T-rex had feathers!

[lio99]

Did you now that t-rex may have had feathers on it's neck, if they did it must have been the males.

[Horridus]

Jan 23, 2011 20:52:31 GMT lio99 said:

Did you now that t-rex may have had feathers on it's neck, if they did it must have been the males.

Says who? (Out of interest.) I mean, it's possible that Tyrannosaurus had primitive feathers (fuzz) in places, but it is pure speculation.

Of course it's plausible and hell, I've had a go at doodling one with a bit of fuzz before...although you might not want to look at this image...I was inspired by the 'mating' skeletons in Spain... img.photobucket.com/albums/v484/Makron1n/Dino%20Doodles/Trexsex.jpg

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Jan 23, 2011 20:58:31 GMT Horridus said:

Jan 23, 2011 20:52:31 GMT lio99 said:

Did you now that t-rex may have had feathers on it's neck, if they did it must have been the males.

Says who? (Out of interest.) I mean, it's possible that Tyrannosaurus had primitive feathers (fuzz) in places, but it is pure speculation.

Of course it's plausible and hell, I've had a go at doodling one with a bit of fuzz before...although you might not want to look at this image...I was inspired by the 'mating' skeletons in Spain... img.photobucket.com/albums/v484/Makron1n/Dino%20Doodles/Trexsex.jpg

DINOSEXXOR

[stoneage]

T-rex did not have feathers on his neck. His arms are too short and there would be no way to wipe the blood off his neck when feeding like a vulture.

[simon]

Jan 23, 2011 23:39:26 GMT stoneage said:

T-rex did not have feathers on his neck. His arms are too short and there would be no way to wipe the blood off his neck when feeding like a vulture.

OK. Not only did you just opine on the feathers thing, but you alluded to the 'TRex predator/scavenge'r debate.

I wouldn't want to be you right now.

;D ;D ;D

[crazycrowman]

Jan 23, 2011 23:39:26 GMT stoneage said:

T-rex did not have feathers on his neck. His arms are too short and there would be no way to wipe the blood off his neck when feeding like a vulture.

Having a feathered head sure doesn't bother corvids like ravens who thrust their whole heads into carcasses...

(*NOTE* I promise for all other intensive purposes, I am staying OUT of this thread)

[Griffin]

Stoneage HAHA you funny devil you!

Its possible it had some feather fuzz on it. But as far as I know there is 0 hard evidence of it thus far.

[lio99]

Jan 24, 2011 1:09:05 GMT Griffin said:

Stoneage HAHA you funny devil you!

Its possible it had some feather fuzz on it. But as far as I know there is 0 hard evidence of it thus far.

Only some books will show t-rex had feathers.

[Horridus]

Jan 24, 2011 10:17:15 GMT lio99 said:

Jan 24, 2011 1:09:05 GMT Griffin said:

Stoneage HAHA you funny devil you!
Its possible it had some feather fuzz on it. But as far as I know there is 0 hard evidence of it thus far.

Only some books will show t-rex had feathers.

I do know of one book with a feathered T. rex - it's this huge, coffee table book filled to the brim with really, really awful CG reconstructions (including a JP Spinosaurus on the cover, which I think is referred to inside as 'Suchomimus', in spite of the giant sail). As I said, giving Tyrannosaurus fuzzy "protofeathers" on some parts of its body is within the realms of plausibility, but if I remember correctly this book gives it full on vaned true feathers on its neck, which isn't (true feathers having not been found outside of the Maniraptora). The best inferred evidence of fuzzy tyrannosaurs comes from Dilong, a tyrannosauroid, and of course other basal coelurosaurs like Sinosauropteryx and Juravenator (both compsognathids).

[Griffin]

Jan 24, 2011 10:17:15 GMT lio99 said:

Jan 24, 2011 1:09:05 GMT Griffin said:

Stoneage HAHA you funny devil you!

Its possible it had some feather fuzz on it. But as far as I know there is 0 hard evidence of it thus far.

Only some books will show t-rex had feathers.

Never trust illustrations in books. Even the most credible artists make mistakes.

[lio99]

Jan 24, 2011 18:42:29 GMT Griffin said:

Jan 24, 2011 10:17:15 GMT lio99 said:

Only some books will show t-rex had feathers.

Never trust illustrations in books. Even the most credible artists make mistakes.

Only young adults had feathers, as said on Wikipedia

[Megaraptor]

The hatchlings probably had feathers, but they may have lost them as an adult, with only a few for display left. Not sure how much feathers would affect an apex predator's ability to hunt. And lio99, Wikipedia=not the most reliable source ever.

[Horridus]

I think it might be best to avoid using the word 'feathers' as well, 'cos it kinda implies true feathers, as found on birds. Tyrannosaurus would have possessed 'proto-feathers', 'dinofuzz' or whatever you want to call them, rather than actual feathers (as seen on Dilong).

One other thing:

Jan 24, 2011 20:38:15 GMT Megaraptor said:

Not sure how much feathers would affect an apex predator's ability to hunt.

Not a lot I imagine!

[Griffin]

Jan 24, 2011 20:24:10 GMT lio99 said:

Jan 24, 2011 18:42:29 GMT Griffin said:

Never trust illustrations in books. Even the most credible artists make mistakes.

