Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tyrannosaurus/to do: 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.
< Talk:Tyrannosaurus Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:44, 6 December 2010 edit24.145.202.74 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:45, 7 October 2018 edit undoSlate Weasel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,478 editsNo edit summary 
(10 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Please ] in editing the article and in editing/adding/striking out items from this list. Please ] 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. *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.
*Information on its feeding strategy needs to be updated. Specifically, the scavenger vs. predator debate. While it may have hunted prey, one of its main food sources most likely was in fact carrion. It probably used its highly developed sense of smell to detect fresh kills made by smaller predators and then showed up on the scene to scare them away. After fighting with the smaller predators and/or scaring them away it probably took what was left of the kill. It's more likely that the t-rex ran not to catch prey but to to make it to a fresh carcass before the predators who actually made the kill could finish eating it.
*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. *The text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis.
*Improve ] and summarise main points here. *Improve ] and summarise main points here.
*Figure out status of the image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg. *Figure out status of the image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg.
*<del>Don't reference to Jurassic (movie).</del> ''(I'm not sure what this means, however wrong the name of the movie is it does portray a T-rex well....?)'' *<del>Don't reference to Jurassic (movie).</del> ''(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. ] <sup>(] • ]) </sup> 02:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*<del>'''Need an image of a T-rex as if feathered.''' (I have emailed Ken Carpenter and Thomsa Holtz for leads...] 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 ] 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.] 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)</del> *<del>'''Need an image of a T-rex as if feathered.''' (I have emailed Ken Carpenter and Thomsa Holtz for leads...] 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 ] 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.] 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)</del>
*<del>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.</del> *<del>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.</del>
Line 15: Line 18:
::: 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.] (]) 09:32, 18 February 2010 (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.] (]) 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 Channel] (]) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) show "Tyrannosaurus- New Science: New Beast". That's where I get all of this from. 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 Channel] (]) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) show "Tyrannosaurus- New Science: New Beast". That's where I get all of this from.

*<s>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.</s>
::Never been scientifically suggested, as far as I know. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 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

Latest revision as of 19:45, 7 October 2018

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