T. Rex Had a Body Temperature of 97 Degrees

(nytimes.com)

33 points | by marojejian 1 hour ago

14 comments

  • lioeters 37 minutes ago
    From the paper, that is: 36.3 ± 2.5°C.
    • Galilyou 22 minutes ago
      Phew! Thank you! I feel for the ungodly fahrenheit again
      • nmoon 18 minutes ago
        Fahrenheit is the superior measure
        • rf15 13 minutes ago
          counterpoint: it doesn't matter, since you need to learn relevant boiling/freezing temperatures on both scales anyway.

          As a european: F is the only american system that is easy to use and reason with (considering its 0-100 range is spanning the "doable" temp range of too-cold to too-hot), unlike other imperial systems for lengths and whatnot.

        • WarmWash 15 minutes ago
          Better for day to day life, worse for science and engineering.
          • msm_ 13 minutes ago
            Is it really better for day to day life? I am certain that it only appears so because you're used to it. I think for day to day life they're both roughly equivalent.

            Of course, for me Celsius is more natural and intuitive, but again - that's because I'm used to it.

            • antif 10 minutes ago
              100F is about peak summer heat; 0F is about peak winter chills. Works great for describing weather .. in various places.
          • konart 10 minutes ago
            >Better for day to day life

            It is not.

        • deagle50 11 minutes ago
          really is, and I grew up in celsius.
    • orbital-decay 35 minutes ago
      Thanks, I thought it was almost boiling.
    • gibspaulding 30 minutes ago
      So 97.3 ± 4.5 °F for anyone else curious how the precision translates.
  • mepian 39 minutes ago
    I read the headline in Celsius and thought that they were a bit too hot.
  • code_biologist 17 minutes ago
    Repost from a different thread: Related only topically, a 1hr YouTube talk I enjoyed a lot: "Hatchling T. rex and the Evolution of Vertebrate Parental Care" by Nick Longrich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd0dR2n9hLA

    He's a paleontologist and the talk starts with some pretty interesting statistical analysis aiming to estimate T rex clutch sizes (66 eggs) and hatchling weights (1.5kg) as well as T rex parental care. It ends with looking at evolutionary history trends in increasing parental investment in radically different animals.

    He talks a little slow, so a little playback speed bump won't go amiss.

  • strongwaddle 22 minutes ago
    'Hotter than a crocodile, cooler than a chickennnnn....'

    is the opening line to a great song i'll never get to hear.

  • john_strinlai 32 minutes ago
    i know its the nytimes, so we can assume american units, but i find it sort of crazy that even throughout the body of the article it doesnt ever say "fahrenheit".
    • BugsJustFindMe 30 minutes ago
      It doesn't need to. Any other unit would be either insanely cold or insanely hot.
      • skrebbel 23 minutes ago
        Given that it’s a shouty headline in a major publication, that’s what I would have expected.
    • bthrn 29 minutes ago
      Common sense suggests that living creatures are likely not boiling when they have a mild fever.
      • john_strinlai 26 minutes ago
        i am not a paleontologist and there have been many extremely weird living creatures over the time earth has been around.

        and as the sibling comment mentions, i am primed for science articles to be metric.

        • falserum 17 minutes ago
          I’m metric all the way, but if it would use metric, it still should unambiguously state: C
          • john_strinlai 15 minutes ago
            indeed! my "common sense" is to always state the units you're working with, no matter how obvious you think it is.
      • vojtapol 22 minutes ago
        Common sense would be using metric units in science-related article.
        • SoftTalker 16 minutes ago
          It's a US-based newspaper written for the general public. Common sense would say it's using US units.
        • petcat 17 minutes ago
          Americans don't use Celsius when talking about their body temperatures, and that's who the audience is.
  • isomorphic 19 minutes ago
    https://archive.is/20260916181240/https://www.nytimes.com/20...

    (Even the NY Times gift link requires a login.)

  • laweijfmvo 31 minutes ago
    How do we know its body temperature was 97 degrees, and simply not the environment was 97 degrees?
    • cwmma 26 minutes ago
      If it was environmental then you'd expect it to fluctuate over time, but they also checked it against an animal they knew to be cold blooded, if it was environmental you'd expect them to be the same, but that animal was calculated by the same method to be colder.
    • altcognito 18 minutes ago
      They compared against crocodilian teeth and those teeth were at a different temperature. Crocodilian teeth are known to be at a similar temperature to their environment because they are known to be cold blooded.

      It is correct to say that we don't know they were warm blooded, just that their body temps were likely the given observed temperature.

    • pixl97 28 minutes ago
      What environment would stay at a constant 97 degrees?
      • surgi 26 minutes ago
        Europe this summer? /jk
  • ChrisMarshallNY 34 minutes ago
    Wouldn't be surprised if the smaller raptors had even higher body temps.
    • layer8 27 minutes ago
      Seems sensible, given that birds have higher body temperatures.
      • hedgehog 5 minutes ago
        I didn't know this so I looked up the number for farm chickens, according to University of Kentucky (seems appropriate) they have a body temperature of "between 105°F and 107°F (40.6° and 41.7°C) ... Smaller chicken breeds have a higher body temperature than larger breeds"

        https://afs.mgcafe.uky.edu/poultry/chapter-7-air-temperature

  • micromacrofoot 38 minutes ago
    > Up until the early 2000s, dinosaurs were thought to be rather reptilian and therefore probably coldblooded, Dr. Wiemann said. That began to change as multiple lines of evidence from geochemistry studies and CT scans of fossils showed they were warm-blooded. Dr. Wiemann had previously found that T. rex had a fast metabolism, but she said the new study did an “exquisite” job of zeroing in on a precise body temperature.

    > To take the body temperature of a long extinct, school-bus-size predator, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, used a clever geochemistry technique on fossilized teeth, including two from “Thomas,” a famous T. rex in the collection of the National History Museum of Los Angeles County.

    fascinating

    we've also learned more about the air at the time via teeth, https://nautil.us/the-data-in-a-dinos-smile-1229729

    • SoftTalker 13 minutes ago
      It intuitively makes sense. A cold-blooded creature of that mass would take a long time to properly warm up or cool down. Most modern cold-blooded animals are small, e.g. frogs, snakes, lizards. They can move into the sunlight or shade as needed and pretty quickly change temperature.
  • globular-toast 30 minutes ago
    Farenheit. So a little bit cooler than us.
  • ohyoutravel 32 minutes ago
    This is really interesting, worth a read. Wouldn’t be surprised if the even larger dinosaurs had even higher body temps!
  • modzu 22 minutes ago
    id assumed as much since seeing jurassic park in 1996
    • kilroy123 8 minutes ago
      It's actually older, from 1993.
  • moomoo11 29 minutes ago
    i will now believe this information until it becomes outdated in the future, at which point i will believe that information until it becomes outdated later
    • mindcandy 20 minutes ago
      Great! That's how knowledge is supposed to work.
      • partyficial 10 minutes ago
        that's not knowledge - that's just theory and belief.

        you know, like religion.