This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Greg Paul's proposed split has been published: [1]
It is probably worth writing a few words about this, at least when the paper is out in final form. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 04:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia. From what I have seen they have always automatically and quickly listed on the summary bar on the upper right under Other Species new paleospecies names that have appeared after being properly published in the academic literature. Only if technical research indicates otherwise are species names not listed there. T. regina and T. imperator were published properly vetted in a peer reviewed paper. There has been nothing yet in the technical literature contradicting the conclusions of the EB paper -- that will take awhile if it occurs. Yet the only mention of the new titles on the Wiki site is a discussion of the controversy in the main text. Apparently they are taking nontechnical criticisms of the new names by a limited sample of paleos in the news media as a reason to not properly list the species names.
Does anyone know of another example of this happening at Wikipedia? If not the nonscientific and over extreme response to the new Tyrannosaurus species is being made all the more apparent.
GSPaul". Mickey Mortimer provided a good response, though. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Taken from Greg Paul's latest response: "So, our paper was the first to directly address the problem in the mainline peer reviewed. Wikipedia is not supposed to make judgment calls based on news articles, it is supposed to follow the technical literature as lately presented. Not read a NYTimes article and go from that. If this were a non iconic dinosaur under otherwise identical scientific circumstances they prob would have done so by now -- although as Tom H says we should see what they do in coming days."
I am not sure Paul actually knows how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
This does raise the interesting question of whether precedent exists. Perhaps Eiectus? Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that GSP is essentially bullying the scientific community, as well as the wikipedia editing community, into doing what he wants by sheer volume of messages and density of text. Not that that means his species shouldn't be added, but it is a present concern. 2601:8C1:8401:5C80:D832:F549:BE66:BFEA ( talk) 00:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC) TBA
Based on his posts on the DML, Paul is drawing several analogies to cases that he considers to be precedent. However, Paul's paper has never been responded to in the technical literature, unlike the issues of Chasmosaurus russelli, Ornithoscelida, and others. Even still, we do not take a stance on the Ornithoscelida hypothesis on the dinosaur page. Mr. Paul, this is what we mean when we are talking about "undue weight". There has not been a published technical evaluation either supporting or rejecting your hypothesis, specifically that of anagenesis across three species. The past work noting trends in robustness and other aspects of morphology don't present a unified consensus with taxonomic implications. If you simply diagnosed a set of well-recognized morphotypes A, B, and C, there wouldn't be an issue here. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 02:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The latest word from Paul:
Because Wikipedia is probably the primary information source for most people about fossil creatures including Tyrannosaurus they must maintain consistent standards. Until now when new species are named in a peer reviewed publication, in a day or two they are placed in the taxobox on the right side of the first page. Sometimes a question mark is used if there is some question about the name. Species may be removed from the prominent location when new peer vetted research makes that necessary. There have been no exceptions to this. Until now. Tyrannosaurus received special, discriminatory, nonscientific treatment. The new names are still not highlighted in the taxobox when this is posted, despite protest raised by the senior author. The Wikipedia editors made an arbitrary decision based on initial news accounts and podcasts featuring the problematic, nonpeer reviewed comments to limit mention of the new names to a brief section of text. Examination of the discussion on this decision appears to reveal a bias, driven in part by seeming ad hominem criticisms of me. Wikipedia needs to immediately place the new species in the taxobox, with question marks if the editors prefer. They should both be removed only in the event that future peer reviewed research, following the requirements detailed above, firmly establishes that there could have been only the one species T. rex. If future work is not able to do that, but does not strongly verify the two species either, then the names should remain in place, perhaps with question marks. That situation may remain in force for an extended period. If the species are supported then the question marks need removing. It is possible that one of the new species will be sustained while another is shown to be substantially weaker or errant, in that case adjust the contents of the taxobox accordingly to reflect the scientific complexities, rather than the simplistic scheme that is currently misleading readers.
