T-rex around 15m long?

[Lio99]

So i am making an online dino book but i am not sure how big tyrannosaurus was after all this.
http://dinotoyforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=dinos&action=display&thread=4623

[Tylosaurus]

T-Rex was no longer than 12.8 meters which is about 40 feet long:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/tyrannosauridae.html

Spinosaurus was the largest of all Carnosaurs, they got around 17 meters.
http://spinosaurus.com/

[Lio99]

T-Rex was no longer than 12.8 meters which is about 40 feet long:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/tyrannosauridae.html

Spinosaurus was the largest of all Carnosaurs, they got around 17 meters.
http://spinosaurus.com/

Did you read that old thread i put a link to?
and tyrannosaurus was probably allot more intelligent and powerful than spinosaurus and giganotosaurus.

[Tylosaurus]

Yeah I read that very interesting indeed, and 18.000 pounds instead of 14.000 pounds rofl, that is not a small difference.

Although I could not find this bit:

"Tyrannosaurus was probably allot more intelligent and powerful than Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus."
But I could see the logics in that, Spinosaurus was a fish eater, so you would not need that much powerful jaws to deal with such problems, surprise, stealth, patience and speed to strike swiftly at the swimming target combined would make you the perfect fisherman. as for Gigantosaurus, this brings me back to Allosaurus , it's jaws may not have been powerful like that of the Tyrannosaus but it would of used it's jaws like that of an axe it's razor sharp teeth would make ugly wounds with great blood loss, so as your theory of Gigantosaurus goes this can also be taken from that route too

All what I could get from the T-Rex was a large and pure muscular animal that is capable of crushing anything, it also seems that the T-Rex had the most powerful bite as land animals go.

[Gryphoceratops]

So i am making an online dino book but i am not sure how big tyrannosaurus was after all this.
http://dinotoyforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=dinos&action=display&thread=4623

That article is about mass not length right?  Sue is pretty much complete as far as determining the length of the animal is concerned and she is certainly not 15m.  Off the top of my head I don't know exactly 40ft?  41ft?  Gotta look it up but its for sure not 15m. 

[Tylosaurus]

As far as I recall a full grown T-Rex is 12.8 Meters:

"Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators, measuring up to 12.8 m (42 ft) in length,[2] up to 4 metres (13 ft) tall at the hips,[3] and up to 6.8 metric tons (7.5 short tons) in weight"


Quite odd though because this information was also used for Sue:
"Tyrannosaurus Rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 meters (13.1 ft) tall at the hips"

It seems that every T-Rex known was under 13 meters, as lengths went:


More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

[Dyscrasia]

Didn't Dr. Horner claimed that his team had a T.rex skull that was larger than Sue's and it's estimated length would exceed 13m?

Anyways,  a T.rex around 15m long could have existed, but based on the fossil record so far, they are generally in the 11~12m range...

[Tylosaurus]

Well I I have been out of this since 1995, I dunno when that Skull was found though.
Did you mean Doctor Jack Horner? If so, well as far as I can recall, I have not read his article on that yet, but man I would not mind reading it myself today!

[SBell]

In general, T.rex is assumed at about 12m-13m.  I am not aware of any specimens that definitively indicate anything larger. And be careful with Jack Horner--he likes his press releases. If nothing has been published officially, ignore it; a lot of 'groundbreaking' claims are announced publicly, and then never heard from again when the actual research does not line up with those conclusions.

[Tylosaurus]

I'd be interested what Bob Bakker would have to say about these new finds and discoveries, I always preferred him over Jack Horner heh.

[Horridus]

T. rex - 13 metres tops.

By the way...

Spinosaurus was the largest of all Carnosaurs, they got around 17 meters.

Spinosaurus wasn't a carnosaur. Back in the day this name was applied to all large predatory dinosaurs, until it was realised that they weren't actually all that closely related. Only allosauroids and their closest relatives are now considered 'carnosaurs' (members of the Carnosauria).

[Lio99]

Ok so tyrannosaurus possibly had a maximum length of 13m long.

[Simon]

The partial TRex skull found by Horner was dubbed "C-Rex" after his wife's name.  Unfortunately the remains of the skull and body are partial, although they indicate an animal about 10% larger than Sue ....

[Simon]

Speaking of Horner ... that sly old dog ... apparently his marriage to Celeste (for whom C-Rex was named) is over ... she is referred to in one article as "one of his ex-wives" ... this story below is self-explanatory ... make of it what you will ...

http://jezebel.com/paleontology/

[CityRaptor]

Uh yes, I think he got some "new blood" there, so to say...but I think this is off-topic.
Wasn't there some research a few years ago that showed  that some Dinosaurs might have been 10% larger? I think it had to do with Hadrosaurs.

[Horridus]

Speaking of Horner ... that sly old dog ... apparently his marriage to Celeste (for whom C-Rex was named) is over ... she is referred to in one article as "one of his ex-wives" ... this story below is self-explanatory ... make of it what you will ...

http://jezebel.com/paleontology/

You're veering dangerously off-topic! I don't want a thread to be created by one of the mods entitled 'Horner's Wives' or similar. ('Horny Horner' is just too vulgar, even for my tastes.)

[Simon]

Then why bring it up, Horridus?  *chuckle*

The 10% larger size might have referred to hadrosaurus as well - Horner's favorite dinos - he just happened to find a gaggle of TRexes (3 or 4 at least) in one spot while digging for hadrosaurs ... "C-Rex" was one of them, with most of the top of the skull intact, hence the basis for the 10% larger than Sue estimate

[SBell]

Uh yes, I think he got some "new blood" there, so to say...but I think this is off-topic.
Wasn't there some research a few years ago that showed  that some Dinosaurs might have been 10% larger? I think it had to do with Hadrosaurs.

That was mostly about weight, not length. It had to do with body mass calculations.  So a 13m T.rex may have been 7 tonnes, or 9 tonnes. But it would still be 13m long (and the requisite ~6m high).

[CityRaptor]

No. I actually meant something about size. Quick search brought me there:
http://news.sky.com/home/article/1295457
But I know that I originally read it somewhere else.

[Tylosaurus]

Was it here perhaps?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203103349.htm



Dino Autopsy reveals what the scans showed and examines the extent to which the results could change our understanding of Hadrosaurs forever. Dakota may contribute some significant findings to the field of palaeontology, altering our comprehension of how dinosaurs looked and moved:

    The Hadrosaur's backside appears to be approximately 25 percent larger than previously thought; a surprising conclusion that could change our image of the dinosaur for the last 150 years.   
    The Hadrosaur's backside is some 25 percent bigger than originally thought, enabling it to reach speeds of 28 mph - 10 mph faster than T. rex.
    The skin envelope also shows evidence that the Hadrosaur may have been striped and not block coloured, producing an almost striped camouflage pattern on some parts of the dinosaur.

But with the new finds of the T-Rex, it could of been that the T-Rex with a greater quanity of muscles may have also ran faster right?