Talk:Tyrannosauridae

comment
According to the article about the tyrannosaur Dilong, it measures 1,6 m and the newly discovered Guanlong is 3 m long. But this article states that tyrannosaurids are between 8 and 14 m long. Likewise both these dinosaurs are found in China which isn't named under location. Isfisk 08:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction as Dilong and Gualong are tyrannosauroids, not tyrannosaurids.--MWAK 14:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Title
Obviously this page is being used to discuss tyrannosaurs in general, not just Family Tyrannosauridae. Maybe it should be moved to "Tyrannosaur" or "Tyrannosauroidea"? (the former would be preferable since it's the common name for tyrannosauroid)Dinoguy2 17:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But then we replace an exact defined scientific concept by a very vague one. Do Dilong and Guanlong conform to the public perception of a tyrannosaur? Probably not. Do the experts consistently refer to all tyrannosauroids as "tyrannosaurs"? Not really. The obvious solution seems to be to have simply two articles, one for Tyrannosauridae and one for Tyrannosauroidea, as these are two distinct concepts. And the very fact that these concepts are often confused is proof of this :o).--MWAK 09:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll see what I can whip up for Tyrannosauroidea, feel free to pitch in everyone.Dinoguy2 18:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not birds
Birds have hollow bones, special breathing sacs, feathers, and relatively large, strong forelimbs. Tyrannosaurs have marrow-filled bones, no signs of feathers or avian lungs, and forelimbs so tiny they are laughable. Those forelimbs are so small that they MUST have moved slowly, b/c there's no chance they could catch themselves if they tripped while running!! And with skulls that huge, hitting their chins on the ground is not inconvenient, it's fatal! Mdotley 13:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14819982.600-the-bigger-they-come-the-harder-they-fall.html
 * What is your point? SpectrumDT 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Kiwi have tiny nubbins where the forelimbs used to be, just FYI.Dinoguy2 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurs, and indeed all theropods, were extremely likely to have had air sacs (http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ridgely/OconnorClaessensairsacs.pdf), and given their relatively crown-ward taxanomic position those air sacs were probably fairly advanced. Also, basal tyrannosauroids (Dilong paradoxus) have been found with 'protofeathers' (fluff), and so it's fairly likely that all tyrannosaurs had some kind of feathers, maybe not the larger ones at adult size because of overheating problems. The running thing, small arms has nothing to do with it really (ostriches do just fine), but with the bigger ones just being huge would have caused them severe problems with running fast (see http://www.rvc.ac.uk/AboutUs/Staff/jhutchinson/documents/JRH17.pdf) - unsuprisingly, a ~6 tonne biped has support issues.

Maximum size
The various articles on Tyrannosaurs are ambiguous about the maximum size. The Tyrannosaurus rex article sets maximum length of a T. rex to 13 metres. But this article says 14 metres. Unless there are Tyrannosaurids larger than Mr. Rex (which I don't think there are), this is a discrepancy.