Obviously, this accomplishes nothing. Paul does not get to dictate his own, incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policy. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
A new study written by notable paleontologists rejecting the idea of three separate species (T. rex, T. imperator, T. regina) was published in late July 2022. I think someone able to edit should add this information into the article.
The study:
Carr, T.D., Napoli, J.G., Brusatte, S.L. et al. Insufficient Evidence for Multiple Species of Tyrannosaurus in the Latest Cretaceous of North America: A Comment on “The Tyrant Lizard King, Queen and Emperor: Multiple Lines of Morphological and Stratigraphic Evidence Support Subtle Evolution and Probable Speciation Within the North American Genus Tyrannosaurus”. Evol Biol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-022-09573-1 86.58.104.54 ( talk) 09:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Height What 94.21.78.149 ( talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please "Access to the rostral neurovascular canals of the Tyrannosaurus enables the reconstruction of many trigeminal-related soft tissue structures, functions, behaviors, and ecology in extant and extinct archosaurs." to Brain and Senses Bnguye48 ( talk) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. The section already includes text on the implications of neurovascular features for facial integument. The suggested sentence also does not make sense: soft tissue, behaviour, and ecology are easily observed in extant archosaurs.
Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.122.80.237 ( talk) 21:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC) T rex was about 12ft tall and 40ft long some claim that t rex was 18 ft tall which is not true.T rex lived 68-66 million years ago and the 1st t rex to be discovered was found by Barum Brown.
The article states that Barnum Brown made his first T. Rex find in Eastern Wyoming. In the book "The Monster's Bones", David Randall states that the first skeleton was found at Hell Creek, feet away from the site where the second skeleton was later found. As there is no citation in the article for the Wyoming location I suggest it be changed.
Recently, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cne.25453 suggested new ideas about dinosaur intelligence, such as new concepts about the intelligence of Tyrannosaurus Rex in particular. Madden Boseroy ( talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The article is very conservative about Tyrannosaurus' status as the largest land predator ever discovered. While the holder of this noteworthy record was hotly disputed as recently as the 2000s, taking on almost the tone of a political argument, the picture has become much clearer over the last 10 years. Thanks in part to more sophisticated and accurate computer models, Tyrannosaurus' body mass estimates have been bumped up significantly, as the article itself reflects. On the other hand, the known fossils of the three only other true contenders--Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Mapusaurus--have been shown to have had their lengths overestimated, and were not as massive as equivalent tyrannosaurids to begin with. Spinosaurus, the only remaining theropod longer than Tyrannosaurus, has been shown to be less massive still, as well as mostly aquatic, casting doubt on its eligibility for the status of "land predator," or at least "obligate land predator."
It's important to note that size is conventionally measured as mass, not length or height, which is why the African bush elephant, not the reticulated python or the giraffe, is uncontroversially considered the largest living terrestrial animal. I would further like to note that all of these length and mass estimates are borne out on their respective Wikipedia articles. On the Carcharodontosaurus article, it unselfconsciously describes the animal as the "5th largest theropod overall according to most estimates." The Mapusaurus article calls its subject "slightly smaller in size than (...) Giganotosaurus" at "over 5 metric tons (...) at maximum." The Giganotosaurus article, in turn, admits that Tyrannosaurus "has been considered the largest theropod historically," that "the incompleteness of (Giganotosaurus') remains have made it difficult to estimate its size reliably," and that "some writers have considered the largest size estimates for both specimens exaggerated," listing this allegedly exaggerated estimate for the largest specimen at 8.2 metric tons, which even then is still well below the by far more accepted 8.87 metric tons listed in the Tyrannosaurus article. Finally, the Spinosaurus article puts the maximum weight for its subject's up-to-date reconstruction at 7.4 metric tons, before noting that the newest studies consider even this relatively low mass an overestimate which "cannot be considered a reliable body size estimate."
