Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tyrannosaurus: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:29, 6 February 2007 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,959 edits adding old facfailed template for GimmeBot prepartion to convert to articlehistory template← Previous edit Revision as of 23:35, 6 February 2007 edit undoGimmetrow (talk | contribs)Administrators45,380 edits Intro: unsubstNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
{{to do}} {{to do}}
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Natsci}} {{V0.5|class=FA|category=Natsci}}
{{oldpeerreview|Tyrannosaurus rex/Archive1}}

{{oldpeerreview|Tyrannosaurus rex}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" size=10px
|-
| ]
|align="center"|'''{{PAGENAME}}''' has had two ]s which have been archived: ''']''', ''']'''. They may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
]
|}


{| class="infobox" width="270px" {| class="infobox" width="270px"

Revision as of 23:35, 6 February 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tyrannosaurus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.
Former FACThis article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
WikiProject iconDinosaurs Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Tyrannosaurus: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2018-10-07

Please be bold in editing the article and in editing/adding/striking out items from this list.

  • Parentheses in introduction need to be fixed.
  • Information on hypothesized reproduction, if known, eggs and/or juveniles would be nice.
  • The phrase meaning "tyrant lizard", from the Ancient Greek tyrannos (τύραννος), "tyrant", and sauros (σαῦρος), "lizard" is misleading, if not plainly wrong. "Tyrannos" did not mean "Tyrant" but "King", as can be seen in the Tyrant article from Misplaced Pages. If you follow the reference mark for the binomial name of the saurus, it is discussed the "rex" part using "Oedipus Rex" ("Oedipus the King") when the original title was "Οἰδίπους Τύραννος" (Oidipous Tyrannos), and was translated both to Latin and to English as "King", not "Tyrant". Furthermore, Osborn, who named T. Rex, only wrote I propose to make this animal the type of the new genus Tyrannosaurus, in reference to its size, which greatly exceeds that of any carnivorous land animal hitherto described, which clearly points to the hierarchy of the animal due to its size, and not to its illegitimacy as a ruler.
  • The phrase T.Rex is a fixture in popular culture. needs to be removed from the first paragraph. It has no place in the text before a general description of the species. Furthermore it is paraphrased toward the end of the article anyway. Although T.Rex has appeared in many films and videogames etc, it is not defined by its stasis in 'Pop-culture'. This attitude makes the article frivolous and robs it of its initial scientific merit.
  • The text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis.
  • Improve Tyrannosaurus in popular culture and summarise main points here.
  • Figure out status of the image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg.
  • Don't reference to Jurassic (movie). (I'm not sure what this means, however wrong the name of the movie is it does portray a T-rex well....?)
    That'd be Jurassic Park, most likely. Bob the WikipediaN 02:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Need an image of a T-rex as if feathered. (I have emailed Ken Carpenter and Thomsa Holtz for leads...Cas Liber 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) - getting there - Ken told me of an image in Nov 99 National Geographic so I will email them forthwith Cas Liber 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I had the issue in question but I seem to have misplaced it. I wasn't aware images from NatGeo were usable here--if so, I've got a ton of scanning to do... At any rate it might be better to ask around to amature paleoartists, browse through the artists on Dinosauricon, etc. There are plenty of great feathered rex illustrations out there.Dinoguy2 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mapping a timeline of geological and evolutionary history to Galactic rotation is linear (though cyclic because of the rotation) and profitable. For instance, T. Rex emerged just after the Andromeda Galaxy lined up with the Galactic Center. The Cambrian was three Galactic rotations ago, plants emerged onto land two, and animals about one.
What the heck? J. Spencer 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace the dino cards references with reliable sources that have a url or isbn
  • Include the word 'partially' in description of Soft Tissue section where it reads fossilized leg bone. Clearly if this contains soft tissue the specimen was only partially fossilized.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand fossilization. Fossils are hard (they're rocks), but they sometimes preserve soft tissues by turning them into hard material, see for example Burgess Shale or Cambrian explosion. Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Philcha, while most fossils are indeed rock (and may be completely remineralised) "fossils" can be any buried trace of life (except human artifacts), although some definitions do draw the line at the end of the last glacial episode 10,000 years ago - anything more recent is then not a fossil (cf Concise Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences). The soft tissue being referred to here is possibly unremineralised connective tissue including proteins (collagen) and amino acids. The T rex was certainly fossilised in the strict sense, but amazingly may retain tiny amounts of original unmineralised tissue - this is what "only partially fossilised" intends here, I believe. It would probably be better to say the fossil apparently includes original connective tissue. This has also been reported in a Hadrosaur.Orbitalforam (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The part about speed needs to be fixed. In order for a Tyrannosaurus to run at 45mph it would need massive legs muscles. The size of the muscles it needed for that kind of speed would be too heavy for it to lift. In comparison, the leg muscles it did have were already heavy enough, so that the combined wieght of the leg muscles and the body forced it to walk straight legged, like an elephant. So much leg muscle would also mean that some muscle would have to actually be taken away from the jaws to add to that(A creature can only have so much muscle in it before it becomes to heavy to move itself). Also that type of speed would be dangerous for a Tyrannosaurus. The skull of T-rex was extremely heavy, and those arms could not support its weight at all, so one fall could be fatal for it. Therefor the Tyrannosaurus could only run at about 15-20 mph. Sorry, I just had to get that out.:) Watch out for the Discovery ChannelMs. dino fanatic (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) show "Tyrannosaurus- New Science: New Beast". That's where I get all of this from.

