Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 10

There shouldn't be any pictures of t.rex without feathers
T.rex had feathers, this is the consensus reached by scientists, as such there shouldn't be any pictures of t.rex without feathers as this is now considered an outdated reconstruction. There are still at least 2 or 3 pictures on this article that depict t.rex without feathers without any disclaimer that the depiction is outdated and inaccurate. These pictures should be removed and/or replaced with accurate pictures of the t.rex with feathers, keeping them on the article is just delivering false information about what we know the t.rex didn't look like. It's no different than having a depiction of an upright t.rex with its tail dragging on the ground. ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, two things: 1- Most of those images only show heads, and there is absolutely no reason to believe Tyrannosaurus, like countless modern birds, could not have had an unfeathered head and neck. In fact, all of our images of feathered Tyrannosaurus show the heads mostly without feathers! 2- Just because it is most likely that tyrannosaurus had some sort of feathers, there is no consensus that it definitely had them. The consensus is that it probably did, but the extend of coverage is unknown. There's a big difference between that and for example posture, which can be determined through biomechanical studies, etc. There is still a small chance that Tyrannosaurus could have lost its feathers, even if it had feathered ancestors. Phylogenetic bracketing can only take you so far, just look at elephants and rhinos, the extend of their fur varies enormously. If we only knew Sumatran rhinos, we'd think African ones had as much hair, no? Or think of humans compared to other apes... FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well how are we determining what part of the t.rex's body had no feathers? It's also entirely possible that they only had feathers on the head and neck. If that's the case, then pictures depicting t.rex with feathers on the head and neck but none on the rest of its body should also be valid. ScienceApe (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant about extent. And perhaps even Greg Paul was right with his old drawing that only shows feathered arms... FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yutyranus has a feathered neck (with very long feathers over 20cm long in the smallest specimen) I wonder then why vulture/turkey/cassowary T. rex is so popular when no living predatory dinosaur has naked necks (is there any?) Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dinoguy said this in a now archived discussion: "Do have to agree on the facial feathers--there seems to be good evidence of face biting and head butting in tyrannosaurids, which would at least probably de-feather these areas during life, if they weren't born featherless there." It is also easier to keep the head clean after feeding when it is naked. And modern predatory birds don't need unfeathered mouths, since well, they have beaks... So nobody is saying we should always restore them this way, just that it isn't necessarily incorrect. Even within close relatives among modern birds, head and neck feathering varies widely, so Yutyrannus can't by itself lock down any single arrangement. Check out the weird variation in Guinea fowl, for example FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would point out too that, since birds often center display colors on the head and wings, and since the feathers of T. rex may have been too simple to bear any really striking display colors, just as in some birds the head might have born at least some flashy patches of bare skin for display. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is very important to mention that the consensus in palaeontology at the moment is that when it comes to the discussion of feathers and the T. rex, the answer is still "We don't know."

Making claims based on your own original research that this particular tyrannosaur (the rex) had actual "feathers" because of a deduction made by phylogenic bracketing is pushing things quite a bit. At most, scientists claim that IF (and this is still hypothetical as we still do not know for certain) the tyrannosaurus rex (the species which this article pertains to) did indeed have some sort of feathers rather than scales, said hypothetical feathers would probably be closer to a down coat... which is not what anyone viewing this article is going to ascertain.

At any rate, I still feel this article is providing misinformation. It should state that it is possible that the Rex had feathers since some of its relatives (Yutyrannus and Dilong) had feathers. ...but no-one knows for certain-Robtalk 08:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cite that the consensus is "we don't know"? My impression is that the current consensus is more like "probably yes." Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what he meant was the body was unfeathered in adults. It certainly would present a lot of problems in shedding excess heat in large theropods to have a majority of the trunk feathered.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

NGC's T. rex Autopsy
On 7 June 2015 NGC aired a documentary, better named thought experiment, about an autopsy of life-sized T. rex. I added a short description about the event. I put it under History. My note was deleted. The reason was "it does not belong here". I agree. I added it under Popular culture. It was deleted again with the reason "it should in the Popular culture article, not in the section". However, neither bothered to actually put this note or write something better about the event, they simply deleted the text. I don't consider this creative.

I think NGC's documentary was notable enough to have at least a section about it somewhere in Wikipedia. A notable paleontologist, Steven Brusatte took part in it. I added a shorter note about his participation in the article about him. It is still there. I added a short note under Timeline of tyrannosaur research (the first event for 2015) and it is still there. Another scientist, Tori Herridge, notable for having participated in the autopsy of a true mammoth, took part as well. Why then an event like this not be mentioned in the article that deals with tyrannosaurs exclusively. It is not simple popular culture (my wife ran away in horror seeing all the blood that had been poring on screen for two hours).

Please, people, be creative. Don't blindly delete things without.