As a result, this otherwise great and cutting-edge Tyrannosaurus article smacks of being unduly cautious and downright dated whenever it comes to placing its subject in the size hierarchy. Especially the following phrase in the otherwise beautiful lead sounds like it hasn't been updated in a decade: "Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it is still among the largest known land predators (...)." And in the Size section, in "T. rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time," the qualifier "one of" sounds almost absurd followed by the staggering but uncontroversial updated mass estimates--that comfortably exceed even the most exaggerated estimates of any of the other theropods in the accompanying infographic, as I pointed out above.
I suggest that this article be edited to plainly inform the reader about what the majority of scholars seem to have concluded: Tyrannosaurus was (by a nontrivial margin) the largest (i.e. most massive) land predator ever discovered. Only one theropod dinosaur, Spinosaurus, has been discovered that was conclusively longer. However, Spinosaurus was both less massive as well as not an obligate land predator.
At minimum, the awkward, apologetic statement in the lead "(Tyrannosaurus) is still among the largest known land predators" should be revised or omitted so that it doesn't convey the impression that some unexpected recent developments have been eroding Tyrannosaurus' relative size, contradicting popular perception in dramatic fashion along the way. The opposite has been the case: 1. Tyrannosaurus' relative size has increased significantly. 2. The new sensationalist attitude is much closer to trying to "top" Tyrannosaurus, that anything but Tyrannosaurus must be the record holder, whereas Tyrannosaurus itself is "old news." I hope go-to sources like this Wikipedia article haven't added any fuel to the flames here.
If this suggested remedy is still too much, then at the barest minimum those other theropod articles should be edited to no longer unanimously defer to the subject of this article as an almost undisputed record holder, in order to make the Wiki more consistent.
I wasn't bold enough to just go ahead and cut open this beautiful article without consulting the community, so I'm hoping this can be the spark that inspires somebody to make some positive revisions. Needless to say, the question "Which was the largest known land predator?" has taken on historical, almost mythological proportions. Calling public interest "high" would be an understatement.
tl;dr: Tyrannosaurus is the largest land predator ever discovered by a nontrivial margin; size is measured by mass; the article makes it sound like other land predators approaching or exceeding Tyrannosaurus' body mass have been discovered, even though the articles for those land predators disagree, and the math from all the mass estimates even in the articles themselves contradicts this; the record for the largest land predator of all time is noteworthy and interesting to the public 2001:9E8:8FC:AE00:983:4A5B:7C9:C387 ( talk) 10:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Numerous articles scattered throughout the internet showcase studies suggesting that Nanotyrannus may be a valid genus that coexisted with T.rex. Since the old Nanotyrannus article on this website was subject to deletion I was hoping we could possibly bring it back or make an article about this debate. FishyGuy77 ( talk) 14:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis in the species list PaleoOuedZem ( talk) 02:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Use as toothpicks has been suggested. This was a significant historical conjecture, still mentioned as a valid primary or secondary function, especially in the absence of birds that today have a similar symbiotic role for living archosaurs. Drsruli ( talk) 03:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Taxonomic Status of Nanotyrannus lancensis (Dinosauria: Tyrannosauroidea)—A Distinct Taxon of Small-Bodied Tyrannosaur
- https://www.mdpi.com/2813-6284/2/1/1
(looks credible but this is apparently a new publication)
- 189.122.84.88 ( talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
One of the Brazilian websites (I can give you the link) said that that species of Tyrannosaurus was bigger than "Tyrannosaurus rex" (and I can add the family tree) RogerMadruga ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
As of today, a new species of Tyrannosaurus has been described in a paper published by Nature. This species, Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis predates T. rex by 6-7 million years yet is about as large. Given the utter depth at which this article goes into T. rex, how will we fit this new information on this new species into this page? For so long, Tyrannosaurus has been a monotypic genus, and save for that one little Greg Paul moment that was roundly rejected, no new species have been added til now. How are we going to proceed with this? DownAirStairsConditioner ( talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Greg Paul's proposed split has been published: [1]
It is probably worth writing a few words about this, at least when the paper is out in final form. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 04:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia. From what I have seen they have always automatically and quickly listed on the summary bar on the upper right under Other Species new paleospecies names that have appeared after being properly published in the academic literature. Only if technical research indicates otherwise are species names not listed there. T. regina and T. imperator were published properly vetted in a peer reviewed paper. There has been nothing yet in the technical literature contradicting the conclusions of the EB paper -- that will take awhile if it occurs. Yet the only mention of the new titles on the Wiki site is a discussion of the controversy in the main text. Apparently they are taking nontechnical criticisms of the new names by a limited sample of paleos in the news media as a reason to not properly list the species names.