Only young adults had feathers, as said on Wikipedia

Wikipedia is wrong. Fluffy young tyrannosaurs are based off of 0% scientific evidence. Its pure guesswork.

Jan 24, 2011 20:38:15 GMT Megaraptor said:

The hatchlings probably had feathers, but they may have lost them as an adult, with only a few for display left. Not sure how much feathers would affect an apex predator's ability to hunt. And lio99, Wikipedia=not the most reliable source ever.

Why does everyone keep thinking that!? There is 0 evidence of it. Nowhere in the animal kingdom do we know of any animal that is born with down feathers/dinofuzz whatever and then grows up to be a scaly adult. Its unheard of. Sure we have plenty of birds that lose down as they mature. But they don't have scales in their place as adults they either have mature feathers or just skin. No scales except for on the feet which don't change with age.

If someone wants to believe tyrannosaurus was scaly as an adult then it had to have been a scaly baby too. If you want to depict fluffy baby tyrannosaurs than the adults would have had dinofuzz aswell. You really can't have it both ways (unless tyrannosaurus was somehow a really crazy unique anomaly within the animal kingdom)

[Horridus]

Jan 24, 2011 21:27:23 GMT Griffin said:

If someone wants to believe tyrannosaurus was scaly as an adult then it had to have been a scaly baby too if you want to be scientific about it.

I don't agree - simply because non-avian dinosaurs aren't birds and non-maniraptors didn't have true feathers as birds do. We can't rule out a mix of dinofuzz and scales (like compsognathids, some of which are more lightly fuzzy than others), with adults becoming more scaley and less fuzzy.

[Griffin]

Jan 24, 2011 21:29:12 GMT Horridus said:

Jan 24, 2011 21:27:23 GMT Griffin said:

If someone wants to believe tyrannosaurus was scaly as an adult then it had to have been a scaly baby too if you want to be scientific about it.

I don't agree - simply because non-avian dinosaurs aren't birds and non-maniraptors didn't have true feathers as birds do. We can't rule out a mix of dinofuzz and scales (like compsognathids, some of which are more lightly fuzzy than others), with adults becoming more scaley and less fuzzy.

Do we know that for sure though? Is this within one species? And how much of the animal's outer covering was preserved?

I'm not saying an animal couldn't have had both scales and fuzz on its body. Birds do today. I'm saying that looking at what we know about animal physiology its really not known for any animal to replace one with the other in the same place on the body.

Its something that a lot of people just jump on the bandwagon for when there is really no evidence for it and proceeds to treat it like its a fact. I said on the other thread that i wouldn't say anything about a tyrannosaurus adult depicted with fuzz. Its plausible. Its the transition from one to the other in one animal's lifespan that makes no sense.

[Horridus]

Jan 24, 2011 21:31:48 GMT Griffin said:

Do we know that for sure though? Is this within one species? And how much of the animal's outer covering was preserved?

You raise a number of issues that I'll have to throw my hands up and say I don't have the knowledge to answer (being a layman and all)! I am aware of Juravenator having very scanty fuzz, with Sinosauropteryx having more extensive but patchy fuzz, including scales on parts of its body that aren't its legs. I'll let someone else answer to the physiology matter (where's Paleofreak got to...? ;D).

Oh, and here's that blog post by David Hone I brought up before: archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/probable-vs-plausible/

[Griffin]

So they are different species. You see what I mean though? I have no problem saying it could have patches of feathers here and scales there. That's totally fine with me. Look at any live bird let alone the fossils you mentioned and they clearly show its true.

If they find a baby tyrannosaurus fossil that is clearly covered in dino fluff and they discover that the imprints from the adult's skin is indeed true scales then I will gladly accept it. I love new groundbreaking discoveries! Its just that it hasn't happened though and I really can't find a decent reason to speculate that it WAS that way. Its not like we have anything to really base this off of.

[paleofreak]

Jan 24, 2011 21:27:23 GMT Griffin said:

You really can't have it both ways (unless tyrannosaurus was somehow a really crazy unique anomaly within the animal kingdom)

I agree with you in that there is zero evidence of fluffy Tyrannosaurus growing toward scaly adults. That's just speculation. You are right.
But I'm a bit surprised about your logic. You seem to think that this replacement is impossible or absurd because we don't know any animal that shows it.
Quite strange logic.

[lio99]

Jan 24, 2011 13:49:31 GMT Horridus said:

Jan 24, 2011 10:17:15 GMT lio99 said:

Only some books will show t-rex had feathers.

I do know of one book with a feathered T. rex - it's this huge, coffee table book filled to the brim with really, really awful CG reconstructions (including a JP Spinosaurus on the cover, which I think is referred to inside as 'Suchomimus', in spite of the giant sail). As I said, giving Tyrannosaurus fuzzy "protofeathers" on some parts of its body is within the realms of plausibility, but if I remember correctly this book gives it full on vaned true feathers on its neck, which isn't (true feathers having not been found outside of the Maniraptora). The best inferred evidence of fuzzy tyrannosaurs comes from Dilong, a tyrannosauroid, and of course other basal coelurosaurs like Sinosauropteryx and Juravenator (both compsognathids).

Yes I have that book.