Here is my text: "National Geographic Channel's T. rex Autopsy

On 7 July 2015 National Geographic Channel aired a two-hour documentary depicting an autopsy of a life-sized model of a Tyrannosaurus rex. The model, dubbed Edwina, had been manufactured in six months using Sue's skeleton as a starting point and taking into account all existing data about T. rex anatomy. Three scientists took part in the autopsy, namely Steven Brusatte, vertebrate paleontology specialist, Dr. Tori Herridge who has had experience autopsying a real-life mammoth and Matt Mossbrucker, chief curator at the Morrison Natural History Museum in Colorado as well as Luke Gamble, a veterinary surgeon. The show gave answers to most controversial questions having a consensus support by a majority of scientists like being a predator with a two-chambered stomach full with fresh meat and having feathers, four-chambered heart, binocular vision. At the same time highly debated questions were not touched. Did T. rex have a penis? But Edwina was made female with a carefully modeled egg in her cloaca with an embryo inside. She didn't have a brain either because there is not enough knowledge about tyrannosaurs' brains but this lack was not revealed to the public: Edwina's skull was simply left unopened."

Gazibara (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is where it belongs: Tyrannosaurus in popular culture What is shown in the programme is not research and not factual, so does not belong in the science articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote "No. he means in belongs in the Tyrannosaurus in Popular culture article". How is this not clear? This is where this information should go. IJReid  discuss 00:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would not agree the show was simply popular culture. Jurassic Park is popular culture. Four serious scientists took part in it and more behind the scenes, not some freaky actors. The Edwina model is based on a thorough scientific research that has been lasting for more than a century. It reflects scientific consensus. It is not research. It is the result of a long research.
 * However, what I strongly object is the act of blind deletion not the the discussion about where it should or should not belong. If you had moved the text to Popular culture instead of simply having it deleted, I would have not raised the question.

Gazibara (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not research, it has no scientific value. Educational value, yes, but so does something like Walking with Dinosaurs, which is also popular culture. Researchers do not learn new things by cutting up a rubber T. rex model. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request (13 June 2015): "National" to "Natural"
Under link 1 Description, paragraph 1, sentence 1, the Field Museum of National History is referenced as the location of the largest intact specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex and not the Field Museum of Natural History. The surrounding text has been quoted below and the contained error has been underlined.

It is thus requested that the word "National" be changed to "Natural" in the name "Field Museum of National History" in the aforementioned section.

 Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, located at the Field Museum of National History and known colloquially as FMNH PR2081 and nicknamed "Sue"....

24.15.117.141 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"ongoing feud"
In the lead, I changed a verb tense so that the sentence "The debate about whether Tyrannosaurus was an apex predator or scavenger was among the longest ongoing feuds in paleontology" now reads "The debate about whether Tyrannosaurus was an apex predator or scavenger has been among the longest ongoing feuds in paleontology", because the feud is described as ongoing. However, if the feud has ended then "was" is appropriate but "ongoing" should be removed, though I do not have sufficient knowledge of this debate to know if that is a more accurate description of the situation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Page needed tags
I think it's a bad idea to start plastering a featured article with "page needed" tags. May I suggest that the editor responsible, if he's that bothered about it, go out and actually look for the page numbers himself rather than take the lazy route.  Cassianto Talk   21:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever added the information in the first place had the responsibility to list page numbers - don't gripe against other Wikipedians who tag it for being left off.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Meaningless comparisons
It has no scientific significance to give comparisons like "the equivalent of three times the force estimated for a great white shark, 15 times the force of an African lion, 3 1/2 times the force of an Australian saltwater crocodile, 77 times the force of an adult human and around 7 times the estimated force for Allosaurus". We don't have to compare it with different species of animals one by one. Just present the factual data of this creature. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 06:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the excess of analogies is kind of silly, their purpose is to help the general public to understand the degree of force under discussion by linking to things most people are familiar with, at least in the abstract. "35,000 to 57,000 newtons" is completely meaningless to the vast majority of people who will read this article. Wikipedia articles should not only have scientific significance, but should also be accessible to laymen. Maybe get rid of most of the 5 analogies in that sentence, and choose 1 to keep? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. Maybe, we can present those data in kilograms or tonnes which are a common unit of mass that people are well familiar with. I personally prefer not to keep such analogies. We don't say "it measures up to 12.3 m (40 ft) in length which is the equivalent of 2.5 times the length of a green anaconda or 7 times that of an average adult human". 12.3 m is 12.3 m. In dialogue with Biomedicinal
 * As stated, this is an encyclopedia, not a technical manual, and such references are not only useful, they are essential.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

But still, as stated, I think it's well enough to add a conversion tag and change the scale in a more common unit. It's redundant to use analogies to present every single datum. People are well familiar with meters, kilograms, tonnes, etc. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 15:25, 17 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * People are familiar kilograms and tons as units of weight, but not as units of force. Most people don't have an intuitive sense of quantitative difference in force. I still think we should leave at least one good solid analogy for the bite force in the article, but we can get rid of most of them. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I remember years ago someone put sentences like "it is x times more venomous than y (another species of animals)" endlessly on a snake page to "explain" its toxicity but they were finally banned for insignificance. This also occurred in some university articles where users intentionally compared the colleges with another one using a particular ranking in order to "clearly revealed the status". I'm afraid leaving analogies may result in edit warring as people may "add back" other comparisons to stand for their favorite species involved.

