia? We can remove the watermark. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this would be a better taxobox image with watermark removed. The specimen has been repatriated, no ethical issues. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, but does the image currently in the taxobox have a pronated hand (I would say hands, but I can't locate the other one). Iainstein (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're quite right, but I'll replace it once the new one is edited anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This one might have some promise. It doesn't seem to have any issues in the mount, although the background might be a little to distracting. Otherwise, I would go with one of the MEPAN mount or an actual fossil or cast of actual fossil instead of the placeholder. IJReid discuss 00:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The photo of the smuggled specimen was apparently "illegal" itself, so it will be deleted from Commons soon. We don't have many good replacement photos of real specimens... I added a placeholder which has a kind of annoying posture. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The MEPAn one seems to have pronated hands? Not sure if this one does too... FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, only the one up for deletion and the "Dinosaurium" mount lacks pronated hands, although they are less obvious in elementary school cast, where only the farther hand is pronated as I think it is the same skeleton or a cast of the one you saw. IJReid  discuss 15:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dinosaurium one wouldn't be too bad (a real fossil), if there wasn't so much glare next to the head. Maybe it could be fixed with Photoshop? FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a clearer version of the Dinosaurium image (contrast, crop,colour, brightness changed). Any thoughts? That skeleton is part of this travelling exhibit: FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and upload yours, it is better than my rush job. IJReid  discuss 17:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, one issue is that it is almost in a tripodal posture, but I don't think there's any reason to think it could not get into that posture, if it was roaring or looking up for example? FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this one is an issue at all. AFAIK, the issue is when the vertebral column curves downward giving it a floppy tail, like in the placeholder. IJReid  discuss 17:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Same travelling display as the placeholder, only a much better overall mount. I got this from a flickr search and it appears to be reasonable enough to be in the article and potentially the taxon box. The current one is pretty good, but I'm not sure how these compare anatomically. IJReid discuss 04:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's just very small res and blurry at the front part... It's the same specimen as the one where you see the skull and neck (I've seen it in real life), a better photo of that may be good... It's hands are mounted in a weird way, but probably not visible from the side... It's also kind of tiptoeing with both feet at the same time, which would bei possible due to the weight... But not too shabby, anyway, I'll add it to the article, but not entirely sure if it is infobox material... FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bring this up again. Our current taxobox image is the best image we have on Commons right now, as its rearing posture can be excused. All other mounts on Commons currently that have more horizontal postures mostly have pronated hands. However, if we were to have a taxobox image of a mount that has both a horizontal posture and non-pronated hands, that would probably be more optimal. This mount at the Maryland Science Center is both horizontal and active, and has accurate hand position. However, so far, photos that I have found are either lacking in terms of clarity, or the photo is cropped so that some part of the mount is missing from the photo. Would be nice to see more opinions. BleachedRice (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The pose looks good, yeah, it just isn't a good photo. If someone could take one from a better angle... FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of name
I thought that Tarbosaurus meant "Alarming Lizard" not "Terrifying Lizard"-Stupefyduo (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Apex predator
"Apex predator at the top of the food chain" is redundant. That's what an apex predator is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shocky1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Human for scale image
The image of the dinosaur shown in scale with a human is hilarious. It looks like the person is waving at the viewer, oblivious to the "terrifying lizard" about to snap off his head. The caption should read "Tarbosaurus baatar with a human for snack."

