Top favourite prehistoric animals

[Gwangi]

The popularity of T. rex is precisely why it is one of my favorite dinosaurs. It makes it accessible in a way that few other dinosaurs are. As one of the most studied and written about dinosaurs it's one of the dinosaurs we can know the most about, especially as laymen. We know about as much about its life history, anatomy, and physiology as we possibly can about a dinosaur. Yes, I think more attention can and should be paid to other dinosaurs but setting that aside, it's cool that we know so much about this particular dinosaur.

Its abundance in pop culture makes it equally appealing as well. Some would call it overexposure but I grew up seeing T. rex in movies, books, paleoart, documentaries, and video games, and playing with a glut of cool toys that represented it. That's something you can latch onto. I feel bad for anyone who's favorite dinosaur has never starred in a movie or had a book written about it, or a toy made of it. I have several favorites for which that's the case but T. rex is a favorite because that's not the case.

Tyrannosaurus is popular for being the largest known theropod (in terms of weight at least) but that also makes it the largest ever land carnivore and the largest bipedal animal. It possesses extreme and specialized adaptations that other theropods didn't have. It's literally adapted to crush bones! It was one of the last non-avian dinosaurs and lived at a time and place shared by other exemplary dinosaurs. As a coelurosaur, T. rex and other tyrannosaurus represent a rather unusual offshoot. T. rex is more closely related to a penguin or hummingbird that it is too the other giant carnivores like Giganotosaurus! That's cool! Tyrannosaurus deserves is popularity. 

[Sim]

Gwangi, there are some things I would like to comment on in your post, please don't take it as an attack, I don't mean it that way!

We know about as much about its life history, anatomy, and physiology as we possibly can about a dinosaur. Yes, I think more attention can and should be paid to other dinosaurs but setting that aside, it's cool that we know so much about this particular dinosaur.

The bold part is debatable.  There are palaeontologists that believe specimens considered juvenile Tyrannosaurus are a different genus, the most prominent example being Nanotyrannus.

Tyrannosaurus is popular for being the largest known theropod (in terms of weight at least) but that also makes it the largest ever land carnivore and the largest bipedal animal.

With regards to the bolded part, there is a currently unnamed bipdeal sauropodomorph that is thought to be bigger than Tyrannosaurus, a comparison can be seen here: https://blog.everythingdinosaur.com/blog/_archives/2015/11/11/the-highland-giant-of-the-karoo-basin.html  Elsewhere I've read that it is the largest bipedal animal known.

It possesses extreme and specialized adaptations that other theropods didn't have. It's literally adapted to crush bones!

Other theropods had other adaptations.  Those of Tyrannosaurus don't make it superior to other theropods, except for in the specific adaptations Tyrannosaurus has.

T. rex is more closely related to a penguin or hummingbird that it is too the other giant carnivores like Giganotosaurus! That's cool!

What about dinosaurs more closely related to birds, in other words pretty much all other coelurosaurs?

[Gwangi]

The bold part is debatable.  There are palaeontologists that believe specimens considered juvenile Tyrannosaurus are a different genus, the most prominent example being Nanotyrannus.

You really don't think I know about Nanotyrannus? I'm almost offended! Even with the validity of Nanotyrannus up in the air it cannot be argued that the body of knowledge regarding T. rex isn't extensive enough to make the animal interesting.

With regards to the bolded part, there is a currently unnamed bipdeal sauropodomorph that is thought to be bigger than Tyrannosaurus, a comparison can be seen here: https://blog.everythingdinosaur.com/blog/_archives/2015/11/11/the-highland-giant-of-the-karoo-basin.html  Elsewhere I've read that it is the largest bipedal animal known.

Yeah, that's not much to go on. It isn't even known if it was a biped or not. Seems like you're just being contrarian.

Other theropods had other adaptations.  Those of Tyrannosaurus don't make it superior to other theropods, except for in the specific adaptations Tyrannosaurus has.

Other theropods had other adaptations.  Ugh...ok. Well I didn't say that T. rex was superior to other theropods, just unique among them, and that it makes T. rex worthy of being interested in.

What about dinosaurs more closely related to birds, in other words pretty much all other coelurosaurs?

What about them? I'm just talking about T. rex here.

Look man, I'm just offering some insight in defense of T. rex. I don't really want to argue about it. Seems like you're grasping at straws to defend your dislike of T. rex but I don't care that you don't like T. rex.