I agree that articles in this encyclopedia should be "readable" to the general public but I still think conversion is a better way. If we really have to leave an analogy, "the equivalent of 77 times the force of an adult human" is the best choice as this is mostly familiar to us. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 15:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Specimens in quotes
Should individual specimens of dinosaurs ("Jane", "Sue", "Stan") really have their names in quotes? It's awkward, doesn't add meaning, and doesn't seem to be in wide use among reliable sources. And at the moment, implementation on this article and others is very inconsistent. --Serpinium (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone will object if you remove the quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Job's done. --Serpinium (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2015
In the 1st line, of the 1st paragraph there is "sauros (σαῦρος)". There is no greek word "sauros", but only saura (σαύρα in greek). It should be replaced with "saura (σαύρα)"

MrCat80 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "-sauros" is a word, actually; it's the masculine version of "-saura", which of course means "lizard". "-sauros" itself is just the English version of the root word, which is "σαύρας" (directly "sávras", which is then refomated into "saurus" for English use). There doesn't seem to be any issue here. Raptormimus456 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions
Could there be in this article what creation scientists have to say about the T-Rex? Christian Sirolli (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think they have much to say about specific dinosaurs, rather than dinosaurs as a whole. In any case, no, creationism is not science. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Creationism isn't science. We don't put what they think about the big bang, similarly we don't add their pseudoscience to articles on dinosaurs. ScienceApe (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tyrannosaurus. 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/20151104162130/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103213705.htm to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103213705.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119125039/http://www.discoveryuk.com/the-loop/dino-gangs/ to http://www.discoveryuk.com/the-loop/dino-gangs/

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 18:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus or Tyrannosaurus?
Since "Tyrannosaurus" is the name of the genus, shouldn't it always be in italics?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When the scientific name is also used as a common name, it's not italicized (or capitalized). Gorilla, hippopotamus and rhododendron are some examples of common names identical to scientific names. Not that there seems to be any good reason to treat Tyrannosaurus as a common name in this article. Plantdrew (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016
In the second paragraph, it states that Tyrannosaurus measured up to "7.5 short tons in weight." The source that provides this information originates from an outdated study in 2004; John Hutchinson et al. performed a LiDAR study in 2011, with a correction in 2014, available on PlosOne, that estimated FMNH PR 2081's minimum mass at 9500 kilograms, not 6800. Perhaps a more accurate presentation would be "measured up to 10.4 short tons in weight," followed by the source: 5 May 2014: Hutchinson JR, Bates KT, Molnar J, Allen V, Makovicky PJ (2014) Correction: A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97055. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097055

TheVividen (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Excellent find!  JW  Noctis talk to me 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus acuity
"This would have allowed Tyrannosaurus to discern objects as far as 6 km (3.7 mi) away, which is greater than the 1.6 km (1 mi) that a human can see." I can see objects much farther away, for example, the Moon, Sun, and many very distant stars and galaxies. The statement is meaningless unless the size of the objects is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.49.58 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's referring to clarity of vision; a object that far from us is basically just a speck. You can see the stellar bodies so clearly because those are many times larger than the Earth. Raptormimus456 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think 38.22.49.58's point is that it doesn't say how big the object is. It could be the empire state building or a candle for all we know.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 13:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP also neglected to add in the rest of the quote, too;

"A study published by Kent Stevens of the University of Oregon concluded that Tyrannosaurus had keen vision. By applying modified perimetry to facial reconstructions of several dinosaurs including Tyrannosaurus, the study found that Tyrannosaurus had a binocular range of 55 degrees, surpassing that of modern hawks, and had 13 times the visual acuity of a human, thereby surpassing the visual acuity of an eagle which is only 3.6 times that of a person. "


 * So it's already given comparison within the text itself; T.rex has better vision than eagles, which have a visual acuity of anywhere between 2.0-3.6 times that of a human, depending on the specific eagle. Unless any of the cited sources list object comparisons, I don't see what the issue is here. Raptormimus456 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with the Eagle comparison, but 38.122.49.58 is correct. The statement that it would allow T-Rex to discern 'objects' as far as 6km away makes absolutely no sense.  What objects?  amoeba? house bricks?  You have to specify size if you want to make that statement. HappyGod (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Asian Invasion"
I'm not sure if it's mentioned in this article already, but should we at least document the Asian Invasion idea, since it ties directly to Tyrannosaurus? Again, this is only if it's not mentioned already. Raptormimus456 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It already says it in the Classification section: "...Tyrannosaurus may have been an immigrant from Asia...".  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, just wanted to make sure; if it wasn't, I was going to add it myself. Good to know it's already covered, though! Raptormimus456 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