Sorry for the waste of time, but I couldn't keep it to myself. At least I resisted actually editing the page! Boegiboe (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarbosaurus, Velociraptor, and Protoceratops co-existing
I know that they lived in similar time periods, but documentaries often show Tarbosaurus co-existing with slightly earlier animals like Velociraptor, Protoceratops, and Oviraptor. Is it possible that these three dinosaurs could have survived right up to the K/T Extinction Event. If you have an answer to this question, please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely. Velociraptor and Protoceratops fossils are very common, first of all, and the fact that they don't turn up in the same rocks as Tarbosaurus means almost certainly that they were not around anymore. We can tell from geological features and plant/invertebrate fossils that the environment changed radically between the time of Velociraptor and Tarbosaurus. Velociraptor/Protoceratops were desert animals, Tarbosaurus lived in environments more like wetlands, so it's very unlikely for the earlier creatures to have survived this transition. Tarbosaurus likely survived till the K-Pg boundary or close to it, but Velociraptor and Protoceratops were on their way out by the time Tarbosaurus appeared. Velociraptor existed for almost 5 million years, an extremely long time and above average for most animals, so it should count itself lucky! An additional 5 million years of undetected existence till the boundary would be almost unprecedented. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That said, fossils of an unidentified tyrannosaur have been discovered in the same strata as Velociraptor and Protoceratops. The Wikipedia page for the Djadochta formation lists them as "indeterminate tyrannosaur", but out of all known tyrannosaur species they bear the most similarity to Tarbosaurus.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Everyone seems to be in agreement. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarbosaurus → Tyrannosaurus bataar – The correct name, and in my experience the most commonly used one. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 14:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In your experience? I don't know of any recent sources that use this name and a vast majority of paleontologists use the name Tarbosaurus bataar instead of Tyrannosaurus bataar. what exactly are your sources? MMartyniuk (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I recall quite a bit of discussion about this somewhere - the 2003 study which yielded Alioramus as a sister taxon casts doubt on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The more recent (2005) study by Carr et al. places "Tarbosaurus" as Tyrannosaurus bataar. The Dinosaur Encyclopedia also names "Tarbosaurus" as Tyrannosaurus bataar, and explicitly names "Tarbosaurus" (as well as "Gorgosaurus lancinator") as an invalid junior synonym for Tyrannosaurus bataar. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 22:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, the newer papers on the juvenile specimen, "Raptorex" etc., as well as all recent papers by Holtz and in his encyclopedia, use Tarbosaurus. So do the descriptions of Zhuchengtyrannus etc. A Google Scholar search for "Tarbosaurus bataar" since 2000 yields 85 results, vs. 24 for "Tyrannosaurus bataar". Tarbosaurus is used in the second edition of The Dinosauria (2004), which is getting outdated but is still about the most authoritative source you can find. Actually, it looks like only Carr himself still uses Tyrannosaurus bataar for whatever reason. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? My Google Scholar search yields 146 results for "Tyrannosaurus bataar", and only 107 for "Tarbosaurus bataar".  A plain Google search shows 25,500 results for "Tyrannosaurus bataar", but only 25,000 for "Tarbosaurus bataar".  Google Groups shows 417 "Tyrannosaurus bataar" results, but only 409 for "Tarbosaurus bataar".  Only a Google Books search shows a preference for "Tarbosaurus bataar", and even this is small (339 for "Tarbosaurus bataar" versus 325 for "Tyrannosaurus bataar").  I have also seen 1 newer study and 1 newer book that say Tyrannosaurus bataar, and 1 older study and 1 older book that say Tarbosaurus bataar. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 17:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to check your Google searches again; it seems from the numbers that you searched not for the phrase but for the individual words. This means every search for Tyrannosaurus bataar gets all pages that include, for example, both Tyrannosaurus rex and Tarbosaurus bataar, whereas a search for "Tyrannosaurus bataar" (in quotation marks) will get you MMartyniuk's results. J. Spencer (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, question is, has any new analysis been published in the past couple of years.....the key really should be secondary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if a new analysis would solve anything. Whether to call the animal Tarbosaurus bataar or Tyrannosaurus bataar is a nomenclature issue, not a scientific one. Right now, the consensus seems to be to keep them as different genera. But this is a subjective opinion unrelated to their actual degree of closeness. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Dinosaur Society's The Dinosaur Encyclopedia (Don Lessem and Donald F. Glut, 1993), p. 498: "Tyrannosaurus bataar (buh-TAHR): Until recently, this Asian species of Tyrannosaurus was regarded as a separate genus of tyrannosaurid called Tarbosaurus". And, p. 462: "Tarbosaurus bataar (TAHR-buh-SAW-rus buh-TAHR): Status: Invalid—See Tyrannosaurus bataar".  What do you think of that, eh? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I said recent references. I bought that book when I was 12... ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, then. If you think Carr's analysis is worthless, refute it for me. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it was worthless. first, it's an opinion not an analysis. The naming of an animal is not subject to scientific study. Second, Carr's opinion is in the minority, so it should be mentioned in the article but not given undue weight, and not used to justify a change in naming. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the outdated (2003) opinion is more valid than the new (2005) opinion? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want recent opinions, here's the newest from a month ago . Here's one from a few months ago. That's two from this year, does that trump your 6 year old reference? Bottom line: A vast majority of scientists use Tarbosaurus. A vast majority of recent references use Tarbosaurus. One man uses Tyrannosaurus. There is no question which is more prevalent in the current literature, and Wikipedia must follow the majority. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Find me a citation clearly stating that Tyrannosaurus bataar is invalid in favor of "Tarbosaurus". --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 12:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one, explaining the complicated taxonomic history. It's tough to find more because aside from Carr, nobody has used the words "Tyrannosaurus bataar" since the 1980s, making searching for it impossible.  MMartyniuk (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't state that Tyrannosaurus bataar is invalid, just that "Tarbosaurus" may be a valid genus distinct from Tyrannosaurus and related to Alioramus. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 13:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you can't find anything other than Carr, look at what Carr has to offer ad examine his reasons for using Tyrannosaurus bataar so you can make an honest, informed decision. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 13:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the question for WP's purposes is not which is correct (which we can't feasibly determine, and of course everything above species is more art than fact), but what we can verify. The consensus of the field, for the last few years at least, is Tarbosaurus. Go back to the mid-1990s to early 2000s, and you get a different answer (Tyrannosaurus bataar was at least co-consensus for some of that time, which would have made this an interesting talk page). Tyrannosaurus bataar *at this time* is a point of historical interest and a minority viewpoint, both of which deserve to be in the article. However, in my opinion, until such time as the pendulum swings again, the large Nemegt tyrannosaurine should be identified on WP as Tarbosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We've covered this subject in the Classification and systematics section - I guess the question is whether the section needs embellishing at all? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, bottom line, we should use the current name (Tarbosaurus bataar), make a note that not long ago it was Tyrannosaurus bataar, and wait to see if the pendulum swings back towards Tyrannosaurus bataar? OK. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pack Hunters
A new theory has emerged stateing that Tarbosaurus was a pack hunter after finding 68 specimens in very close proximity of one another. There has been speculation that this just a quincidence, however after scanning a tyranosaurs skull scientists realized that they have the cognitive power to coordinate attacks. Also scientists discovered after looking at the leg of an ostrich that it closely resembles the leg of a juvenile meaning a juvenile might have been able o run at speeds of 40 miles per hour. here is a video stateing this theory, it was on a discovery channel special http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq98vitA4I0.
 * Interesting, though many people have already noted that other explanations are more likely. Wait for the paper to be published before adding, anyway. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was just a regular graveyard, modern animals are also known to die where others previously did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Length of existence
Previously I saw the page say 70-65.5 million years for the age of known specimens, now it says just 70, which is why I changed it back. How long are known specimens really known from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All definitive specimens of T. bataar come from the Nemegt Formation, which is dated to the Campanian/Maastrichtian boundary about 70 Ma ago. Most dinosaur species did not exist for more than one or two million years. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

