Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 8

Unmentioned most complete T-Rex ever found
Your article about the most complete T-Rex specimens found does not mention the one that is tied for 2nd place. Sue, in the Field Museum in Chicago is #1 at approximately 80%. The other 2 that are over 60% are Stan in the Black Hills Institute, and Ivan in the Museum of World Treasures in Wichita, Kansas. All three were discovered in the Hell Creek Formation in the corner area of No. Dakota, So. Dakota, and Montana. Please correct and update your article about the T-Rex. Thank you. Dr. Jon Kardatzke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.66.71 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

ok i'll update the article, but I need a sitation for that. If a sitation cann't be provided then this new specimen can't be mentioned.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

an edit war
I've recently got involved in an edit war with user:SaberToothedWhale, user:Dinoguy2 and user:Debivort. User:Dinoguy2's edit summarys support my edits and so he was likely seeing the edits mixed up. As you can see from his edit summary he stated that heddings shouldn't mention info not discussed in the tecst, while reverting an edit that changed a section hedder to fit exactly the same criterion.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The info is mentioned in the text. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes the info is mentioned, but not discussed. Hedders should only mention the section's subject.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "However, skin impressions from large tyrannosaurid specimens show mosaic scales..." begins a multi-sentence discussion about skin. de Bivort 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "However, skin impressions from large tyrannosaurid specimens show mosaic scales..." begins a multi-sentence discussion about skin: it begins a discussion about the presence/appsence of feathers, not a discussion about skin.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can't consider that a discussion about skin (and feathers, yes) then I don't think there's any room for reasoning on this topic. de Bivort 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a tidbit about the "Wyrex" (BHI 6230) specimen that shows mosaic scales from patches of skin impressions (more than a dozen), mostly on the bottom part of the articulated tail. It was discovered in 2002 and excavated from 2002-2004. A photograph is included of a skin patch on p. 46 of the ref cited. Not sure if they have published on the skin in detail yet. This should settle the matter on what the title should be. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Lenght
In this paper the mounted skeleton of Sue was laser scanned and ended up being 12.29m, I'm under the impression that the 12.8m claim was an estimation and is older than the mount, assuming the mount is a more accurate (up to date) reconstruction, should it be reasonable to change the lenght of Sue in the article?

There was also this quote "Again, the Sue specimen tends to have the greatest lengths of the four adult specimens and the other three are markedly similar in most dimensions. However Sue's tail is reconstructed beyond the 27th caudal and could be artificially foreshortened as a result (cf. its tail length vs. that of Stan). Yet an alternative explanation, based on the number of actually preserved caudals (none in the CM 9380, 15 in MOR 555, 31 in BHI 3033, 36 in FMNH PR 2081), is that the seemingly foreshortened tail in the Sue specimen is actually more representative of the actual tail length, whereas other reconstructions have overestimated tail lengths. More complete Tyrannosaurus discoveries would resolve this issue more conclusively"

Could it be that the original 12.8m estimate was based on the older reconstructions with too long a tail? Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Sue was 13m.24.36.130.109 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 13m is rounded up from 12.8m, but that is my doubt, was 12.8m an initial estimate based on the then contemporary long tailed T. rex reconstructions? or is it that the mounted skeleton at 12.3m is more accurate, given how Sue had the most caudals preserved that seems more likely, this however doesn't really make it smaller, if that is what you thought, just shorter tailed. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

that paper was the very reasone why I changed the discription section to say that sue was you see: I had red the paper and the authars rounded sue's length to 12 meaters. I will change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliafroz1901 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

O I see, somebody beat me to the change.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly has Sue been changed to 40 ft.? Didn't they find Sue at 42 ft. long? Alos, I've heard that scientists in England say that T. rex could grow to be ~50 ft. if they lived their maximum age. Is this true? --Justisaurus (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

42 FT = 12.8 meters and 50 FT is the old estimate. Old reconstructions had extremely long sauropod like tales. Larsen and Carpenter think that such reconstructions overestimated the tale length by about 10 feet.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012
The current information on T. rex footprints is incorrect and needs updating. The final paragraph indicates that, 'A second footprint that may have been made by a Tyrannosaurus was first reported in 2007 by British paleontologist Phil Manning, from the Hell Creek Formation of Montana. This second track measures 76 centimetres (30 in) long, shorter than the track described by Lockley and Hunt. Whether or not the track was made by Tyrannosaurus is unclear, though Tyrannosaurus and Nanotyrannus are the only large theropods known to have existed in the Hell Creek Formation. Further study of the track (a full description has not yet been published) will compare the Montana track with the one found in New Mexico.[78]'

The track found by Dr Phil Manning was described fully in the peer-reviwed journal Palaios in 2008 (Manning, P. L., Ott, C. and Falkingham, P. L. 2008. The first tyrannosaurid track from the Hell Creek Formation (Late Cretaceous), Montana, U.S.A. Palaios, 23, 645-647.).