87.214.178.6 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC) I think they may have resided at the north pole. Enabling sustenance of endothermic homeostasis.
 * Do you have a source?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Magnetic (then) or geographic? Doubt any land theropod was in the ocean. 68.19.6.203 (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably talking about the Tyrannosauridae family, which evolved in asia and possibly came to north america through some manner of continental drift or a land ridge of some sort  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016
SUE is over 90% complete by bulk according to the Educators Guide published by the Field Museum itself, not 80-85%. Please see page 3 on PDF and revise outdated percentage. https://www.fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/jsandy/2014/08/07/sue_educator_guide_2010-3.pdf

Yel342 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

❌ Unclear what needs to be changed. Please use "change 'x' to 'y' " format.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edit to the page
For far too long, this image has bothered me with its appearance on this article. Regardless of how proud, regular editor DinoGuy is of his artistic creation, the image depicts a creature with wings instead of arms, which is something that is not published, announced, or even accepted by any researchers anywhere. I would like to see a depiction of a feathered T-rex that has arms rather than wings. If anyone can cite a source that supports a claim of a winged t-rex, please do so. Until then, the image should be replaced with an artist's depiction of the animal with feathers.... no wings (or be simply removed from the article entirely) -Rob<sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 08:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted. "Wing"-feathers have been depicted on tyrannosaur arms in the published literature for years, including by Gregory S. Paul and Luis V. Rey (perhaps the most influential paleoartists in recent years). Another notable example is this recent Scientific American article with illustrations by James Gurney. It is not a "fabrication" by the artist here. The personal preferences of us users doesn't really matter when it comes to what is realistic or not. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, that Luis Rey illustration is under a CC license and published in a release from the reputable science journal PeerJ. It should probably be used in preference to mine, or at least in the behavior section. It also has a lot more feathers than my highly conservative rendition does. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, "wings instead of arms" doesn't make any anatomical sense. Wings are just arms with flight feathers on them. These should be probably be termed pennebrachia instead of wings as they do not function in flight or derive from flight feathers, as suggested for the forelimbs of Ornithomimus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that those illustrations do not depict adult specimens of T. rex but of the somewhat smaller Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus and Yutyrannus, respectively. Iblardi (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Daspletosuarus and Gorgosaurus are only smaller than T. rex if you compare maximum adult size. Average size of T. rex would be close to the maximum size of Gorgosaurus. They're not fundamentally different size classes of animals, nor is Yutyrannus for that matter, and published studies have shown that doesn't matter anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The first image (Paul's) shows Tarbosaurus (not Gorgosaurus, the Therizinosaurus should make that clear), which is roughly the same size as Tyrannosaurus (not that larger size would somehow make display feathers less plausible)... In any case, the point was that giant tyrannosaurs have been shown with feathered/winged arms in the published literature, and Tyrannosaurus is little different from them. But just to drive the point home, here is a Rey illustration of T. rex itself with "wings": Also, I'm not sure if the Rey image (Daspletosaurus) is CC licensed, seems it was made for press releases, not the PeerJ paper itself... FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a CC license at the very bottom of the page which I would assume applies to the whole thing unless otherwise stated. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But just to drive the point home, here is a Rey illustration of T. rex itself with "wings": - OK, good!
 * Regarding smaller size, that seemed to be an element that all of the above examples had in common, so I thought it would do no harm to mention it.:)
 * As for Tarbosaurus(?), my assumption (which it was) was based on the fact that the animals depicted look identical (in my eyes) to the "Albertosaurus libratus" attacking a herd of "Monoclonius albertensis" in Predatory Dinosaurs by the same artist (1988, p. 148), of which this illustration seemed to be a remake (same body proportions, almost the same posture). Iblardi (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On that note, I just took a look at my GSP books, and oddly, the Tarbosaurus are shown with "wings" in Dinosaurs of the Air from 2002 (p. 291), but the same image is used in the Field Guide to Dinosaurs from 2010 (p. 22), but without the "wings"... I've also always been puzzled why the therizinosaurs are shown scaly, and why only the arms of the tyrannosaurs are feathered... FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Late to the party here but it is probably also relevent that Thomas Holtz, one of the most prominent tyrannosaurid researchers in the world, has suggested on several occations that tyrannosaurids may even have retained their arms specifically because they bore display feathers and could have been used for signalling. One such example can be seen in this talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqkqkxYGNZc Tomopteryx (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, the new image under description does not show as elaborate feathering on the arms, so everyone should be pleased. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjpalmer's T. rex
There is a comment written by Rjpalmer which explains why we have to remove his reconstruction: "Proportions are stan, size is more like sue. Stan is my favorite rex, so I use it whenever I can."

User:WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 17:46, 01 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See the dinosaur image review. That is no reason for removal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus with lips
This speculative report kinda reminds me too much about one of those outdated, tail-dragging, lizard-like depictions of Tyrannosaurus from the back-when-days. Also, Tyrannosaurus was related to birds and crocodiles, not lizards or snakes. So this report may as well be dismissed as speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonhammer43 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In science, we need to critically evaluate why certain things are outdated, not just assert that they are. The report presents evidence and a metric that can be used, evaluated, and tested, which is the opposite of speculation. It should also be remembered that the idea of lipless theropods was originally made up for a movie, Jurassic Park. Notice that all the dinosaurs in that movie have lips, except the T.rex. They left off lips specifically to make it look scarier, not for any scientific reason. Artists then proceeded to copy their idea for the next 25 years. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that argument relate to all dinosaurs then, not just tyrannosaurs? Hard to picture for example the kinked snouts with outwards flaring teeth of spinosaurs with lips, but perhaps their "semi-aquatic" behaviour accounts for this? FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think a semi-aqautic animal would avoid the issue the same way crocs do. however, there are numerous modern examples of animals with kinked snouts where the kink is hidden by lips. Heck, the tuatara has a kink and a beak both covered by lips that make its face look basically like a lizard. If I were to draw a Dilophosaurus today, I would not make the kink visible, personally. Unfortunately, most interesting features of the skull are hidden in living animals which serves to "genericize" them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What report? If you're talking about the images, the newer restoration images include a line parallel to the mouth, which I assume are lips. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems it hasn't been properly published yet: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/21/tyrannosaurus-rex-lips-fierce-teeth FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thinking a bit further about this, where does it leave the various sabertoothed animals? It seems rather unlikely they would have lips covering their teeth... Not to mention various external tusks and incisors of extant mammals (seems elephants lack it, but muntjaks and molerats have it in at least some parts of their lives). Why would it only be relevant for reptiles to protect their enamel? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are tusks, and T-rex probably didn't have a mouth full of tusks. For sabertoothed mammals, only the canines show, but in the images of T-rex, all the teeth show. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tusks are just large teeth that poke out of the mouth. There is no other difference between them and other teeth. In any case, saberteeth (Smilodon, Thylacosmilus, etc.) are not tusks, and are found in many different lienages. So if there are animals today (and in prehistory) with enamel-covered teeth poking out of their mouth, I don't see why extinct ones couldn't? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tusks and sabers are canines, not every tooth shows. The issue with T-rex is that all the teeth show. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that doesn't explain why some teeth (tusks, canines, incisors, depending on group) would be exposed if the purpose of the lips was to protect the enamel by keeping the teeth moist. They would need that protection (if the theory holds) as much as any other tooth, no? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what lips are for. I just looked at the Lip article and the word "tooth" or "teeth" isn't in there, and I googled it and keeping teeth moist wasn't one of the functions. Also, tusks don't have enamel (according to this website) and instead have cementum with a dentin core (according to this journal) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, most tusks lack enamel. And some fossil animals are assumed to have tusks or saber teeth without evidence, like Smilodon. It's entirely possible some kind of lips covered those saber-teeth in life. Seems we need a lot more research in this area. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a great deal of speculation on either side, though! And Dunkleosteus, I didn't mean that is what lips are for in general, but what it is used as rationale in that suggestion about dinosaurs. Anyhow, yes, some exposed tusks and incisors in non-aquatic animals do have enamel (in muntjaks and molerats). What I mean with those examples is simply that the presence of enamel does not necessarily mean the teeth were covered to keep them moist (as that report suggests they would have to be); otherwise exposed muntjac and molerat teeth with enamel would not be possible. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also a new paper out (I haven't read it yet) arguing for lips in Troodon based on much lower UV exposure vs. croc teeth. I figure this could just as easily be explained by nocturnally and needs to be tested against a variety of theropod teeth to support it, but the published consensus at the moment, such as it is, seems to be pro-lip. As I noted above, there were never any actual arguments against lips in the first place. Look at the history of paleoart. It's all lips, all the time until the JP T. rex, then people started rationalizing the movie by referring to half a phylogenetic bracket (crocs on one side, incomparable beaked birds on the other). The onus should be on croc-mouth proponents to present evidence other than "teeth protrude past jaw line which is the case in several modern mammals and reptiles too, e.g. clouded leopards, which are fully lipped. As for the tusked animals you mention, I would point out that they do still have lips, just not fully covering those few protruding teeth, and therefore could still benefit from lubrication being constantly secreted from the lips and running down the tooth (just to speculate; molerats are bizarre all around, and are also rodents which constantly grow and wear down their teeth). It's interesting to note that the tusked animals which lack enamel have huge tusks, often horizontal, which could not reasonably be kept salivated. Loss of enamel may have been a necessary pre-adaptation or shortly post-adaptation for such structures. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll definitely draw lips from now on myself. My devil's advocate position here is mainly because I don't think the evidence is strong enough to for example remove restorations because they don't show lips... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a side note, although completely related, I have uploaded an update on the Tyrannosaurus illustration by durbed, which was posted by durbed at the same link as in the file desc. It was greatly updated, including a changed skull profile, a redoing of feathers and limbs, and lips. IJReid  discuss 02:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice! Good he didn't upload it as a new entry, his newer images are all with non-commercial licences (not Commons compatible)... FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh... why did you remove RJ's image? Tomopteryx (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me, I added it back. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Image of feathers