Does anyone know of another example of this happening at Wikipedia? If not the nonscientific and over extreme response to the new Tyrannosaurus species is being made all the more apparent.
GSPaul". Mickey Mortimer provided a good response, though. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Taken from Greg Paul's latest response: "So, our paper was the first to directly address the problem in the mainline peer reviewed. Wikipedia is not supposed to make judgment calls based on news articles, it is supposed to follow the technical literature as lately presented. Not read a NYTimes article and go from that. If this were a non iconic dinosaur under otherwise identical scientific circumstances they prob would have done so by now -- although as Tom H says we should see what they do in coming days."
I am not sure Paul actually knows how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
This does raise the interesting question of whether precedent exists. Perhaps Eiectus? Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 00:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that GSP is essentially bullying the scientific community, as well as the wikipedia editing community, into doing what he wants by sheer volume of messages and density of text. Not that that means his species shouldn't be added, but it is a present concern. 2601:8C1:8401:5C80:D832:F549:BE66:BFEA ( talk) 00:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC) TBA
Based on his posts on the DML, Paul is drawing several analogies to cases that he considers to be precedent. However, Paul's paper has never been responded to in the technical literature, unlike the issues of Chasmosaurus russelli, Ornithoscelida, and others. Even still, we do not take a stance on the Ornithoscelida hypothesis on the dinosaur page. Mr. Paul, this is what we mean when we are talking about "undue weight". There has not been a published technical evaluation either supporting or rejecting your hypothesis, specifically that of anagenesis across three species. The past work noting trends in robustness and other aspects of morphology don't present a unified consensus with taxonomic implications. If you simply diagnosed a set of well-recognized morphotypes A, B, and C, there wouldn't be an issue here. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 02:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The latest word from Paul:
Because Wikipedia is probably the primary information source for most people about fossil creatures including Tyrannosaurus they must maintain consistent standards. Until now when new species are named in a peer reviewed publication, in a day or two they are placed in the taxobox on the right side of the first page. Sometimes a question mark is used if there is some question about the name. Species may be removed from the prominent location when new peer vetted research makes that necessary. There have been no exceptions to this. Until now. Tyrannosaurus received special, discriminatory, nonscientific treatment. The new names are still not highlighted in the taxobox when this is posted, despite protest raised by the senior author. The Wikipedia editors made an arbitrary decision based on initial news accounts and podcasts featuring the problematic, nonpeer reviewed comments to limit mention of the new names to a brief section of text. Examination of the discussion on this decision appears to reveal a bias, driven in part by seeming ad hominem criticisms of me. Wikipedia needs to immediately place the new species in the taxobox, with question marks if the editors prefer. They should both be removed only in the event that future peer reviewed research, following the requirements detailed above, firmly establishes that there could have been only the one species T. rex. If future work is not able to do that, but does not strongly verify the two species either, then the names should remain in place, perhaps with question marks. That situation may remain in force for an extended period. If the species are supported then the question marks need removing. It is possible that one of the new species will be sustained while another is shown to be substantially weaker or errant, in that case adjust the contents of the taxobox accordingly to reflect the scientific complexities, rather than the simplistic scheme that is currently misleading readers.