The text might read:

Tyrannosaurid and large theropod dinosaur tracks are very rare in deposits of latest Maastrichtian age (Lockley, 2008; Manning, 2008). Tracks initially attributed to Tyrannosaurus rex have subsequently been identified as belonging to their prey, hadrosaurs (Thulborn, 1990; Lockley and Hunt, 1994). Tracks that were purportedly made by T. rex from the Mesa Verde Group of Carbon County (Utah) were given the suitable ichnospecies Tyrannosauropus petersoni (Haubold, 1971). Lockley and Hunt (1994), however, noted that this ichnospecies was Campanian in age, which predates T. rex by several million years, and indicated that it might have been made by a hadrosaur. The ichnogenus Tyrannosauropus (Lockley and Hunt, 1994) is now considered nomen dubium. Tyrannosauripus pillmorei was described from the Upper Cretaceous Raton Formation (Northern Mexico) by Lockley and Hunt (1994), who made a convincing case for a tyrannosaur affinity, based on track size, age, and a distinctive hallux trace. No Tyrannosaurus rex bones, however, have yet been discovered from the Raton Formation. While this does not reduce the importance or validity of the Raton track, until now there have been no reports of large theropod tracks in rocks containing tyrannosaur body fossils in close geographic and stratigraphic proximity. Lockley et al. (2004) described a tridactyl theropod trackway from the Lance Formation of Wyoming, which was attributed to a possible tyrannosaurid affinity based on size alone. Subsequent fieldwork by the authors of this paper at the Wyoming trackway locality supports the theropod interpretation (Lockley et al., 2004), but given the transmitted nature of the tracks, it is difficult to assign a clear taxonomic affinity for the traces. The track described by Manning et al (2008) is the first to be found in a formation bearing tyrannosaurid (T. rex and Nanotyrannus) body fossils that displays clear features consistent with the morphology and geometry of a large theropod pes.

The morphology and stratigraphic position of the large theropod track in the Hell Creek Formation (Manning et al 2008) is consistent with what would be predicted for a tyrannosaurid dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus rex and Nanotyrannus are known from this formation and are represented in the area surrounding the site. Such taxa are potential track makers in this case, though given the conservative features of theropod pes, the Manning et al (2008) track may well belong to an as yet unknown large predatory dinosaur.

Fossilphil (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one problem with your request. Just because no bones from Tyrannosaurus rex have yet been found in the Raton Formation does not mean they did not live there. It is a very rare event for bones to be preserved as fossils, most are either eaten by predators or simply dissolved in the ground, animal and plant matter require specific conditions to fossilize. And besides that, a lack of body fossils may just mean tyrannosaurids were rare in the region, but that does not necessarily mean completely absent. I'm fairly sure most terrestrial ecosystems in western North America and central Asia during the Maastrichtian had tyrannosaurids as apex predators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. - no sure if this is, as it is a case of WP:TLDR. Mdann52 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

T.REX SIZE
This page clearly said that T.Rex was no more than 40 feet (12.3 meters) long, but i Did a research in the official page of sue, and they clearly said that T.REX (Sue)was 42 feet (12.8 meters) long, I dont know which is true!!! --Dinoexpert (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The latter is true, Sue measures in at 12.8 meters long, and the very largest individuals of the genus may well have been nearly 14 meters. So yes, the article's statement that Tyrannosaurus rex's maximum size was 12.3 meters is incorrect. This page could use some editing around that topic.--Dinolover45 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that is the old page of Sue, the new one states 40.5 feet (12.34m) even though it wrongly converts it as 12.9m on the vital stats section. This is in line with the figure obtained in a 2011 paper where the whole mounted skeleton was laser scanned resulting in a total length of 12.29m, it goes on to show that the Field Museum didn't even measure it themselves as they went with an older, longer estimate (12.8m) instead of their own research at making the mount, the older estimate is longer because the tail was reconstructed too long (this topic was touched higher up in this talk page). Also, there is no published individuals bigger than Sue, and Wikipedia is no place to speculate, it'll help if you go to the tyrannosaurus rex profile at the theropod databse, there you'll find what happened to all the alleged "larger than sue" individuals (hint: they were all hype). Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