I don't want to start an edit war here, but why did the image of the T-rex with feathers get replaced with one with scales? Is it a problem with the image itself (like improper sourcing or licensing), or is it just not as good as a reconstruction with scales? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, it seems it has been reverted. I got confused a bit, I thought someone tried to put the image with feathers back and that was reverted. Sorry everyone! <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk
 * Some new user is going around changing any "this dino had feathers" images and text to make it seem like the feathers aren't related. Sounds a bit like he's a BAND supporter (Birds Are Not Dinos). IJReid  discuss 17:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, he misunderstands the image. It does not show Tyrannosaurus feathered all over. And I did put the image back and was reverted by him :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He seems to have explained himself here, where I have answered him: FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that we don't have evidence for pennaceous feathers besides in manniraptoriformes, so does this picture accurately display the way T. rex feathers are viewed among paleontologists? Klipty (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right Klipty, there is no pennaceous feather evidence outside Maniraptoriformes. However, the feathers on the Tyrannosaurus reconstructions are not pennaceous, filamentous, like long hairs. if you have other questions you can visit Feathered dinosaur, it has a nice cladogram showing the extent of feather types in Theropoda. IJReid  discuss 14:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought the wings were supposed to be pennaceous. Klipty (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, the evidence for feathers in all fossils is skewed towards simpler feather structures by taphonomy. Foth neatly showed this by compressing extant birds in a printers press (Foth C. 2012. On the identification of feather structures in stem-line representatives of birds: evidence from fossils and actuopalaeontology. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 86: 91-102.) So finding filamentous non-pennaceous feathers in a fossil means that the animal at least had them, but may actually have had pennaceous feathers as well. HMallison (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Creator of the image here. The pennebrachia in the image are intended to depict large plumulaceous feathers. Plumulaceous feathers are known in both compsognathids (Sinosauropteryx) and ornithischians (Kulindadromeus). These consist of a thick central shaft with loose "vanes" of thinner filaments similar to modern down feathers in structure. The earliest direct evidence of vaned pennaceous feathers is at the base of Pennaraptora. However, indirect evidence has been reported suggesting they may have been present at the node Maniraptoriformes (markings which may correspond to feather ligament attachments in Ornithomimus) and possible the base of Avetheropoda (the quill knobs of Concavenator are unusual if true, but the authors are actively engaged in defending their hypothesis so this is currently a valid if controversial scientific hypothesis). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am a new member here, name is T.rex777. I personally believe dinosaurs are birds, just want to get that out there, but I do not believe T.rex had feathers. It may have had feathers during childhood, but I personally think and upon viewing evidence in documentaries and speaking with paleontologists, that it lost them as it achieved maturity. Therefore, I do not believe the picture shown in the article is a accurate representation of what the Tyrant King looked like. I believe it should be removed, and placed with a different image, that supports the speculation of feathers and scales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.rex777 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Our personal opinions are irrelevant here, what matters is what published, reliable sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind T. rex is not really a king, or a tyrant. That's just what its name translates into English as. It doesn't need to look any particular way because of a name some guy decided to give it a hundred years ago ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said it was a Tyrant, but merely translated its name into English. You still did not answer my question on why there is a picture of a restoration that has unconfirmed evidence, pure speculation based on previous specimens in colder climates like Yutyrannus. It is never made clear in the article that Tyrannosurus rex has never been found with feathers, and whenever I add it in someone takes it out, and never gives an explanation why! T.rex777 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)T.rex777
 * There is no evidence of any tyrannosauroids being fully scaled (a few scaly patches from legs and tails seems to be what we have). But we do know that some taxa had plumage (Dilong, Yutyrannus). Therefore, the default hypothesis must be that they all had feathers to some extend. FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I can concur, they most likely had feathers, but I do not believe they covered their entire body like these 'restorations' the page has. The taxa that you use such as Yutyrannus lived in a cold climate, and was significantly smaller than T.rex. Both of the taxa, Dilong and Yutyrannus all were not only smaller than T.rex but lived in much colder areas such as Asia, where Yutyrannus lived. All I am trying to say is if we could add more to the fact that it is not confirmed that they were covered in plumage, although they most likely had proto-feathers on the top of their head and maybe running down their backs. Whenever new 'evidence' is found out this Wikipedia page adds it as though it was fact, and most of the time it is not. We are talking about a much larger animal than Yutyrannus, one that lived in a significantly warmer climate that is North America. All that is needed is more clarification that, "Hey! We don't know T.rex was feathered, we are just giving a hypothesis based on distant relatives!"T.rex777 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)T.rex777
 * Exactly, you do not believe. We are not here to compile everyones opinions, only to report what has been concluded in professional published articles. If you want us to report what you believe, then get it peer-reviewed and published, and we will consider adding it to the article. But otherwise, there is nothing we can do but prevent you from adding WP:Original Research. IJReid  discuss 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition there are absolutely no dinosaurs known that only preserve feathers "on the top of their head and running down their back" (such feather-frill mohawks are just a a paleoart meme, based on no living or dead analogues). Such a scenario is much more speculative than full plumage, because we have several taxa that do preserve the latter. Also, there is not necessarily a correlation between size and lack of covering. See giraffes, ostriches, and ground sloths (thick fur has been preserved), etc., in spite of being large and living in hot climates. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said that what I am saying is my belief, but rather me trying to point out that there is no evidence for feathers. Ostriches have feathers to cool themselves down because they live in usually hot climates, like the savannahs of Africa. The other animals you mentioned does not fit the same quota, as the ground-sloth and giraffe are mammals, not birds. It was wrong for me to say I do not believe, as it is not my personal quarrel but rather me trying to stop everyone in the world from believing never proven evidence; I suppose it does make it a quarrel of mine then. The only skin identification we have ever found for T.rex was scales, yet this article says that because Yutyrananus was covered in feathers (because it lived in the northern portion of Asia, where feathers were for keeping warm) that Tyrannosaurus rex which lived in North America in swamps and steppes was covered in plumage. When feathers on a T.rex shows up, gladly I will desist my argument, but the thing is it will most likely never happen. All I'm asking is that we put more emphasis that there is no direct evidence for T.rex having feathers, and that it is logical speculation due to previous "relatives". Could we please add in a restoration of a T.rex with scales, to show the opposing beliefs. That is all I ask.T.rex777 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)T.rex777
