|
Post by Himmapaan on Jan 26, 2011 21:54:43 GMT
Someone suggested on another thread that the fuzz could have grown in between the scales, like on some birds' feet. I believe that was Jonathan Rader, who mentioned it on his Sue sculpture thread. What about this notion then, Chris: supposing T.rex hatchlings had a downy covering which grew between the scales in a not dissimilar way, but which they simply shed as they matured? Would this seem more sensible? It's just a question of losing something with age, rather than replacing it with something else. I'm not a passionate clinger of the downy babies theory, by the way -- merely hypothesizing. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 27, 2011 1:53:35 GMT
Someone suggested on another thread that the fuzz could have grown in between the scales, like on some birds' feet. I also mentioned it like right above you lol.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 27, 2011 1:55:27 GMT
Someone suggested on another thread that the fuzz could have grown in between the scales, like on some birds' feet. I believe that was Jonathan Rader, who mentioned it on his Sue sculpture thread. What about this notion then, Chris: supposing T.rex hatchlings had a downy covering which grew between the scales in a not dissimilar way, but which they simply shed as they matured? Would this seem more sensible? It's just a question of losing something with age, rather than replacing it with something else. I'm not a passionate clinger of the downy babies theory, by the way -- merely hypothesizing. ;D Yeah I have thought of that. I think i mentioned that earlier on here somewhere. Its just that we don't have any proof of it AND we don't see it in any modern animals (that I know of) so I am very very very hesitant to say its anything more than unlikely. Its just that so many people are such strong advocates of it that bothers me since its based off of...nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 27, 2011 2:30:29 GMT
I wouldn't describe myself as a "strong advocate" of the idea, just....open to the possibility. [/pious] I certainly wouldn't criticise someone who drew scaley baby tyrannosaurs, but enjoy speculating - while being very clear that it IS speculating.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 27, 2011 3:59:46 GMT
I wouldn't describe myself as a "strong advocate" of the idea, just....open to the possibility. [/pious] I certainly wouldn't criticise someone who drew scaley baby tyrannosaurs, but enjoy speculating - while being very clear that it IS speculating. So then your saying that scaley baby tyrannosaurs are highly unlikely?
|
|
Tyrannosauron
Junior Member
Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Posts: 92
|
Post by Tyrannosauron on Jan 27, 2011 14:14:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 27, 2011 15:02:19 GMT
I wouldn't describe myself as a "strong advocate" of the idea, just....open to the possibility. [/pious] I certainly wouldn't criticise someone who drew scaley baby tyrannosaurs, but enjoy speculating - while being very clear that it IS speculating. I'm not saying you are. But apparently wikipedia is...bleh
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 27, 2011 17:51:02 GMT
I wouldn't describe myself as a "strong advocate" of the idea, just....open to the possibility. [/pious] I certainly wouldn't criticise someone who drew scaley baby tyrannosaurs, but enjoy speculating - while being very clear that it IS speculating. So then your saying that scaley baby tyrannosaurs are highly unlikely? No, I mean I just currently think it's possible that they were either scaley OR fluffy, until more evidence is found!
|
|
|
Post by Megaraptor on Jan 28, 2011 1:12:10 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). AGREEANCE!
|
|
|
Post by darwinian on Jan 29, 2011 0:53:43 GMT
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. You're right. We need to publish more books with fuzzy Tyrannosaurs, preferably in sexy poses.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 29, 2011 9:38:43 GMT
Mmmmh... Sexy Tyrannosaurus ;D
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jan 29, 2011 15:44:57 GMT
Only some books will show t-rex had feathers. You're right. We need to publish more books with fuzzy Tyrannosaurs, preferably in sexy poses. Perhaps Marc migh be happy to contribute illustrations to such a publication. ;D
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Feb 11, 2011 1:17:55 GMT
The feathered baby Rexes idea is way older than the Dilong discovery (it's even older than the very first feathered dino from China). I heard of feathered baby rexes back on the early 90's.
Who was the paleontologist who propposed it for the first time, and when? Any idea? I guess he propposed it based on "something". If it was not the Dilong, what was it?
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 11, 2011 2:11:04 GMT
Tyrannosaurus is closer to feathered animals that to fully scaled ones, and, seeing what Andrea Cau said last year about them, I'm eager to see feathers on the upper area of Tyrannosaurus, ala Compsognathid. In fact, I'd eagerly give Allosauroids some sort of short quills in 2 rows parallel to the spine, to put emphasis on their closer relation to Coelurosaurs that to Spinosauroids.
The thing is, Tyrannosauroids had the typical feather distribution of basal coelurosaurs until proven otherwise, as that's the more parsimonious statement.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 11, 2011 2:16:40 GMT
seeing what Andrea Cau said last year about them Would you mind elaborating on this, for those of us who are a bit lazy? Given the current placement of tyrannosaurs within the Coelurosauria, I am very pursuaded toward the idea of them having some sort of fuzzy integument.
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 11, 2011 2:37:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Feb 11, 2011 2:52:51 GMT
Thanks for the link; a very interesting read! Hopefully we'll see more fuzzy tyrannosaurs. Do you know if he's considered putting forth these ideas in a paper?
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Feb 11, 2011 2:55:28 GMT
I don't think so, it was more of a though experiment that anything else, but I don't know, maybe he will tackle that again...
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Feb 11, 2011 3:42:14 GMT
The feathered baby Rexes idea is way older than the Dilong discovery (it's even older than the very first feathered dino from China). I heard of feathered baby rexes back on the early 90's. Who was the paleontologist who propposed it for the first time, and when? Any idea? I guess he propposed it based on "something". If it was not the Dilong, what was it? I think the tyrannosaurus chicks were depicted with downy fluff in "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" book back in 1995 but I'm not certain.
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Feb 11, 2011 4:26:57 GMT
^ I do believe your right. imagery :
|
|