BBC using "Tyrannosaurus"
The BBC has been refering to this dino as a Tyrannosaurus in the reports about a fossil-smuggling case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20855935 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18519286. Has scientific opinion shifted to them being the same genus (such that the name "Tarbosaurus" can join "Brontosaurus" and "Eohippus" in obsolesence), or is it just sloppy reporting by the BBC? Iapetus (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the specimen was advertised as Tyrannosaurus because it would make it more valuable. Most recent studies seem to keep it separate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still arguments for both ways, but there is/was more of an evolving consensus for separateness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Eggs?
It seems eggs have been assigned to Tarbosaurus, but there is no mention of it in the article. Any scientific papers mention this? If so, could be a nice addition. There's a picture on FLickr. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is about the eggs pictured, but: . I don't have access to it, however. The attribution to Tarbosaurus seems to be very speculative, since the eggs are considered Turonian in age, while Tarbosaurus is much junger (Maastrichtian). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. Maybe it warrants a a mention under life history or something? The egg type has received a name: Macroelongatoolithus FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how these authors come to the conclusion that Macroelongatoolithus xixianensis can be attributed to tyrannosaurs. I found other papers that do not attribute this taxon to any specific theropod group. Jin et al. (2007) write about Macroelongatoolithus xixiaensis: … these Tiantai eggs would represent a theropod weighing more than 1000 kg. Cretaceous theropod families common to both Asia and western North America include Tyrannosauridae, Ornithomimidae, Therizinosauridae, Oviraptoridae, Dromaeosauridae, and Troodontidae. Of these clades, only Tyrannosauridae and Therizinosauridae are commonly (but not exclusively) represented by large body size. You will not be able to distinguish an egg laid by a mid-sized theropod from one laid by a large theropod, because there are physiological limits to egg size. Hm, I will ask in WP:RX if someone has access. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Seems it could be solved one day if an embryo is found. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I found it, but (besides the english abstract) it seems to be aviable only in chinese. Even with embryos it would be very difficult (or impossible) to refer it to Tarbosaurus, because most diagnostic anatomical features do not appear until the animal is fully grown (or at least subadult). There are many excellent embryos preserved in eggs from the Auca Mahuevo site that probably were laid by titanosaurs, but excactly which titanosaur was it? We do not know, because the necessary synapomorphies are not represented in embryos. If we put this information into the article, we will imho have to formulate it very cautiously. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heheh, wow. I assume we don't have any Chinese speakers on the dino project? FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition
Hi all, We received via email the below suggestion for some changes to make to the article. I am posting them here (with the consent of the sender) for wider discussion and consideration.