 * "Could we please add in a restoration of a T.rex with scales, to show the opposing beliefs." On Wikipedia we are simply supposed to re-state what the experts say. I am not aware of any "opposing beliefs" currently in the literature. As far as I've read, the opinion of most published papers and scientists is that T. rex probably had at least some kind of feathering. I have never seen anybody argue it must have been scaly. We are not supposed to add our personal opposing beliefs to articles unless there is a source to back it up. Do you have a source, published after the discovery of Yutyrannus, which states that as far as we currently know, T. rex was scaly? If so, we can add it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I now understand what you're saying. I am going to link some articles that explain more what I am saying, which is that all the restorations of T.rex on this page are it covered in feathers, to which sure that is fine but there are no restorations with T.rex covered in scales, which happen to be the only piece of skin we have found of the predator. AMNH A Feathered Tyrant and Did Tyrannosaurus rex have feathers?both share the same concept I am trying to convey, that it most likely had feathers on certain parts of its body such as Dilong did, but it most likely was covered in scales. Once again we have only found impressions of T.rex with scales, never feathers and the evidence this article uses to back up the feathered restorations is merely that previous species that were similar (which lived in colder climates)had feathers therefore meaning T.rex did. The truth is we do not know how T.rex looked, and most likely never will until we find more evidence for either side, scaly or feathered. But as of now, Tyrannosaurus rex has only been found with scales, and I will not stop asking for this article to add in a restoration of a T.rex with scales until you guys do.T.rex777 (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)T.rex777
 * As soon as someone adds an image of T. rex without feathers to the Commons, then we can discuss this <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. Both of the linked articles may be considered verifiable for references, but both also go with what we are saying about Tyrannosaurus being feathered. Dave Hone mentions that previously the taxon was shown scaled, but after the discussion on Yutyrannus he says that the posibility of feathers is real, and that he himself agrees that Tyrannosaurus had feathers. The AMNH site is not likely updated and written by tyrannosaur paleontologists, and in addition, it only mentions Dilong, not Yutyrannus. The information in that website is the only real "verifyable" source for the idea that only juveniles were feathered, and since the overwhelming majority says otherwise, and there is no actual scientific basis for this idea, it is probably just fringe science, and we would not use it here. Final comment, if you, as you say you will, keep on reverting and changing the article against what all of us are saying here, I can see a block for disruptive editing in your future. IJReid  discuss 00:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You talking to me or T.rex777? I just said that there currently isn't an image of a completely scaly T. rex on Wikimedia Commons so even if (for whatever reason) we decide that there should be a scaly T. rex image, it can't be added because no such image exists. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not been editing the page, I have been talking to you guys, so don't see how "disruptive editing" is a thing. All I have been asking is that you guys add in a Tyrannosaurus without feathers to show the other side of what paleontologists believe. A feathered T.rex is still a hypothesis, while as a scaled one actually has impressions to back it. What is annoying me is that this article speaks of a feathered rex as if it has been confirmed via evidence and all this, when it has not. You can keep the restorations, I don't care, but this article needs to add in a featherless T.rex to show both sides. If that really was your "final comment" IJReid than you're avoiding confronting what I am trying to say, which is that this article is not correct unless a featherless rex is added in until proven otherwise.T.rex777 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)T.rex777
 * It doesn't seem like you are listening to what we are saying. You are saying that we need to represent scaled Tyrannosaurus to agree with the "pro-scale" palaeontologists, but we are saying that there are no "pro-scale" palaeontologists (And BAND people don't count). Unlike what you say, a featherless Tyrannosaurus has more-or-less been proven otherwise, as we have more evidence (phylogenetic bracketing) to support feathers than to say otherwise. In addition, I believe it was Tom Holtz, a palaeontologist himself, who said that the Tyrannosaurus skin impressions were of the same texture as a "plucked chicken", implying that the skin, which did not have scales, was simply preserved in the wrong sediment to also preserve feathers. There are several cases I can think of where an earlier skeleton was found without feathers, and a later skeleton was found with feathers (Ornithomimus comes to mind). IJReid  discuss 16:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You are most likely correct. All I am saying is that it has not been proven yet, there is no evidence for T.rex having feathers besides past relatives. That is why I think the article should have a restoration without feathers to show comparison, as Tyrannosaurus is pretty much always represented without them. However you insist that it is proven even though it is not, I concede my argument as it will not change your opinion. I just do not see what is so hard in adding a scaled restoration which there tons of just to show people possibility of what T.rex looked like, which is all they are, possibilities. We know nothing of what the Tyrant King looked like, we are merely guessing on what it could be. I have nothing against feathers, I just think it is proper for the article to showcase one without it, as A. Tyrannosaurus has only been found with scales and B. Feathers are a hypothesis.T.rex777 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)T.rex777
 * Ok. Just a side note, I don't think those "scale" impressions have actually been published yet, so maybe once (if) they are we can consider fixing the proportions in Nobu Tamura's illustration. Also, Matt's illustration includes bare skin in all the regions the impressions have been found, with very minimalistic feathering as well. IJReid  discuss 19:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We already have two restorations in the article that show unfeathered T. rex heads (under Feeding strategies and Pathology). So yes, they are represented. Furthermore, we don't have any accurate full-body restorations available that don't show feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You guys have been really nice about this, and I greatly appreciate that. Most people I talk with about T.rex being feathered get extremely angered for some reason, but you guys have been very calm and stated evidence and reasons why. I am always going to be mixed on the feathered T.rex, unless they find one, but I am okay with what this article has presented. Maybe one day there will be a full scale restoration, and you guys might add that in. Thank you for replying to my questions!T.rex777 (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)T.rex777