too long tail???, only 1.5 feet longer is not so much, also 12.3 meters is too low for such a big animal, and how do you know its the old page, 42 feet sounds more reasonable to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoexpert (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If 1.5ft is not so much then why you consider 12.3m as too low? "to me" is the keyword here and I know is the old page because you can only get there using the internet archive wayback machine. The mount was laser scanned and it resulted in 12.3m, the current Sue page says 12.3m (40.5ft). Read the paper given as source for the 12.3m, the discussion about the tail is below table 3. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Size comparison image
Tyrannosaurus, along with all the other theropods in the picture, looks much more fat and rotund than what is usually depicted. While I do realize that the layers of muscle and flesh that covered the bones of the animal in life would make it look slightly larger than what we see from fossilized skeletons, that doesn't mean they were reptilian pigs! The old image that used to be there looked much more realistic in my opinion. No offence to the artist of the new image, of course.--24.36.130.109 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the paper Brz linked to above estimets seu at between 9.5 and 18.5 metric tons, so the depicted therapods might be to skinny, not "to rotund".Aliafroz1901 (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also see this paper, specifically figure 10: I based the 'fatness' of the version in the size comparison on the best estimate from that paper. The older version was based on Gregory S. Paul's restorations which are definitely far too skinny. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, Bates co-authored the paper Brz linked to, so the image will have to be changed somewhat.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the same guy as before, but I am logged in now and not just an unsigned IP. Anyway, you guys are probably right now that I think about it. More than half of the dinosaur restorations I've ever laid eyes on are based on ones by Greg Paul, so I'm largely unfamiliar with other dinosaur depictions. But I've since looked up similar illustrations to the ones on this page, and Greg's dinosaurs now seem half-starved by comparison. I now agree with you that the page is fine as it is, at least on the topic of how meaty\skinny, large theropods would have been in life.--Dinolover45 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Tyrannosaurus sexual dimorphism
If you all read Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King (Life of the Past) book by Peter Larson and Kenneth Carpenter, Larson state that he don't believe that the differences between individuals are only indicative of geographic variation and he also state the Tyrannosaurus specimen MOR 1125 aka B-rex, is a robust specimen. Medullary bone had been found in the specimen's femur by Schweitzer. Then it is really confirmed that female Tyrannosaurs are larger and heavier than their male counterparts? But I still having doubt about Larson's statement anyway. I personally don't believe what Schweitzer discovered in the specimen's femur is indeed medullary bone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.176.102 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Soft Tissue
"Soft tissue and proteins have been reported in at least one of these specimens. " This is incorrect in the first place. Since then they have all been proven to not be soft tissue/proteins. So it should be clarified or better still removed as it adds nothing to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide any saurces for what you have said-its a polisy here that we can't use are opinion as a basis for changes that don't have reliable published saurces supporting them. Its also werth noting that if a paper is only about an year or so older then another and critesises the older paper its better not to present the more recent papers results as fact-its highly possible the paper's results have not yet ganed the support of the concensous of the sciontific comunity-a much better method is takeing the avrage of the standpoint taken by the papers published in the last 8 or so years and even then the soft tissue theary nedes to be presented as a possibly correct theary (with note of the adishanal objections) since its a rather new theary-if year after year more and more papers critesiseing this theary are published compared to the ones supporting it then it can be presented as a disproved theary.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy - first sentence of WP:OR. Regarding soft tissue. Since they extracted mass spec protein sequences from T rex material, doesn't that imply the presence of soft tissue? Lastly, can you please run your comments through either a translator from your primary language or a spell checker? They are hard to read, and it diminishes your credibility, I'm sorry to say. de Bivort 16:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But it is really indeed proteins in the purified Tyrannosaurus bone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.177.75 (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bite Force
Why its bite force is never mentioned?, i have heard that a group of Scientists made computer models to estimate its bite force and cocluded that was somewhere between 3 and 6 tons of pressure, or even 8 tons using a minimal force from bite marks. Can you include a new section with the title "Bite force"?--Dinoexpert (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is mentioned: "...other skull-strengthening features are part of the tyrannosaurid trend towards an increasingly powerful bite, which easily surpassed that of all non-tyrannosaurids." References 17, 18, and 19 if you're interested in looking them up. Now that you mention it though, that does seem a bit light on the info considering the amount of research that has been done on the subject. Anybody else have thoughts? Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove the mention of Possible synonomy with Nanotyrannus
Nanotyrannus was ruled to be a separate species duet oo differences in the Dentition of the two animals, should we remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By whom? feel free to correct me but I'm under the impression that it's still an ongoing debate. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is my impression too (i.e. significant support for the possibility it is a juvenile Tyrannosaur) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Nanotyrannus lancensis does not represent a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex, but the mention of synonomy is not being changed until a source is provided--50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

IP auto-edit war
Don't know what to make of this, but 50.195.51.9 seems to have violated the 3 revert rule in an edit war with his or herself. de Bivort 20:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Wikipedia:Edit warring page:
 * The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:
 * 1.Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
 * Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the edit summaries don't appear to indicate standard self-reversions. It's clear edit warring. But, it's settled down for now. de Bivort 02:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, me again. Yes the argument is over and i was arguing with someone who was using the same IP adress as me. 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's over, it was pretty WP:LAME 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, who ever it was that reverted the page more than 3 times in one day should know that can lead to blocking. But - you should create an account - that would bypass all this confusion! de Bivort 01:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 November 2012
Could someone fix the caption for the size comparison chart in the description, it incorrectly states that the Tyrannosaurus is in Purple when it is actually in green, thanks.

173.62.214.23 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/where-are-all-the-baby-dinosaurs.html heres one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.87.30 (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To do list needs to get nuked
It is outdated, and includes erroneous suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly what kind of erroneous information do you find in this article?? everything is cited from scientific sources and cannot be changed.

