|
Post by Griffin on Jan 24, 2011 23:20:33 GMT
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. How is it strange logic? There is no fossil evidence of it at all. There is no modern evidence that it happens in other animals. So why go and accept it as scientifically accurate? Its not like its the only way to depict the animal. I suppose stranger things have occurred in nature. What if its possible that some hormone could switch on at some point in the animal's life that says bye bye to the feathers and starts making scales? I have no clue and neither does anyone else. Again there are some wacky amazing things that occur out there in nature to the point where if this actually was the case it wouldn't surprise me...but its not and to go on and start assuming this was really what was going on is just very unscientific to me. If someone can prove me wrong and say that there is indeed instances of this sort of thing happening (feathers being lost and then scales developing on that same body part in their place) then that would be great. I'm not biased about it. Its not like i have an emotional attachment to any image of tyrannosaurus. I go with what is the most logical and fill in the blanks with speculation based on modern animals and/or related species when needed.(as in this case whats so horrible about scaly babies with scaly adults or if you like fuzzy babies with fuzzy adults? That makes so much more sense logically.) Every time I bring up my view on this subject people come at me with these arguments that just can't hold up. I guess what really bothers me is just how popular this idea is to the point where so many people who actually think its based on fact in some cases or defend it as if it was.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 25, 2011 3:08:45 GMT
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) That's because they wipe the blood off with their wings.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 8:49:37 GMT
That's because they wipe the blood off with their wings. Eagles also go carcass diving, and they have fluffy heads too. To an extent, yes they can wipe their heads clean on their wings & upper back. They also use their feet when preening to scratch their necks & heads. Most corvids are also avid dirt and snow bathers & many love to go in the water to bathe as well. They'll also roll around like a dog in the grass to wipe off scraps stuck to them. They do get right into carcasses sometimes, of varying degrees of freshness (or not freshness) and have "hard" strong oily feathers that resist damage from meat fats as well. Maybe T. rex had the same and just made sure to have a good roll around in the sand/dirt every few days...or maybe not
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jan 25, 2011 9:07:34 GMT
How is it strange logic? There is no fossil evidence of it at all. That doesn't imply that it's absurd or impossible. It just imply that we don't know if it occurred. If you go directly from "unknown" to "impossible" or to "biologically absurd", you are falling into a logical fallacy. A classic example: "we don't know about black swans yet, so black swans would be anomalous and they can't exist". "There is no modern evidence that it happens in other animals. So why go and accept it as scientifically accurate?" No, I repeat: you are right here. We shouldn't accept it as accurate. I accept it as an unproven hypothesis. But also we shouldn't claim it as impossible or absurd just because at present we don't know any case. Right. And we know that at least some sauropods were scaly when babies. So we know that tiny, fast growing scaly dinosaurs were possible.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 25, 2011 17:29:30 GMT
" you are falling into a logical fallacy. A classic example: "we don't know about black swans yet, so black swans would be anomalous and they can't exist"."
I don't think I outright said it was impossible. Like i mentioned before a lot of strange things in nature are possible its just that since its unheard of at this point I'm going to consider it highly unlikely.
" I accept it as an unproven hypothesis"
A good hypothesis should be based on something though.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jan 25, 2011 19:18:33 GMT
I don't think I outright said it was impossible. Like i mentioned before a lot of strange things in nature are possible its just that since its unheard of at this point I'm going to consider it highly unlikely. OK. No fallacy then
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 25, 2011 20:07:36 GMT
Maybe T.rex had fuzzy protofeathers when he was young, mainly for insulation, and maintaned it to adulthood in a form similar to Elephant's hair (i.e. he still had protofeathers but not very noticeable at a first sight). Or, he was scaly but had an array of protofeathers for display in some strategic areas of his body (as in Matteo Bacchin's Rex... Gotta love the maned Tyrannosaurus ). Or maybe he was scaly from the tip of the tail to the tip of the nose. Or he was scaly but had stiff quills from the neck to the tail (as in that still-unnamed 10 meters longTyrannosaurid specimen from China who ACTUALLY had quills not different from those of Psittacosaurus, Beipiaosaurus and such) Maybe he had a dewlap, cranial ornamentations crazier than ever depicted by any paleoartist and/or movies... ... Or, to put it quickly, we'll never know how a T.rex (or any other dinosaur, for that matter) REALLY appeared. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 25, 2011 20:10:04 GMT
Maybe T.rex had fuzzy protofeathers when he was young, mainly for insulation, and maintaned it to adulthood in a form similar to Elephant's hair (i.e. he still had protofeathers but not very noticeable at a first sight). Or, he was scaly but had an array of protofeathers for display in some strategic areas of his body (as in Matteo Bacchin's Rex... Gotta love the maned Tyrannosaurus ). Or maybe he was scaly from the tip of the tail to the tip of the nose. Or he was scaly but had stiff quills from the neck to the tail (as in that still-unnamed 10 meters longTyrannosaurid specimen from China who ACTUALLY had quills not different from those of Psittacosaurus, Beipiaosaurus and such) Maybe he had a dewlap, cranial ornamentations crazier than ever depicted by any paleoartist and/or movies... ... Or, to put it quickly, we'll never know how a T.rex (or any other dinosaur, for that matter) REALLY appeared. ;D there is a quilled tyrannosaurid 10 meters long from china? link!