Your very good article on the Tarbosaurus omits a key (if not a particularly scientific) reference in the popular media section, namely the full length feature film entitled, "Speckles the Tarbosaurus".

Did you omit it deliberately, was it too new or maybe you just missed it?

I think it is very relevant and for anyone for whatever reason, who has an interest in this dinosaur, being the most comprehensive animated depiction of it.

Thanks very much in advance.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a childrens animated film, not a scientific reference. Hell, even a BBC documentary is still an unsuitable reference, so I doubt this film is of any worth even to that section. Here we need scientist's papers, posts, sites and books or, at the very worst, reliable newspaper reports.--Ornitholestes (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)--Ornitholestes (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Such things can be included if there is a notable third-party source specifically discussing notability to the subject of Tarbosaurus (i.e. a news article or professional blog post talking about accuracy or public perception of the species). Unacceptable are citations directly to the source itself, or citations discussing the fact that the dinosaur in the movie happens to be a tarbosaur. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Titanosaurs in its ecosystem
None of the titanosaurs Tarbosaurus is known to have coexisted with is even close to the size of the North American Alamosaurus. Furthermore a less kinetic skull isn't a suitable adaption for gigantophagy, since it reduces the gape in favour of crushing efficiency, the latter being an inefficient strategy on huge prey species. There are reason you see large-gaped, relatively kinetic skulls and mandibles in other gigantophagous, ziphodont reptiles, like Komodo dragons or Allosaurs. Also it has been stated all tyrannosaurids had rigid mandibles, as opposed to most other theropods (Hurum&Currie, 2000).--Ornitholestes (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Dewlap?
A few surces, for example, report a rumour that a fossil "dewlap" has been found on a Tarbosaurus specimen. Anyone know more about this? It would appear some of our images need those. DBogdanov's image has something looking like a dewlap, as well as some feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This was mentioned by Tracy Ford in a Prehistoric Times article many years ago. Nothing in print so far, so probably no point in enforcing a standard based on a rumor. (For example, no way to know if this might be an iguana-like dewlap or a bird-like gular pouch). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, so it may not even have been conspicuous in life? I guess that goes for the Edmontosaurus ones as well? FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Unvalid sources?
Tarbosaurus is only 9m and so is Zhuchengtyrannus. If you have a source saying 10-12m, list it here. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tarbosaurus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tarbosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bell2012": From Saurolophus: Bell, P.R. (2012). "Standardized Terminology and Potential Taxonomic Utility for Hadrosaurid Skin Impressions: A Case Study for Saurolophus from Canada and Mongolia." PLoS ONE, 7(2) e31295.  From Deinocheirus:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Titanosaurs
"Some scientists have hypothesized that the more rigid skull of Tarbosaurus was an adaptation to hunting the massive titanosaurid sauropods found in the Nemegt Formation, which did not exist in most of North America during the Late Cretaceous."