If you find a hypothesis that is not plausible at least for you, you must find a page were that information is contradicted and cite that as a reference, take as an example the 1.8-1.56 m skull change for Giganotosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoexpert (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The to-do list (top of this page), not the article itself.
 * FunkMonk - yeah. I suggest you just take to it with an axe %-D - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you said. Yes, I agree with you that The list needs to be changed, Tyrannosaurus was not a scavenger most of the time and many of the other suggestions are wrong, I will make the best to change that.--Dinoexpert (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Scott Person's study into Tyrannosaurus locomotion.
Scott Persons from the University of Alberta proposes that Tyrannosaurus rex's speed may have been enhanced by strong tail muscles. In his study he found that theropods such as T rex had certain muscle arrangements that are different from modern day birds and mammals but with some similarities to modern reptiles. He concludes in his study that the caudofemoralis muscles which link the tail bones and the upper leg bones could have assisted T rex's leg retraction and enhanced its running ability, agility and balance. The study also found that theropod skeletons such as T rex's had adaptations to enable the growth of large tail muscles and that T rex's tail muscle mass may have been underestimated by 45 percent. Scott Persons would also state that T rex's speed is difficult to measure but it could have been the fastest animal in its ecosystem.

DinopediaR (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just added the info.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Caudofemoralis muscle may have increased Tyrannosaurus speed.
Hello. I would like to bring these interesting articles to attention and possibly include the information into the T rex article. According to the articles; Scott Persons, a graduate student from the university of Alberta has postulated that the caudofemoralis muscle(The muscle connecting the tail bone to the thigh bone) of a T rex may have enhanced its speed. According to the article there is a difference between T rex and modern day animals such as birds and mammals, since it also had muscle arrangements similar to that of reptiles. Furthermore, T rex had its tail ribs at a higher position thus allowing more room for tail muscles to increase. The ribs are also different in terms of shape and strength. According to his calculations which were made through computer modeling, the tail mass may have been underestimated by around 45%.The caudofemormalis muscle would then act with T rex's leg muscles to pull the leg back and thereby enhance T rex's running ability, turning ability and balance.

" As for the creature's exact speed, the researchers say that it is very hard to measure, but Parsons says that it could have been the fastest animal in its ecosystem."http://news.softpedia.com/news/T-Rex-s-Tail-Gave-It-Extra-Speed-166825.shtml

From the journal abstract: ''The expanded M. caudofemoralis of Tyrannosaurus may have evolved as compensation for the animal's immense size. Because the M. caudofemoralis is the primary hind limb retractor, large M. caudofemoralis masses and the resulting contractile force and torque estimates presented here indicate a sizable investment in locomotive muscle among theropods with a range of body sizes and give new evidence in favor of greater athleticism, in terms of overall cursoriality, balance, and turning agility.''"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21290/abstract

"When you think about T. rex and its tail, don’t think of a seesaw. Instead, think of a souped-up Volkswagen, because it’s what was in the trunk that provided all the locomotive power." Scott Persons guest contribution to the Archosaur Wordpress blog of paleontologist David Hones-http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/guest-post-bulking-up-the-back-end-why-tyrannosaurus-tail-mass-matters/

Here are the links to the articles:

Articles that reference the journal: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101115131127.htm http://news.softpedia.com/news/T-Rex-s-Tail-Gave-It-Extra-Speed-166825.shtml http://www.livescience.com/11207-rex-declared-faster-inspection-rump.html http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/11/17/t-rexs-big-tail-was-its-key-to-speed-and-hunting-prowess http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/8137663/T-Rex-was-able-to-outrun-any-prey-research-suggests.html

The journal: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21290/abstract;jsessionid=CF6BBFE49B8B7235FF9E508F3A3911F7.d02t02 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21290/full

Archosaur Musings word press blog by Paleontologist David Hone of the University of Bristol. http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/guest-post-bulking-up-the-back-end-why-tyrannosaurus-tail-mass-matters/

I would also like to point out that a similar assertion is now being proposed for Carnotosaurus and hadrosaurs. The article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111014212405.htm proposes that Carnotosaurus also benefited from a similar system. The same conclusion was also made for hadrosaurs when scientist found the mummified hadrosaur; Dakota in 2008. Here is the quote: "The CT scan also was able to accomplish an analysis of the soft tissue of the animal, including the musculature of the tail. The scans revealed that these muscle groups, responsible for the animal's locomotion, were much larger than previously assumed. The research team noted that the estimated size of the muscles would mean that Dakota could run at speeds of up to 28 miles/hour, which is faster than previously thought for these animals.3 Dr Manning noted that this would make the hadrosaur faster than one of its predators, the Tyrannosaurus rex, which would make sense from a survival standpoint." Here is the source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html. The story of Dakota the mummified hadrosaur was covered in national geographic.

The study seems reliable considering the expertise of the people involved and its publishing in the journal, "The Anatomical Record". the study seems comprehensive with computer modeling, research on biomechanics, comparisons with existing reptiles etc. It is also fairly recent having been published around 2010. I also think that Scott Persons' study has merit considering that T rex may have followed the same evolutionary pattern as some of the other dinosaurs; with their speed being enhanced by strong tail muscles.