[suspsy]

I can't help chuckling at the notion of disliking Tyrannosaurus rex simply because it's so famous and so popular. As I've noted many times before, it's rather like disliking the African lion or the great white shark because they're more famous and popular than other modern wild animals. They can't help that they're so well-liked and neither can T. rex. Indeed, I honestly don't believe anyone who insists that T. rex isn't an objectively fascinating animal.

And the other thing that makes chuckle is knowing that T. rex's fame and popularity are never, ever going to change. It will always be getting new toys just as surely as Batman and Spider-Man will always be getting them. Jurassic Park 3 did its damnedest to sell audiences on a supposedly bigger, badder, and better beast, and it only ended up killing the franchise for over a decade. It still remains the lowest grossing of all the JP/JW movies—-although no longer the worst rated thanks to Fallen Kingdom and Dominion!

Some sovereigns simply cannot be deposed.

 

[Sim]

Indeed, I honestly don't believe anyone who insists that T. rex isn't an objectively fascinating animal.

Aren't all animals objectively fascinating?  I guess all life is too.

[Libraraptor]

Very interesting how few lists have T rex on them.  I gather this is because it's too obvious or cliche of a choice?

She'll always be my number one.  How can you not be impressed.

Maybe T.rex has been produced, featured and hyped so often that some are tired of it and T.rex as a topic is exhausted to some? I can feel the effect on myself: The more T.rex figures  or other items of it I see  being released, the less interested I am in them. It´s not really an annoyance to me, but there are so many other interesting animals of which they could produce models or figures and don´t, still countig on Rexes popularity which may be declining the more other interesting species appear.

There are several good, positive reasons why Tyrannosaurus rex is rather absent here, but I'm going to suggest two other negative ones. IMO, and it's just my opinion, I think that there's an intimidation factor here (though quite unconscious). Some have become either embarrassed to indicate their preference for the rex, for fear of appearing unsophisticated or boorish. Others like to follow the leader, a well known social dynamic which ensures a certain popularity in certain circles, which many deeply covet. Then again, very many have simply become exhausted by it's endless overexposure, for sure. I seem to have a virtually limitless fascination with  the taxon, so still am keen on any new rex of quality that is released.

This intimidation factor is a very interesting point.  I never thought of it that way. Maybe some people do not want to point out they like T.rex because they are afraid it is too much a cliche.

[Sim]

I don't get the sense that there's an intimidation factor.  The amount of attention Tyrannosaurus got recently on this forum due to the upcoming Showanna and Haolonggood Tyrannosaurus, and the amount of discussion over which figures of it were better makes me think people aren't afraid of showing their care for Tyrannosaurus.

[suspsy]

Indeed, I honestly don't believe anyone who insists that T. rex isn't an objectively fascinating animal.

Aren't all animals objectively fascinating?  I guess all life is too.

Hardly a rebuttal.

[Sim]

Indeed, I honestly don't believe anyone who insists that T. rex isn't an objectively fascinating animal.

Aren't all animals objectively fascinating?  I guess all life is too.

Hardly a rebuttal.

It wasn't meant to be that.

[suspsy]

Very interesting how few lists have T rex on them.  I gather this is because it's too obvious or cliche of a choice?

She'll always be my number one.  How can you not be impressed.

Maybe T.rex has been produced, featured and hyped so often that some are tired of it and T.rex as a topic is exhausted to some? I can feel the effect on myself: The more T.rex figures  or other items of it I see  being released, the less interested I am in them. It´s not really an annoyance to me, but there are so many other interesting animals of which they could produce models or figures and don´t, still countig on Rexes popularity which may be declining the more other interesting species appear.

There are several good, positive reasons why Tyrannosaurus rex is rather absent here, but I'm going to suggest two other negative ones. IMO, and it's just my opinion, I think that there's an intimidation factor here (though quite unconscious). Some have become either embarrassed to indicate their preference for the rex, for fear of appearing unsophisticated or boorish. Others like to follow the leader, a well known social dynamic which ensures a certain popularity in certain circles, which many deeply covet. Then again, very many have simply become exhausted by it's endless overexposure, for sure. I seem to have a virtually limitless fascination with  the taxon, so still am keen on any new rex of quality that is released.

This intimidation factor is a very interesting point.  I never thought of it that way. Maybe some people do not want to point out they like T.rex because they are afraid it is too much a cliche.

If there is one absolutely imperative lesson that I have learned in my 46 years of living, it's to never, ever be ashamed of your personal likes. If you like a certain dinosaur or a certain movie or a certain book or a certain singer or a certain food or a certain anything, then you shouldn't be the least bit afraid to admit it. And if other people mock you or hold it against you for that personal liking, then they're really not worth paying any attention to.