Ok, this isn't true. There were big titanosaurs in Late Cretaceous North America, as Alamosaurus is known from Mexico, Texas, New Mexico, and Utah from that timeframe, and Tyrannosaurus is known from the same locality (the North Horn quarry) in the latter state. I suggest the line in the article be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.132.115 (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tarbosaurini redirects here
Tarbosaurini apears to also include Zhuchengtyrannus, so isn't it wrong to redirect it here? Tyrannosauridae would be a better destination, no? FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tarbosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621123000/http://app.pan.pl/acta48/app48-191.pdf to http://app.pan.pl/acta48/app48-191.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723094920/http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/117/f/2/f201738eb16cc6a581fc4b02f1e0c34d.jpg to http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/117/f/2/f201738eb16cc6a581fc4b02f1e0c34d.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613065739/http://dinosauria.com/jdp/trex/tyranno.htm to http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/trex/tyranno.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tarbosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003230646/http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/07/a_new_juvenile_tarbosaurus.php to http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/07/a_new_juvenile_tarbosaurus.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox Image
Now, the image we currently have in the taxobox may be the best one in terms of clarity on Wikimedia right now, but it really is quite inaccurate. The mount is posed in the 'kangaroo pose', which is completely inaccurate. We need to find a better image posed horizontally instead. If someone could find an image of that repatriated specimen that was famous a couple years back, I think it would be ideal.BleachedRice (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The one that was there wasn't in a kangaroo pose at all, it's back was merely angled upwards, which is entirely within its range of motion.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 03:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read previous discussions before changing things. The picture was chosen after a long back and forth where all options were considered. The photo you added had pronated hands, whereas the current one simply has its back arched up, which is well within the possible. But yes, the image isn't the best, but we don't have better at the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

/* Popular culture */
A Tarbosaurus was the main character in Speckles: The Tarbosaurus (The Dino King). Tarbosaurus also appears in the BBC documentaries Chased by Dinosaur were it fights with Therizinosaurus and The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs where it was seen hunting an Ankylosaurus. Tarbosaurus is seen in the imax Documentary Dinosaurs Alive where it fights Tarchia. Tarbosaurus is in Mongolian Post it stamps. Tarbosaurus appears in books toys. Tarbosaurus appeared in the game Dinosaur King.

Can i please add this one instead. Tarbosaurus Appearance in media is pretty prevalent
 * Among other things, "In Popular Culture" sections should be about how popular culture sees the subject, and should not be a laundry list of "spot the monster of the week" mentions. That, and using other wikias as sources is considered inappropriate.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Bubblesorg (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Could then be a in Fiction section?
 * How is that any different... 128.189.206.244 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * More importantly, how would that not be yet another laundry list of "spot the monster of the week" mentions?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In contradiction with the T. Rex article
The statement "The mass of a fully grown individual is considered comparable to or slightly smaller than Tyrannosaurus, often estimated to be around 4–5 metric tons." - slightly smaller? Adult T.Rex is estimated to be appx. 8.4-15 metric tons according to its article - this should be adjusted/restated.50.111.46.18 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Estimating the mass of extinct animals is tricky. Comparing contextless ranges of mass estimates without taking into account the methodology that produced said mass estimate is not very informative. FMNH PR 2081 has been estimated as anywhere between ~5600kg and ~18000kg for example. I don't see 10,000kg+ estimates for T. rex cited in literature as much more than upper bounds from certain papers. It might not help most of the well-known Tarbosaurus specimens are immature, but the largest skull of Tarbosaurus (PIN 551-1) is estimated at around 135cm, same length as AMNH 5027. Jonagold2000 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)