Obviously, this accomplishes nothing. Paul does not get to dictate his own, incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policy. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
A new study written by notable paleontologists rejecting the idea of three separate species (T. rex, T. imperator, T. regina) was published in late July 2022. I think someone able to edit should add this information into the article.
The study:
Carr, T.D., Napoli, J.G., Brusatte, S.L. et al. Insufficient Evidence for Multiple Species of Tyrannosaurus in the Latest Cretaceous of North America: A Comment on “The Tyrant Lizard King, Queen and Emperor: Multiple Lines of Morphological and Stratigraphic Evidence Support Subtle Evolution and Probable Speciation Within the North American Genus Tyrannosaurus”. Evol Biol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-022-09573-1 86.58.104.54 ( talk) 09:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Height What 94.21.78.149 ( talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please "Access to the rostral neurovascular canals of the Tyrannosaurus enables the reconstruction of many trigeminal-related soft tissue structures, functions, behaviors, and ecology in extant and extinct archosaurs." to Brain and Senses Bnguye48 ( talk) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. The section already includes text on the implications of neurovascular features for facial integument. The suggested sentence also does not make sense: soft tissue, behaviour, and ecology are easily observed in extant archosaurs.
Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs)
20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.122.80.237 ( talk) 21:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC) T rex was about 12ft tall and 40ft long some claim that t rex was 18 ft tall which is not true.T rex lived 68-66 million years ago and the 1st t rex to be discovered was found by Barum Brown.
The article states that Barnum Brown made his first T. Rex find in Eastern Wyoming. In the book "The Monster's Bones", David Randall states that the first skeleton was found at Hell Creek, feet away from the site where the second skeleton was later found. As there is no citation in the article for the Wyoming location I suggest it be changed.
Recently, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cne.25453 suggested new ideas about dinosaur intelligence, such as new concepts about the intelligence of Tyrannosaurus Rex in particular. Madden Boseroy ( talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The article is very conservative about Tyrannosaurus' status as the largest land predator ever discovered. While the holder of this noteworthy record was hotly disputed as recently as the 2000s, taking on almost the tone of a political argument, the picture has become much clearer over the last 10 years. Thanks in part to more sophisticated and accurate computer models, Tyrannosaurus' body mass estimates have been bumped up significantly, as the article itself reflects. On the other hand, the known fossils of the three only other true contenders--Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Mapusaurus--have been shown to have had their lengths overestimated, and were not as massive as equivalent tyrannosaurids to begin with. Spinosaurus, the only remaining theropod longer than Tyrannosaurus, has been shown to be less massive still, as well as mostly aquatic, casting doubt on its eligibility for the status of "land predator," or at least "obligate land predator."
It's important to note that size is conventionally measured as mass, not length or height, which is why the African bush elephant, not the reticulated python or the giraffe, is uncontroversially considered the largest living terrestrial animal. I would further like to note that all of these length and mass estimates are borne out on their respective Wikipedia articles. On the Carcharodontosaurus article, it unselfconsciously describes the animal as the "5th largest theropod overall according to most estimates." The Mapusaurus article calls its subject "slightly smaller in size than (...) Giganotosaurus" at "over 5 metric tons (...) at maximum." The Giganotosaurus article, in turn, admits that Tyrannosaurus "has been considered the largest theropod historically," that "the incompleteness of (Giganotosaurus') remains have made it difficult to estimate its size reliably," and that "some writers have considered the largest size estimates for both specimens exaggerated," listing this allegedly exaggerated estimate for the largest specimen at 8.2 metric tons, which even then is still well below the by far more accepted 8.87 metric tons listed in the Tyrannosaurus article. Finally, the Spinosaurus article puts the maximum weight for its subject's up-to-date reconstruction at 7.4 metric tons, before noting that the newest studies consider even this relatively low mass an overestimate which "cannot be considered a reliable body size estimate."