  • I think it has been overlooked that the limb structure of the tyrannosaurus is almost identical to a kangaroo. Perhaps it didn't run at all.
Never been scientifically suggested, as far as I know. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Add author, journal name and date published for the reference number 26 article "Maximum Bite Force and Prey Size of Tyrannosaurus rex and Their Relationships to the Inference of Feeding Behavior". Here is the missing information. " Historical Biology: A Journal of Paleobiology, Volume 16, Number 1, August 2003 , pp. 1-12(12)". The journal article can be obtained here: or here:

missile

Template:V0.5

Tyrannosaurus received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Tyrannosaurus received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives

Status of Manospondylus

I lood through http://www.iczn.org/Official_Lists_Indexes_pdfs.htm, and I couldn't find Manospondylus gigas in the 2001 Supplement published by the ICZN. This may mean that the ICZN has not been empowered to reject Manospondylus in favor of Tyrannosaurus. Manospondylus may turn out to be a different type of archosaur in a cladistic analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Posture

Does anybody else think that the modern posture looks a lot scarier than the posture in the early 1900s?Colin Reding 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, both Godzilla and Barney are use the old posture, and they're terrifying ;)Dinoguy2 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I know!!!! Barney is terrifying!70.100.165.76 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie

Anyone else notice a rogue 'was here' comment under the feathers heading? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

It's no doubt unintentional, but it's kind of humorous to be listing the "conservation status" in the infobox for a dinosaur. Somebody feeling energetic might want to remove this, if there's not some good reason for it... Dan Knapp 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No more humorous than listing the conservation status for human... All animal species infoboxes have conservation status at the moment, no matter how obvious ;) Dinoguy2 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Running Speed

I was watching a special last night and read that a new discovery was found on Tyrannosaurus fossils. It's bones were riddled with holes. With this new discovery we find out that the weight of this animal would change drastically! Factoring this in and the other spaces inside of the animal would give it the possibility to run up to 25mph! Also, if the Tyrannosaurus stored energy in it's rigid tail, then it could run for a longer time. Desert Spada 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Size

The size for T-rex in the article is small. A t-rex called C-rex that has been partially uncovered is estimated to be larger than Sue. It is estimated to be 45ft long and weigh 8.5 tons. Could somebody please change the article. guest 1-9-07

C-rex, or specimen MOR 1126, has not been described in the literature, but several reports since it was announced indicate that it is much smaller than Horner initially believed, possilby not as alrge as Sue. Dinoguy2 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Albertosaurus taller?

I've seen that Giganotosaurus was taller than Tyrannosaurus at 5.5 m, but I also a page online which stated that Albertosaurus was roughly 5 m to 5.5 m tall as well. This would make Albertosaurus taller than Tyrannosaurus (I'm not talking about length or weight, just height). Can anyone clarify/confirm this for me? MelicansMatkin 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any serious data on dinosaur height... did it refer to height at the hip? Many sources, including older books, list now-inaccurate height because of old concepts of tyrannosaur body position. The newer, horizontal stances significantly reduce the old "20ft tall" stats for T. rex, for instance. Dinoguy2 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What I did was search "Albertosaurus Height" through Google. I only looked at the blurb, it was I think the fourth option and it was for a website called DinoDictionary. Heres the blurb on the Google Search page:

Height: 18 feet (5.5 meters) Length: 40 feet (12.2 meters) ... A jaw and teeth belonging to an Albertosaurus were identified by Joseph Leidy, who named the ...

MelicansMatkin 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say for certain that a) the mounted (or whatever you call the skeleton on a slab type mount) Albertasuarus at the AMNH is not 18 ft tall, and it's in the old fashioned Godzilla pose and b) the T. rex there used to be 20 ft tall until they corrected its pose. So I think a figure like 18ft is clearly based on an innaccurate, upright posture. The best way to measure dinosaur height is to the hip, especially in bipedal species. This is just a guesstimate, but I think an Albertasuaurs would be around 8 ft tall at the hip, or less. Dinoguy2 16:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the hip height of Sue is usually listed as 13 ft, for comparison. Dinoguy2 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification MelicansMatkin 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

running and falling

Surely we can find a better citation for the running and falling discussion (#54) than a creationist website? J. Spencer 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking. I don't remember that cite being in there a few months ago when we FAd this article. Somehow, someone slipped something in, methinks. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Bingo. It appeared on the 12th of September (14:06, 12 September 2006 Mdotley), although I don't know if the editor had anything ulterior in mind. I took care of it, at any rate. J. Spencer 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, J, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: