Talk:Tyrannosaurus/@comment-151.229.227.92-20150717174315/@comment-28123829-20170813093758

What you are saying is literally going against the palaeontological consensus at the moment as I am getting my information from a proper palaeontology website that records every paper on the subject of fossils and extinct animals yet I cannot find what you are on about, I can find 2016 papers that still say that T. rex is 40 feet here is a snippet from one of the scientific papers that actually deals with UCMP:

"UCMP 137538 is known from a single 13-centimeter long pedal phalanx, which has been assumed to be a left pedal phalanx from comparisons with FMNH PR2081. That is a weak assumption, as the bone looks quite different from that of FMNH PR2081. For starters, it may not even be a tyrannosaurid. It could have been a gigantic therizinosaur, since a herbivorous lifestyle isn't limited by the constraints of a carnivorous one, such as the need to run down prey. If you read the original describing paper about UCMP 137538, you will see that the only real diagnosis done is the one assigning it as a theropod. It's assignment to Tyrannosaurus is based on nothing but size and location, both of which are weak arguments for assigning isolated fossils to specific genera/species. It's also partly based on the assumption that Tyrannosaurus is the only large theropod living at North America at the Maastrichtian age, which is quite an almost-baseless assumption, considering that the vast majority of the dinosaurs are very likely undiscovered.

The problem is, it's just an isolated toe bone. Even the enigmatic Amphicoelias fragillimus is known from better remains(A D9/D10 vertebra). The giant sizes come from scaling it up from FMNH PR2081, and the naive fanboys seemingly only scale from that specimen. FMNH PR2081 isn't the only tyrannosaur specimen however. And Tyrannosaurus isn't the only tyrannosaur. For all we know, UCMP 137538 may actually be a non-Tyrannosaurus tyrannosauroid. Even IF it was a Tyrannosaurus or a very similar genus, you should still stay away from those 14+ meter calculations. Tyrannosaurus specimens can show quite a lot of variation. BHI 3033(~10.9 meters, probably around 6 tonnes?), has toe bones that come close in size to that of FMNH PR2081. Not to mention that with pathogeny, digit bones can vary greatly even within individuals. It is entirely possible that UCMP 137538 may actually be smaller than FMNH PR2081(~12.3 meters, ~8 tonnes)."

So UCMP may not have actually been a tyrannosaur as you may have seen in the above snippet the only reason the assignment to Tyrannosaurus is based on is size and location, and all that is known is  a toe bone therefore it is not safe to assume that it belonged to a 14 m (46 feet) long T. rex.

Now onto Trix: according to an article on the same website most estimates of Trix's size range from 12 (39.5 feet) to 12.5 meters (41 feet) (which is just 20 cm longer than Sue not a foot). So according to the consensus T. rex is still the ninth largest including the Trix specimen as the UCMP is probably not a Tyrannosaurus (as the above snippet mentions)

The Giganotosaurus weight of 13.8 t that I mentioned comes from this paper: Benson, RBJ; Campione, NE; Carrano, MT; Mannion, PD; Sullivan, C; et al. (2014). "Rates of Dinosaur Body Mass Evolution Indicate 170 Million Years of Sustained Ecological Innovation on the Avian Stem Lineage". PLoS Biol. 12 (5): e1001853. PMC 4011683 Freely accessible. PMID 24802911. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001853.