So can Persons'; findings be included into the T rex article?DinopediaR (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I reconstructed hadrosaur tails like that when I was ten. It seemed so obvious, and I wondered why artists kept drawing them with skinny tails and their hip bones sticking out.  It was nice confirmation when Dakota was discovered, but I was amazed that people were amazed.  — kwami (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that while responding to a question in the archosaur blog of David Hone, he postulated that the tail muscles were also a repository of elastic energy, which probably means it helped the animal conserve energy. " theropod tails probably did sway as the animals ran, but, far from being energetically wasteful, they may have been massive stores of elastic energy. " http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/guest-post-bulking-up-the-back-end-why-tyrannosaurus-tail-mass-matters/ DinopediaR (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be pretty interesting to read, It would expand and make this article even better, so I would say it is appropriate.--Dinoexpert (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC) This appears to be true of all dinosaurs if not all archosaurs, not just T. rex. It could be mentioned in the locomotion section, but an in-depth discussion should be reserved for Dinosaur. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with all of Wikipedia's dinosaur pages are non-experts with a passion for the dated information they learned. This battle for the primary food source of T. Rex is a great example- non-experts are battling how this creature ate. This will almost certainly be solved by the very complete fossil history this creature left behind. So, would Wikipedia remind being noncommittal about this argument until then?

I can't stand this argument that really comes down to- "what does the T. Rex look like in your imagination?" 108.16.61.129 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Snively thesis
Although it sounds good to me (as an interested non-expert), I'm wondering if a thesis submission is good enough to count as a source for a scientific matter - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The thesis was successfuly defended by the author in Ohio University. The author himself; Eric Snively has strong credentials; having published multiple journal articles (which have been referenced by other studies), having at least a Ph.D in Biology and just obtaining another masters degree in Biomedical Engineering from Ohio University, having been involved in various fieldwork, having worked with renowned experts such as Philip Currie and holding various research honors. The link to the thesis itself is being presented at the Witmer Labs site from where I found it; Witmer Labs is an organization with strong credibility and I doubt they would provide questionable studies. http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/lab.htm. Also, the study is recent which means that it benefits from the latest tools and information. Considering all of this, I think the submission is good enough. The link to the author is here. http://www.ohio.edu/people/es180210/Eric-Snively-OhioU.html DinopediaR (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If the author's that credible, then fine by me :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to disagree. I don't think we use unpublished thesis as sources anywhere else o Wiki and generally these are not cited by other scientific papers until published in a peer-reviewed journal. It's not official yet, and undoubtedly it's a work in progress being made ready for publication. So we should wait. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Abyssal (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed Snively's thesis for now.DinopediaR (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

T. rex charge.jpg
Who added that image? The skull shape and musculature are bizarre, it's eye is huge, and do we really need another "reconstruction" on the page, in the same section no less? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomopteryx (talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed it before I saw this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's done either way, so all good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomopteryx (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Image caption reads: "Edmontonia and a cast of the "Stan" specimen, Houston Museum of Natural Science" The fossil is not a cast of "Stan" but is a real-bone fossil named "Wyrex"

204.2.212.62 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. How can someone verify the correctness of your statement? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or one could accept the challenge and check it out for oneself ;-) This newspiece[1] does have this paragraph:
 * "The hall’s dramatic Cretaceous display, with its triangle of Tyrannosaurus rexes, is particularly impressive. Wyrex, a 10-foot T. rex with the most complete set of hands ever discovered, spars with a Denversaurus, a squatty plant eater. Across the room, a slightly bigger T. rex, Stan, clashes with Lane, the only triceratops ever found with fossilized skin. And then there is the gawky teenage T. rex, Bucky, which lurches toward the nest of two giant pterosaurs."
 * The pose of the mount identified as Wyrex at the top is the same except for the head (and both look similar at that) and as Denversaurus was sunk into Edmontonia I think the edit requester does have a point.
 * Here is another photo[2] taken from a similar vantage point and suitably identified. There's a museum handout associating Wyrex with Denversaurus.[3]
 * Finally compare this photo of Stan with the mount mentioned. I think various differences are apparent between the specimens. Dracontes (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixable, I totally misread the request. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014
On the Tyrannosaurus page, Sue is actually 42 feet. Here's my proof:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0878226.html

http://fieldmuseum.org/happening/exhibits/sue-t-rex

http://fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/Sue%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

I hope that is enough information for you. I have been studying her and all Tyrannosaurus's for a long time. I know that she was 42ft long.

NCharizard25 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your request. The problem appears to be that different sources give different lengths. Even the Field Museum cannot agree how long Sue is, here they say she is 40.5 feet, not 42 feet, so they contradict themselves.

As there is a contradiction between the sources, I think we need to keep both in, so have altered the article to say she was between 40' and 42'. Arjayay (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the detailed scientific paper here it says "However Sue's tail is reconstructed beyond the 27th caudal". As the end of her tail has had to be reconstructed, no one will ever know exactly how long she was.


 * The fact of the matter is that the mounted skeleton of Sue is 12.3m in axial length as demonstrated by Hutchinson et al. (2011) this is no estimate, this was derived from the 3D model they made based on laser scanning the whole thing, it doesn't matter that the field museum used to or still claims their skeleton is 12.8m, it is a fact that their mounted skeleton is not and never was that long. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The longer length is verifiable in publications by Sue's owner, but I included both lengths, with citations, so the reader can make their own assessment. You have stated "it is a fact that their mounted skeleton is not and never was that long", could you please cite a reliable source for this statement, avoiding any original research or synthesis. Thanks. Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I always get nervous of people claiming "the facts" or "the truth", especially as the benchmark at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.


 * Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I already mentioned it, Hutchinson et al. (2011), available on the open access scientific journal PLOS One and already cited in the article. The Field Museum never even claimed to have measured the mount, they just claimed it was that long probably because measuring an skeleton that big is hard, the only attempt at actually measuring the thing before Hutchinson et al. (2011) was from Henderson & Snively (2004) by means of tape measure, they measured it at 12.01m, however, measuring by laser scan is inherently more accurate thus 12.29m is the most accurate measurement there is.


 * Museums have something to gain by claiming they have the biggest of the big, visitors. There's museums claiming Arizonasaurus was 7m long when the only fossils we have indicate animals about 3m, the BHI claims Stan is 12.2m long when as demonstrated by Hutchinson et al. again is only 11.8m and that is with a tail reconstructed even longer than Sue's which shouldn't be the case (Scott Hartman), the MOR claims MOR 008 is the longest T. rex skull there is but if you see it and you have at least a little knowledge of T. rex anatomy you see that is horribly put together and stretched on purpose.


 * So who do you believe in? a scientific paper where the skeleton was measured in the most accurate way possible? or the claims of a museum that has something to gain by making exaggerations? If you still want to include the longer length make clear that is a guesstime/claim by the museum but that the mount has been measured at 12.01m by tape measure and 12.3m by laser scan. Mike.BRZ (talk)
 * I think you're reading too much into this. The Field museum web site on Sue was created after the mount went up in the 1990s and has probably had template-based facelifts since then, but I sincerely doubt there is somebody curating that thing to ensure it's up to date with continued research like Hutchinson. Web sites of non-profit organizations are not the best sources for up-to-date minor adjustments to measurement details. The museum probably will require a grant to update the data on the plaques next to the skeleton, let alone remember/bother to do so on the site. When it comes to minor details like a few tenths of a meter, it's probably not worth the money for them to even bother with it. Note that the date on the linked pdf source is 2008, six years ago and 3 years prior to Hutchinson's study. Out of date, plain and simple. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right, I've judged too harshly the Field Museum and I had forgotten about the logistics of making this kind of changes, I did come off as saying they are "lying" in purpose (the same goes for my question above) so I'll change my argumentation to something more level headed. Their claimed lengths and heights are guesstimates and for good reasons and like you said, if all of their site isn't up to date (there's some sections were they do list 40.5ft) is not because of some vested interest is just because overall such change isn't such a big deal, however museum guesstimates are not in the same league as direct measurements with method given found in the literature, so it'll be better if we follow what is found there and not in the website of the Field Museum. Mike.BRZ (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"4m tall at the hip"
I know this little detail has been referenced to the field museum for a long time but they have been wrong about the dimensions of their own mount before (claiming Sue's length to be 12.8m when it actually was 12.3m) and they are certainly wrong here too, as evidenced by this image provided by the team that published Hutchinson et al. (2011), there you can see that the actual mounted skeleton only reaches 3.7m at the hip even when having its legs arranged in an unnatural columnar position. Saying that Sue was 4m tall at the hips is factually incorrect but since there isn't any reliable source explicitely stating it, should it be removed or should it stay until a publication explicitily corrects the field museum again? (after Hutchinson et al. 2011 was published the field museum changed Sue's listed length to 12.3m). Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Scott Hartman, the height at the hip of the tallest T.rex (A.K.A Sue) was about 3.4 m in a normal position, While according to this image Sue is 3.93 m tall with not stretched legs: http://www.rvc.ac.uk/SML/Projects/3DTrexImages.cfm The tallest point at the hips is 7.2 cm long in the image, while the femur is 2.4 cm and in real life its 1.312 m long. making this calculation 1.312/2.4= 0.546666667(7.2)= 3.93 m, but I agree that we should not include the field museum figure in this page, since its reliability is as good as that of the 12.8 m figure.--Dinoexpert (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I recommend you use an image editing software, like GIMP, so you can measure the pixels, is a lot more precise. In the image, every square of the metric grid is 127px by 127px, the skeleton of Sue is 469px from the lowest to the tallest point, so 469/127= 3.69m and those legs are as stretched as is possible, in fact to arrange theropod legs like that you have to break them. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * But that would clearly be original research, with a little bit of synthesis, neither of which are ever allowed on Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, I'm not saying "put 3.7m or less instead" but just remove the 4m claim since we know is wrong but yeah, that answers my question "should it be removed or should it stay until a publication explicitly corrects the field museum again?", thanks. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The scale bar is not accurate, the yielded length for the skeleton using the bar is less than 12 m, the skull length results 1.32, and the femur 1.28 m so the 3.7 m is not that accurate. I recalculated its height and resulted in 3.8 m, however, the metatarsals are a bit crouched, this makes the height a bit less.--Dinoexpert (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because the 12.29m measurement is axial length, following the vertebral column, not straight line, there's nothing wrong with the scale of the images but this is getting offtopic (how to make the article better). Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I still get 3.8 m using the squares, also 12.3 m total length, a length of 1.43 m long in skull (premaxila-quadratoyugal) length, and 1.525 in maximum length, this means my measurements are correct, I got 3.82-3.85 m tall at the hips.--Dinoexpert (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we try to find/create a new restoration for the Description area?
I've noticed some anatomical issues with the current image, such as shrink-wrapping, a snake-like tail, a strange, almost charcharodontosaur-esque head and human-like legs (that is to say they're extended in a position almost as it were standing completely erect ala Homo-genus homonids or Canis-genus dogs). I would propose replacing it with another, more scientific image, and moving the current image to the T.rex in popular culture article's header, but that's just me. In any case, I'd prefer a consensus to be had before relocating the image or not, just to be safe. --Paleontology is a wonderful thing. Shame many people outside of science don&#39;t understand the many dinosaurs aren&#39;t what they used to be. (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see most of what you've listed. This isn't a hadrosaur, so the tail was bendable. "Shrink-wrapping" refers to restorations where the bones almost protrude through the skin, such as here, giving an emaciated appearance, and I don't see that either. Not sure what you mean by "charcharodontosaur-esque" head, the head here has a concave profile, whereas charcharodontosaurs are more convex. One leg is extended, yet flexed and not straight, so not sure what you mean by man-like. We have this alternative, but the head seems a bit small there, and the tail too thin. FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with a few of