Hi Tom,
Here's my perspective on this question. When it comes to modern species, you are sort of comparing apples to oranges. People want to know different things about extinct organisms than extant ones. As an example, zoologists studying species clusters of
reptiles or fish probably are dealing with a bunch of species where genetic information is really important for phylogeny. They may not have the time/inclination to look at the functional morphology of the fish or lizards, even if there are interesting details
that could be gleaned.
Also as you sort of hinted at, lizards found only in remote places are probably more expensive to locate than T.rex skulls stored in nice air conditioned museums that you could ride the city bus to. Of course, excavating and prepping said fossils could
be more expensive & time-consuming than bagging Amazonian birds with lead shot or (in entomology) just waiting for bugs to fall into pitfall traps.
I think on balance there aren't many living animals (vertebrate or invertebrate) that we know less about than T.rex. Arguably, there are other dinosaur genera that might fit that description better - certain hadrosaurids and ceratopsids, Psittacosaurus,
Archaeopteryx... There are actually a few mysteries that remain about T.rex, such as the presence or absence of feathers.
Thomas Yazbeck
Good day,
I was wondering if it is actually true (what some books and media state), that well known dinosaur species (like
Tyrannosaurus rex) are "better known/thoroughly described" than some of the less known recent species of vertebrates (say some endemic lizard species from distant and almost inaccessible localities). Even though we have a lot of skeletal material and
modern methods of studying it, I doubt any extinct species as old as Cretaceous dinosaurs could be "better known" than recent species that we can study using genetics, molecular biology, observe their modes of behaviour, reproduction etc. Thank you for your
thoughts! Tom