Also, I would like some more comments on these numbers. Are they measured from complete (or nearly complete) specimens, or are they reconstructed guesses? SpectrumDT 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The largest Tyrannosaurus skull measuring over 1.5 meters (5 ft) long.where largest spinosaurus skull is 1.7 meters (5.749 ft) long and they estimate its length approximately 18 meters scientifically whose skeleton of body frame is not present. similarly The largest Tyrannosaurus skull measuring over 1.5 meters (5 ft) long whose body frame is not present and its skull is greater than Sue so its length will be more than 14 meters (47 ft). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.146.254 (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The "tyrannosaurid body length diagram" is absolutely worthless. It only contains a single point on a graph. I recommend deletion since it is of so little scientific value. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Aublysodontidae & Shanshanosauridae
Are these families really synonyms of Tyrannosauridae? Seems like they would actually be synonyms of Aublysodon (therefore Tyrannosaurus) and Shanshanosaurus (therefore Tarbosaurus?), unless someone actually tried to include all of the known tyrannosaurids in those families. Then again, maybe someone did. Sheep81 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way the ICZN works, I don't think a family can be synonymous with a genus. Since there's no problem with monotypic families under ICZN, if the type of a family is referred to a different family with seniority, the families become synonyms the same way a type species, referred to a new genus, sinks the old genus into the new. E.g., Brontosaurus is a synonym of the genus Apatosaurus, not the species A. excelsus, even though nobody ever tried to incorporate all Apatosaurus species into Brontosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious genera
This edit inserted ito the taxobox some genus names that are considered dubious - a few known onlt from a few teeth, which are not good diagnostics for tyrannosaurids; and the notorious Nanotyrannus', which is now generally regarded as a juvenile T. rex''. I' in at leaast 2 minds about this (so at least I'm not alone!), so I think discussion would be useful. The options I can see are:
 * Omit entirely from taxobox. This would avoid putting unreliable info in the taxobox, but might leave readers wondering "what about X?" It would also be unstable, as someone would eventually re-inseert them in good faith.
 * Include without qualification, as at present. This presents unreliable info. It overstates the number of known genera, which is not serious here but could become a serious problem if the same principle is applied to a taxon where the taxonomy is a real mess.
 * Include as a single "paragraph" (so visually different), preceded by e.g. a "?". The "?" could be explained either by a note "doubtful genera" immediately under them, or by linking it to a section of text where thre dubious status is explained. I'd prefer this approach as I think it avoids the disadvantages of the previous 2. --Philcha (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't they be in the taxobox with question marks in front of them? I think I've seen that approach elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What on EARTH is GOING ON HERE. COELUROSAURIAN?!?!
NVM. My bad. Didn't know about the reclassification. Rlinfinity (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, not only are tyrannosaurs giant coelurosaurs, increasingly studies have found that Coelurus itself is a primitive tyrannosaur, making tyrannosaurs "truer" coelurosaurs in a sense than anything else! Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Curioser and curioser... Rlinfinity (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Locomotion Section
I noticed that the Locomotion section focused almost entirely on Tyrannosaurus rex. While I do understand that T-rex is probably the best researched Tyrannosaur around, so we have more stuff to say about it, I feel that for the Tyrannosaurid page, we should be focusing more on Tyrannosaurids in general. That being said, I can't really offer any research papers talking about Tyrannosaurids in general. So I understand if the reason why the section focuses on T-rex if there aren't many research papers on the rest.- 128.135.115.109 (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deinodontidae
I was under the impression that even if the type genus of a family is dubious, the family still goes by that name if the genus is diagnostic enough to be placed within that family? Like in ceratopsidae even thought Ceratops is dubious. Or has this been changed? So this has to be Deinodontidae, or that Chasmosauridae(Or Centrosauriae, don't know which subfamily is older.). Or am I just stupid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Feathers 2
I think we should replace all featherless restorations of tyrannosaurids on this site with feathered versions. Yutyrannus suggests that most, if not all tyrannosauroids were feathered, so the scaly reconstructions are potentially outdated. --24.36.139.110 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, then someone has to make them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I definetly think that Tyrannosaurus/Tarbosaurus clade Tyrannosaurs must have had some kind of feathers. I heard somewhere (please correct me if im wrong) that the average temperature of Hell Creek in Montana was about 52 degrees fareinheit, only two degrees warmer than the 50 dgrees of the Yixian formation (where Yutyrannus was discovered). Also there is simply no way that Nanuqsaurus could have not had feathers--50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
 * We're not doubting that they had feathers, we're saying that someone has to make these restoration if we're gonna use them.142.176.114.76 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tyrannosauridae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070602141617/http://www.zoo.org:80/zoo_info/history/chapters/history4.html to http://www.zoo.org/zoo_info/history/chapters/history4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Allosaur not invited to Tyrannosaur party
It would be helpful and instructive to spell out why allosaurs are not considered to be tyrant lizards. Kortoso (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tyrannosauridae. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1381
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031093050/http://www.rvc.ac.uk/AboutUs/Staff/jhutchinson/documents/JRH13.pdf to http://www.rvc.ac.uk/AboutUs/Staff/jhutchinson/documents/JRH13.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023063102/http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/15-713-725.cfm to http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/15-713-725.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417134949/http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xu_et_al_2012_Yutyrannus.pdf to http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xu_et_al_2012_Yutyrannus.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031093048/http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/predation/Chapter_09.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/predation/Chapter_09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219102659/http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.php to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/file_home.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) 21:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Deinodontidae?
Question, wouldn't Deinodontidae be the true name for Tyrannosauridae since it came before? Or is it just a nomen oblitum?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article? Section Classification. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the real answer is just that everyone likes to ignore the rules of priority, since Deinodontidae absolutely does have valid priority.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 23:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is strange--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Temporal Range Fix
Just a minor edit, I changed the temporal range in the taxobox for the earliest extremity to be 80.6 ma instead of 96, being Lythronax's (the earliest known member) age and also taking into consideration implied earliest age as a clade/from a phylogenetic standpoint.