those points. The leg musculature is clearly based on humans rather than theropods. Bulging thigh, big calf muscles only on the posterior of the leg. Looks like a human runner, not a drumstick. I think the main issue they seem to have is stylistic. Subtle things like the pose, snake-eye, drool, etc. make it seem a bit cartoonish or monster-like rather than naturalistic. It's a bit like using this restoration for Tiger I'd be willing to update this for upload if it would be better  MMartyniuk (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would be good! Looks very heavy, yet with the right proportions. Just for the record, here's a link to the discussion at the image review, where I made a longer reply before seeing this:~ FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it a little and try to upload it today... full disclosure, there will be feathers ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, prepare for conspiracy theories about Wikipedia being controlled by the secret BAD cabal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is my first time commenting so I hope I'm doing this right. Considering there is no evidence that tyrannosaurus rex had feathers, let alone full body feathering, the fact that the only full body life restoration image of a Rex having feathers on its wikipedia page could be considered.. misleading. While the page does make it clear that some scientists hypothesize that it may have had feathers, either another non-feathered image should be presented or a 'disclaimer' should be put beneath the image reminding the viewer that there is no evidence supporting feathering, let alone full body feathering with such well formed feathers clearly beyond the "stage 1" point. In fact, just glancing at the Yutyrannus page, it seems that not only is it the largest known tyrannosaur to have feathers, but all larger species after it (or related, as it may have been an off shooting branch), including tyrannosaurus rex itself as stated on its own page, did not appear to have feathering. 108.15.86.215 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is evidence of extensively feathered tyrannosaurs in formations that preserve feathers, but none against feathers, so it doesn't contradict fossil evidence, rather it reflects it. But I guess Dinoguy can put it more eloquently. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of a single shred of evidence of Rex having feathers. To my knowledge the largest tyrannosaur found with feathers was yutyrannus, which is much smaller than the Rex. We also have skin impressions of Rex, or at least I thought we did, which show scales. So, yes, it really does contradict the evidence. 108.15.86.215 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review#Tyrannosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence it had feather, there's no evidence it didn't have feathers. We have one skin impression, detached from the body, but probably from near the leg (where even modern birds have scales), the size of a playing card. That's not evidence of anything. We have a related species of the same size with full body feathers, and both more primitive and advanced lineages all have feathers. Saying there's no evidence T. rex had full body feathers is like saying there's no evidence Australopithecus had full body hair (see quote from Mark Norell in article). True, but pointless when it comes to restorations. It could equally go either way. If somebody else wants to do an accurate non-feathered restoration I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to presenting both, but I think the current evidence suggests a scaly T. rex is less likely and less scientific as it conflicts with phylogenetic bracketing (and, as discussed with sources in the Feathers section, so do most scientists who have addressed the topic). MMartyniuk (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm mewrrently updating my Daspletosaurus to include feathers, this is a WIP version (I'm probably going to remove some from the underside based on what I have read on the internet.) In Currie 2003  there is a tarbosaurus that has been damaged by poachers, it has skin impressions that were found in the 'thoratic' region. The problem is that due to the damage it's not certain where they came from. The same paper also mentions that 'lighly pebbled' skin impressions are known from Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus but these arn't figured or described. I have just heard about patches of 'naked skin in Gorgosaurus and there is supposedly T.rex skin that resembles 'plucked chicken'. If patches of naked skin exist, then it seems plusable/probable based on phylogenetic bracketing that these areas would be covered in feathers in life. I found a forum page that summerises published and rumoured coelurosaur skin impressions but wikipeda claims it's on their 'spam list' so I can't link to it. Just search 'gorgosaurus skin impressions' in google, it's the third down. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your new version! I was just wondering whether the bumps and horns on the face would really be covered as well? Such are naked in modern birds, but I can't really see if they are too here, since I can't zoom in. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * THe whole lightly pebbled skin = featherless, scale patches needs to be better supported, IMO. Once we get actual descriptions of some of the various pebbled/naked/plucked seeming skin patches, I have a feeling there will turn out to be significant overlap in these morphologies. 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. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the above version I have illustrated the lacrimal, orbital and jugal horns as having no feathers on them. I don't mind pealing the feathers back from the head for the reason you mention. At some point I add this to the image review page. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The T-Rex restoration image is absurd. Even if the t-rex did indeed have feathers (which has yet to be proven), it certainly would not be covered in them.This scientist explains. Close relatives to the T-rex were found with a small amount of feathers.... but never the rex itself. You are making a bold leap that I would compare to.... putting long orange hair on all monkeys because you read about an orangutan. 76.16.108.117 (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there is at least one modern restoration that shows a naked Tyrannosaurus in this article, the one by Luis Rey under locomotion. FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article you link notes that close relatives of T. rex were fully covered in feathers, not that they had a "small amount" which is wrong. It notes that T. rex probably did have feathers but that we don't know for certain how extensive they were. A full covering is just as plausible as a sparse covering. Yutyrannus is the exact same size as most T. rex except exceptionally big specimens like Sue, and it is fully covered. It's still possible T. rex had only a few feathers. It's equally possible, as the article says, that it had a lot of feathers. The current picture is just one possibility in line with known evidence. If somebody were to create one with fewer feathers, that could be displayed as an alternate. But most scientists agree a restoration with zero feathers would be wrong. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I have to note that the scientist who wrote the article is wrong about wings. We know that Ornithomimus and possibly Concavenator had "wings" or pennibrachia (long feathers on the arms and hands), and these clearly could not fly. The evidence shows that wings evolved long before flight, possibly for display or covering nests. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have failed to read the same article that I linked. "This doesn't necessarily mean that T. rex itself had feathers, but it's a very reasonable guess. It also doesn't mean that T. rex had a full array of colourful feathers like a bird. It certainly didn't have wings, as there is no way it could have flown.