As a result, this otherwise great and cutting-edge Tyrannosaurus article smacks of being unduly cautious and downright dated whenever it comes to placing its subject in the size hierarchy. Especially the following phrase in the otherwise beautiful lead sounds like it hasn't been updated in a decade: "Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it is still among the largest known land predators (...)." And in the Size section, in "T. rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time," the qualifier "one of" sounds almost absurd followed by the staggering but uncontroversial updated mass estimates--that comfortably exceed even the most exaggerated estimates of any of the other theropods in the accompanying infographic, as I pointed out above.
I suggest that this article be edited to plainly inform the reader about what the majority of scholars seem to have concluded: Tyrannosaurus was (by a nontrivial margin) the largest (i.e. most massive) land predator ever discovered. Only one theropod dinosaur, Spinosaurus, has been discovered that was conclusively longer. However, Spinosaurus was both less massive as well as not an obligate land predator.
At minimum, the awkward, apologetic statement in the lead "(Tyrannosaurus) is still among the largest known land predators" should be revised or omitted so that it doesn't convey the impression that some unexpected recent developments have been eroding Tyrannosaurus' relative size, contradicting popular perception in dramatic fashion along the way. The opposite has been the case: 1. Tyrannosaurus' relative size has increased significantly. 2. The new sensationalist attitude is much closer to trying to "top" Tyrannosaurus, that anything but Tyrannosaurus must be the record holder, whereas Tyrannosaurus itself is "old news." I hope go-to sources like this Wikipedia article haven't added any fuel to the flames here.
If this suggested remedy is still too much, then at the barest minimum those other theropod articles should be edited to no longer unanimously defer to the subject of this article as an almost undisputed record holder, in order to make the Wiki more consistent.
I wasn't bold enough to just go ahead and cut open this beautiful article without consulting the community, so I'm hoping this can be the spark that inspires somebody to make some positive revisions. Needless to say, the question "Which was the largest known land predator?" has taken on historical, almost mythological proportions. Calling public interest "high" would be an understatement.
tl;dr: Tyrannosaurus is the largest land predator ever discovered by a nontrivial margin; size is measured by mass; the article makes it sound like other land predators approaching or exceeding Tyrannosaurus' body mass have been discovered, even though the articles for those land predators disagree, and the math from all the mass estimates even in the articles themselves contradicts this; the record for the largest land predator of all time is noteworthy and interesting to the public 2001:9E8:8FC:AE00:983:4A5B:7C9:C387 ( talk) 10:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Numerous articles scattered throughout the internet showcase studies suggesting that Nanotyrannus may be a valid genus that coexisted with T.rex. Since the old Nanotyrannus article on this website was subject to deletion I was hoping we could possibly bring it back or make an article about this debate. FishyGuy77 ( talk) 14:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis in the species list PaleoOuedZem ( talk) 02:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Use as toothpicks has been suggested. This was a significant historical conjecture, still mentioned as a valid primary or secondary function, especially in the absence of birds that today have a similar symbiotic role for living archosaurs. Drsruli ( talk) 03:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Taxonomic Status of Nanotyrannus lancensis (Dinosauria: Tyrannosauroidea)—A Distinct Taxon of Small-Bodied Tyrannosaur
- https://www.mdpi.com/2813-6284/2/1/1
(looks credible but this is apparently a new publication)
- 189.122.84.88 ( talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
One of the Brazilian websites (I can give you the link) said that that species of Tyrannosaurus was bigger than "Tyrannosaurus rex" (and I can add the family tree) RogerMadruga ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
As of today, a new species of Tyrannosaurus has been described in a paper published by Nature. This species, Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis predates T. rex by 6-7 million years yet is about as large. Given the utter depth at which this article goes into T. rex, how will we fit this new information on this new species into this page? For so long, Tyrannosaurus has been a monotypic genus, and save for that one little Greg Paul moment that was roundly rejected, no new species have been added til now. How are we going to proceed with this? DownAirStairsConditioner ( talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
References