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Jan 25, 2011 21:09:15 GMT
Or he was scaly but had stiff quills from the neck to the tail (as in that still-unnamed 10 meters longTyrannosaurid specimen from China who ACTUALLY had quills not different from those of Psittacosaurus, Beipiaosaurus and such) Is that for real??
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 25, 2011 21:16:53 GMT
Or he was scaly but had stiff quills from the neck to the tail (as in that still-unnamed 10 meters longTyrannosaurid specimen from China who ACTUALLY had quills not different from those of Psittacosaurus, Beipiaosaurus and such) Is that for real?? Beipaosaurus is a theropod, so not a huge stretch.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 25, 2011 23:08:16 GMT
Dang! Do you believe me if i say that i don't remember WHERE i read it? While i'm writing this message, i'm scanning tru the Dinosaur Mailing List, Tetrapod Zoology and many other paleontology blogs and websites in search of that news... I remember that, when i found about it, i immediately associated that discovery with that 10 meters long unnamed Tyrannosaurid listed in the Thomas Holtz and Luis Rey's "Dinosaurs" book... Heck, i'm still finding nothing about but i swear i read it! EDIT: Found it! theropoda.blogspot.com/2010/04/coming-soon-le-penne-nei-giovani-e.html#more(it is said in the last part of the article, plus read the comments) It's from "Theropoda Blogspot", an italian page about, guess what, meat-eater dinosaurs... Actually it doesn't say "10 meters long" or something along these lines, don't know why i associated it with this discovery (bad memory? ). I also found this: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature08965.htmlThe pic labelled with "C", should be the alleged Tyrannosaur(o)id tail with quills...
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 26, 2011 2:47:24 GMT
What makes them think its a tyrannosaur?
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jan 26, 2011 7:33:52 GMT
Thank you! Beipiaosaurus covering is more like fur, so I suspect the misterious Tyrannosauroidea is a furry (protofeathered) one, like a big Dilong.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jan 26, 2011 9:28:12 GMT
Now I've got the paper. It just says "EBFFs [broad filamentous feathers] have now also been observed in a large specimen that may be a tyrannosauroid". And there are two low-resolution pictures of the specimen's tail, showing a dense covering of hair-like broad filaments.
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 26, 2011 14:10:06 GMT
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. How is it strange logic? There is no fossil evidence of it at all. There is no modern evidence that it happens in other animals. So why go and accept it as scientifically accurate? Its not like its the only way to depict the animal. I suppose stranger things have occurred in nature. What if its possible that some hormone could switch on at some point in the animal's life that says bye bye to the feathers and starts making scales? I have no clue and neither does anyone else. Again there are some wacky amazing things that occur out there in nature to the point where if this actually was the case it wouldn't surprise me...but its not and to go on and start assuming this was really what was going on is just very unscientific to me. If someone can prove me wrong and say that there is indeed instances of this sort of thing happening (feathers being lost and then scales developing on that same body part in their place) then that would be great. I'm not biased about it. Its not like i have an emotional attachment to any image of tyrannosaurus. I go with what is the most logical and fill in the blanks with speculation based on modern animals and/or related species when needed.(as in this case whats so horrible about scaly babies with scaly adults or if you like fuzzy babies with fuzzy adults? That makes so much more sense logically.) Every time I bring up my view on this subject people come at me with these arguments that just can't hold up. I guess what really bothers me is just how popular this idea is to the point where so many people who actually think its based on fact in some cases or defend it as if it was. I agree with you 100% but perhaps of some relevance is the recent discovery that Juravenator had both scales and feathers, the feathers only showing up under ultraviolet light. blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/12/juravenator-germanys-other-feathered-dinosaur/
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 26, 2011 17:03:50 GMT
Paleofreak: What makes them think its from a tyrannosauroid if its just the tail? Or did they find more of it?
Gwangi: Yeah I don't know what the case would be for that fossil. Its not like thats unheard of, feathers and scales together. An owl's foot is like that.
Its just the feathers being lost in favor for scales in the span of an individual's lifespan that seems far fetched (not totally impossible!) just rather unlikely to me.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 26, 2011 17:30:06 GMT
Someone suggested on another thread that the fuzz could have grown in between the scales, like on some birds' feet.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 26, 2011 17:50:03 GMT
Didn't know about that other (potential) tyrannosauroid with fuzz. That's very cool.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jan 26, 2011 19:14:51 GMT
Paleofreak: What makes them think its from a tyrannosauroid if its just the tail? Or did they find more of it? Perhaps the caudal vertebrae are characteristically similar to the ones in Dilong, or other Tyrannosauroids. But I don't know. It seems to be an undescribed, unpublished specimen. The picture just show a tail, perhaps a bit of the pelvis too.
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jan 26, 2011 20:43:41 GMT
|
|