It might have just sported a reduced smattering of feathers, the same way that an elephant has a very thin coat of hair." In addition to the fact that the image may or may not be factual and is simply supposition, the image itself is of poor quality and appears as if someone took an existing image of a T-rex and applied a poor photoshop smear tool/filter over it. I would highly recommend replacing said picture, and if you are so adamant that the Rex had feathers, perhaps there exists another photograph with better quality. -Robtalk  23:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way, following current evidence, this restoration is more accurate than a naked version, but I guess discussion could be focused on the extend of feathers, that would be most productive. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If we ever get a free photo of the Yutyrannus specimen, wouldn't it be a good idea to have it here under "Skin and feathers", to get the point clearer across? FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed the Wooly Tyrannosaur. It really is rather ridiculous, both in OR (how would it shed body heat?) and in the bad photoshopping. — kwami (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Saurischians and especially theropods have an extensive air sac system that would help thermoregulate.[1,2,3] Birds today raise their feathers and and even shake their body at the same time to replace the air trapped by them.[4] Feathers and fur aren't only heat traps as a steep temperature gradient works both ways.[5, 6]
 * As for the commentary on MMartyniuk's work, the general stance here is that the images only have to have enough artistic merit to be accurate. If you want something you think is aesthetically better on the page feel free to be so bold as to do it yourself.
 * Dracontes (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I did do a relatively quick photoshop job on an out of date featherless restoration. Considering this was done for free, you get what you pay for ;) If I have time/inclination I can work on finer detailing in the future. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "how would it shed body heat?" Gular flutter? Fluffing out the feathers to allow circulation? Via the naked skin patches? Modern birds have plenty of heat shed methods unavailable to large mammals but perfectly available to large birds, even hypothetical giant ones. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took a few minutes and whipped up a quick version with feathering at the minimum plausible extreme. Given that this is less feathering than the officially distributed pictures of the more basal Siats, this might satisfy everybody...? Nah ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the minumum plausible extreme would be no noticeable feathers at all, but this seems like a reasonable compromise. — kwami (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to me, but then again, the old one was as well, so let's see what everyone else thinks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could include both versions to show the two reasonable extremes for tyrannosaur integument? It would at least satisfy both crowds. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. If anyone feels up to it, a downy Tyrannosaurus chicken would be nice. While feathers in the adults is debatable, I don't think there's any real reason to doubt the smaller ones had some sort of insulating covering. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on what though? This is controversial in another way--the Nanotyannus debate. If Nanotyrannus is real, there are no known juvenile T. rex specimens. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's unneeded, we have one completely unfeathered one also, but we could maybe have one of a juvenile? FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful if someone wrote a disclaimer/explanation for this issue regarding the restoration image on the actual article? Right now it just seems to be floating there and there's nothing explaining it on the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.33.20 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Little update
Tomo (that being Tomopteryx here on Wikipedia) tells me that, according to a paper in the new Hell Creek volume, the mean average temperature of at least part of the Hell Creek Formation was only 7-11 degrees Celsius. The temperature of the Yixian (at least when Yutyrannus was alive) was 10 degrees Celsius. Would this in any way affect the integumental standards for Tyrannosaurus? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)