[Libraraptor]

Well said, @suspsy 

[thomasw100]

I think it is good that different people have different preferred dinosaurs. I mean if all would prefer the same species, companies would not bother to make rarer species at all and we may not get as much diversity as we get these days.

I agree that it is true that one should never feel ashamed of personal likes but then I think that it is equally true that any discussion about personal likes that is aimed at convincing others about your likes and dislikes is futile.

In the same way, I think it is futile to discuss things like paint designs of figures. I mean like colors and patterns. Some like flashy and some like less flashy. It is what it is. Nothing is better or worse than the other.

One can of course hold a conversation about these topics which serves the friendly purpose of personal interaction.

[Protopatch]

Please kindly find below my list (likely to be updated in the future ) :

1 - Protoceratops andrewsi
2 - Tarbosaurus bataar
3 - Otodus megalodon
4 - Triceratops horridus
5 - Tsintaosaurus spinorhinus
6 - Archaeopteryx lithographica
7 - Saichania chulsanensis
8 - Fukuiraptor kitadaniensis
9 - Deinocheirus mirificus
10 - Nothronychus mckinleyi

[Sim]

Hi @Gwangi, I didn't reply to your post yesterday as I admit I was hurt by it.  But I've read something that made me think I should reply, so here goes!  As I said in my post, I didn't mean what I said as an attack..

You really don't think I know about Nanotyrannus? I'm almost offended! Even with the validity of Nanotyrannus up in the air it cannot be argued that the body of knowledge regarding T. rex isn't extensive enough to make the animal interesting.

It wasn't my intention to offend, I just thought because you mentioned the life history of Tyrannosaurus is well-known, you might have not been aware of the recent development where a number of prominent palaeontologists are considering Nanotyrannus valid.  There's also more on the juveniles not being of Tyrannosaurus by Gregory Paul, but I don't think it's necessary to share that here.

Yeah, that's not much to go on. It isn't even known if it was a biped or not. Seems like you're just being contrarian.

I was just sharing what I knew.  Elsewhere I read that it can confidently be considered bipedal, but I haven't found where that was now.  Also, in his most recent field guide to dinosaurs, Gregory Paul considers Giganotosaurus and the MSNM V4047 spinosaurid to be larger and heavier than Tyrannosaurus.  But I can accept that Tyrannosaurus is the largest and heaviest bipedal animal, known from reliable specimens at least.

Other theropods had other adaptations.  Ugh...ok. Well I didn't say that T. rex was superior to other theropods, just unique among them, and that it makes T. rex worthy of being interested in.

Thanks for clarifying!

What about them? I'm just talking about T. rex here.

Well, Tyrannosaurus isn't very closely related to birds, so it seemed odd to single it out due to its relationship to them when there are other dinosaurs more closely related to birds.  Also, I wasn't sure of it at the time, but I don't think Tyrannosaurus is more closely related to modern birds than to e.g. Giganotosaurus.  Allosauroids and tyrannosauroids are relatively closely related, Gregory Paul even says this in the aforementioned field guide, and the amount of changes between Tyrannosaurus and modern birds is greater than between Tyrannosaurus and allosauroids..

Look man, I'm just offering some insight in defense of T. rex. I don't really want to argue about it. Seems like you're grasping at straws to defend your dislike of T. rex but I don't care that you don't like T. rex.

It's fine to defend Tyrannosaurus, but I feel like it's not Tyrannosaurus that needs defending, rather it's those who don't love it.  You don't have to look far to read people basically saying they can't believe there are people who don't like Tyrannosaurus.  That's how this discussion started.  I'm just giving my views on what I read.

[Gwangi]

It wasn't my intention to offend, I just thought because you mentioned the life history of Tyrannosaurus is well-known, you might have not been aware of the recent development where a number of prominent palaeontologists are considering Nanotyrannus valid.  There's also more on the juveniles not being of Tyrannosaurus by Gregory Paul, but I don't think it's necessary to share that here.

When I said its life history is well known I was speaking in context of other dinosaurs and I wasn't just referring to growth stages but a more all encompassing view of life history. Adaptations, behavior, etc. I make that claim keeping in mind that most dinosaurs are only known from a fragmentary specimen or two.   