Important Statement in Summary Lacks Reliable Citation
"It is accepted now that Tyrannosaurus rex acted as a predator, and scavenged as modern mammalian and avian predators do."

There is no reliable citation for this and it is a pretty big statement to make, considering the previous sentence says that the debate over whether T. Rex was a predator or scavenger has been hotly debated in the field. Suggest to either cite a reliable source for this statement, remove it, or tag it as needing a citation urgently. Regards. -24.156.95.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Where is your source that this is hotly debated in the field? And don't give us some individual names, you can find weirdos in every field. Give us a scientific journal that seriously talks about this. Fact of the matter is, it's mainly laymen and not paleontologists that believe Tyrannosaurus was a strict scavenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8419:0:8959:E29:607:119B (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't need refs, since it's a summary of the article (but it should be mentioned and properly cited somewhere in the article) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * T rex had teeth set deep in powerful sockets and aligned unevenly to improve crushing power. Meanwhile, Triceratops had a serious shield for a frill, not just a showy frill. Because T rex was eating ceratopsians. Or something like that. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Arm strength?
The "Arms" section states "The biceps brachii muscle of a full-grown Tyrannosaurus rex was capable of lifting 199 kilograms (439 lb) by itself; other muscles such as the brachialis would work along with the biceps to make elbow flexion even more powerful. The M. biceps muscle of T. rex was 3.5 times as powerful as the human equivalent." I am unable to view the source this text comes from, so could someone help me understand how we can know this information? It seems quite specific to be able to calculate that the biceps could lift 200 kg only by examining the origin and insertion locations. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tyrannosaurus. 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/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/20081031093050/http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/19.pdf to http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/19.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227134632/http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/12.pdf to http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/12.pdf

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) 22:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur Paleobiology: New Research on Ancient Exemplar Organisms
Brusatte et al. (2010) Tyrannosaur Paleobiology: New Research on Ancient Exemplar Organisms. Science Vol. 329. no. 5998, pp. 1481 - 1485. "Tyrannosaurs, the group of dinosaurian carnivores that includes Tyrannosaurus rex and its closest relatives, are icons of prehistory. They are also the most intensively studied extinct dinosaurs, and thanks to large sample sizes and an influx of new discoveries, have become ancient exemplar organisms used to study many themes in vertebrate paleontology. A phylogeny that includes recently described species shows that tyrannosaurs originated by the Middle Jurassic but remained mostly small and ecologically marginal until the very end of the Cretaceous. Anatomical, biomechanical, and histological studies of T. rex and other derived tyrannosaurs show that large tyrannosaurs could not run rapidly, were capable of crushing bite forces, had accelerated growth rates and keen senses, and underwent pronounced changes during ontogeny. The biology and evolutionary history of tyrarovide a foundation for comparison with other dinosaurs and living organisms."


 * Remember time-stamps, otherwise sections won't get archived. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)