I was just sharing what I knew.  Elsewhere I read that it can confidently be considered bipedal, but I haven't found where that was now.  Also, in his most recent field guide to dinosaurs, Gregory Paul considers Giganotosaurus and the MSNM V4047 spinosaurid to be larger and heavier than Tyrannosaurus.  But I can accept that Tyrannosaurus is the largest and heaviest bipedal animal, known from reliable specimens at least.

The article I read about the Highland Giant said it is unknown if it was a biped or not. Other basal sauropodomorphs might suggest that it was a biped but they also weren't as large so I don't feel like it's a claim that can be made with confidence. You're referencing Gregory Paul a lot here and I'm sorry but I have to take any claim he makes with a grain of salt. So, in the meantime, T. rex takes the title. And even if there were larger bipeds T. rex would still be among the largest. 

Well, Tyrannosaurus isn't very closely related to birds, so it seemed odd to single it out due to its relationship to them when there are other dinosaurs more closely related to birds.  Also, I wasn't sure of it at the time, but I don't think Tyrannosaurus is more closely related to modern birds than to e.g. Giganotosaurus.  Allosauroids and tyrannosauroids are relatively closely related, Gregory Paul even says this in the aforementioned field guide, and the amount of changes between Tyrannosaurus and modern birds is greater than between Tyrannosaurus and allosauroids.

Tyrannosaurs are coelurosaurs. Coelurosaurs are literally defined as being all theropods more closely related to birds than to other theropods. Birds ARE coelurosaurs. So, even though there were dinosaurs more closely related to birds than T. rex is, T. rex is still more closely related to birds than it is to allosauroids. Allosauroids are not coelurosaurs. And when looking at coelurosaurs broadly, tyrannosaurs stand out as unique in that they're the only large apex predators among them. I think that makes them interesting, and I think it's interesting that a group so closely related to birds has achieved that status convergently with other large and unrealted theropods. And yes, Tyrannosaurus might look more like an allosauroid but that doesn't matter. Falcons look like hawks but are more closely related to parrots. Crocodilians superficially look like lizards but are more closely related to birds. Salamanders look like lizards but humans are more closely related to lizards than salamanders are. Look at a theropod cladogram and see where tyrannosaurs are in relation to allosauroids vs. birds. 

I'm sorry that my previous response upset you but it felt like you came at me with a "well actually" attitude that generally rubs me the wrong way. Like you just wanted to be a thorn in my side while I defended Tyrannosaurus.

[Sim]

I'm sorry that my previous response upset you but it felt like you came at me with a "well actually" attitude that generally rubs me the wrong way. Like you just wanted to be a thorn in my side while I defended Tyrannosaurus.

Thanks!  I didn't mean to upset you.  It might be relevant that because I have autism, I tend to be direct in what I say and possibly am a bit too concerned with details...  This isn't an excuse, just an explanation.

With regards to the relationships of coelurosaurs, thanks for the correction!  I'm not sure what to think about it really, tyrannosauroids and allosauroids share a direct ancestor, while tyrannosauroids and birds don't.  Tyrannosauroids are very close to allosauroids in a cladogram and not as close to birds.  I guess I might have been interpreting it wrongly?

[suspsy]

At no point in the Princeton Field Guide does Gregory Paul ever state that tyrannosauroids are more closely related to allosauroids than to birds. And the Highland Giant is far too fragmentary for anyone to claim that it really is the biggest bipedal animal of all time.

[Sim]

At no point in the Princeton Field Guide does Gregory Paul ever state that tyrannosauroids are more closely related to allosauroids than to birds.

Are you referring to something I said?  Because I didn't say that, I said:

Allosauroids and tyrannosauroids are relatively closely related, Gregory Paul even says this in the aforementioned field guide

[suspsy]

At no point in the Princeton Field Guide does Gregory Paul ever state that tyrannosauroids are more closely related to allosauroids than to birds.

Are you referring to something I said?  Because I didn't say that, I said:

Allosauroids and tyrannosauroids are relatively closely related, Gregory Paul even says this in the aforementioned field guide

Which you then used to try and claim—incorrectly—-that the tyrannosauroids are more closely related to allosauroids than to birds.

Just where in the guide does Paul state that anyway? What's the page number?

[Sim]

Which you then used to try and claim—incorrectly—-that the tyrannosauroids are more closely related to allosauroids than to birds.

No I didn't.  And can you please stop with the passive-agressive comments?  I think you would understand that they are unpleasant, since you have previously expressed disliking when people have even jokingly disagreed with you.

Just where in the guide does Paul state that anyway? What's the page number?

It's in the entry for Neovenator.  Perhaps it's an erroneus conclusion though, if it hinges on Neovenator.