New Dino Book

[tetonbabydoll]

Dinosaurs. The last pic shows it our large recliner, you can see the cover.

[baryonyx]

Nice book. I like the bary.

[ambulocetus]

Is there any actual solid evidence that t-rex mght have been feathered?

[sid]

Nov 22, 2008 22:19:41 GMT ambulocetus said:

Is there any actual solid evidence that t-rex mght have been feathered?

From the mountains to the sea,
it resounds a mighty

NO.


;D

[crazycrowman]

"Is there any actual solid evidence that t-rex mght have been feathered?"

Well, that depends on what you call "solid evidence". Have we found a Tyrannosaurus rex or Albertosaur or any of the "true" Tyrannosauridae with feather impressions. No, not that I know of. Does this mean they did not sport feathers ? No.

Integuments tend to decay quickly, and many of the "known" bird fossils we find lack feathers as well, just like most of our fossil mammals lack any evidence of hair. To reconstruct these animals we look at other animals they are related to and make assumptions about what they looked like. T rex was not far from the group of dinosaurs that some of we know had feathers on their bodies (the Maniraptora). It is a logical assumption then to assume that they could have been feathered, at least some species, at some point in life. We do have scale impressions that are from tyrannosaurs, and we know that at least some of them, on some parts of their bodies, had scales. (this does not mean that they were featherless, as birds have scales too)

I would say, IMO, that regarding our current knowledge of the tyrannosaurs, representing them with or without feathers are still both "valid" regarding "accuracy". Some scientists may lean more to one side then the other, but really, only more study along with time and future fossil finds will shed light on how they actually looked.

[sbell]

Nov 22, 2008 22:57:47 GMT crazycrowman said:

"Is there any actual solid evidence that t-rex mght have been feathered?"

Well, that depends on what you call "solid evidence". Have we found a Tyrannosaurus rex or Albertosaur or any of the "true" Tyrannosauridae with feather impressions. No, not that I know of. Does this mean they did not sport feathers ? No.

Integuments tend to decay quickly, and many of the "known" bird fossils we find lack feathers as well, just like most of our fossil mammals lack any evidence of hair. To reconstruct these animals we look at other animals they are related to and make assumptions about what they looked like. T rex was not far from the group of dinosaurs that some of we know had feathers on their bodies (the Maniraptora). It is a logical assumption then to assume that they could have been feathered, at least some species, at some point in life. We do have scale impressions that are from tyrannosaurs, and we know that at least some of them, on some parts of their bodies, had scales. (this does not mean that they were featherless, as birds have scales too)

I would say, IMO, that regarding our current knowledge of the tyrannosaurs, representing them with or without feathers are still both "valid" regarding "accuracy". Some scientists may lean more to one side then the other, but really, only more study along with time and future fossil finds will shed light on how they actually looked.

But to answer the question exactly, no there has not been any unequivocal evidence of feathers on the species T.rex (because there is no evidence of any kind of the integument of T.rex--maybe it had fur or fish scales); there is evidence of basal tyrannosaurids with feather-like covers, which is where the evidence-based conjecture comes in.

[tomhet]

And those basal tyrannosaurids are not even tyrannosaurids to begin with.

[sbell]

Nov 23, 2008 0:55:19 GMT @tomhet said:

And those basal tyrannosaurids are not even tyrannosaurids to begin with.

True, they are tyrannosauroids (superfamily, as opposed to family).

Which indicates an ancestral relationship.

[crazycrowman]

"because there is no evidence of any kind of the integument of T.rex--maybe it had fur or fish scales"

See, that is absurd. I hear comments like that all the time from the anti-feather crowd, and really, that kind of ill-logic only works if you throw all we know about dinosaur/archosaur integuments out the window. How can people not see that ?

We know some dinosaurs appear to have had pebble like scales, similar to the skin of modern crocodilians and tortoises (and quite unlike most "lizard skin") and some dinosaurs appear to have had feathers similar to those in rattite birds. We know the modern representatives of the archosaurs (EVEN if you are one of the lot who decides to put all the Liaoning finds "out the door" for some biased reason) have either scales or feathers.

None of the specimens ever found have had "fish scales" or "fur", so the likelihood of any of the animals whose integuments we have NOT identified having "fish scales" or "fur" is extremely EXTREMELY improbable.

I get the feeling that that kind of statement gets repeated to make light of the issues of feathers, but really, it just makes the people who repeat it look silly and uninformed. (Just a pet peeve)

[Tyrannax]

Nov 23, 2008 2:22:14 GMT crazycrowman said:

"because there is no evidence of any kind of the integument of T.rex--maybe it had fur or fish scales"

See, that is absurd. I hear comments like that all the time from the anti-feather crowd, and really, that kind of ill-logic only works if you throw all we know about dinosaur/archosaur integuments out the window. How can people not see that ?

We know some dinosaurs appear to have had pebble like scales, similar to the skin of modern crocodilians and tortoises (and quite unlike most "lizard skin") and some dinosaurs appear to have had feathers similar to those in rattite birds. We know the modern representatives of the archosaurs (EVEN if you are one of the lot who decides to put all the Liaoning finds "out the door" for some biased reason) have either scales or feathers.

None of the specimens ever found have had "fish scales" or "fur", so the likelihood of any of the animals whose integuments we have NOT identified having "fish scales" or "fur" is extremely EXTREMELY improbable.

I get the feeling that that kind of statement gets repeated to make light of the issues of feathers, but really, it just makes the people who repeat it look silly and uninformed. (Just a pet peeve)

Yes, claiming a bipedal or non-bipedal dinosaur had fur or fish scales is a bit wacky. Actually, it's so silly no one really thinks of it. There is more then enough evidence to support they had scales and/or feathers. Ex. Their skeletal structure, the fact that mammals had not and have not ever grown so massive or looked so odd (Not including the whale, which to me is the 8th wonder of the world), anatomy, fossilized skin, etc.

[sbell]

Watch who you call an 'anti-feather' or ill-informed . I have fancy letters and a parchment to speak otherwise for the latter. In paleo no less. For the former, I have the eternal ire of Piltdown.

It was meant to be absurd--but also to make a point. Unless you have evidence of SOMETHING, you have evidence of NOTHING (more often stated as Absence of proof does not equal proof of absence).

There are no tyrannosaurID skin impressions, so no one can definitively say what their skin cover was. There are logical limits--I doubt there were metal-covered dinos--but there are also possible-but-highly-unlikely scenarios (case in point--a recent study indicates that living archosaurs carry genes for fur production). Nonetheless, given the possibilities available, there will be ones that will always come out as more plausible--in this instance, tyrannosaurids may have been feathered, scaled/scuted, or a combination. But it could be something we didn't think of (like pterosaur 'hair'--not that I'm positing that for dinos).

To conclude, the original question asked was if a T.rex skin impression had been definitively found with feathers--the only answer so far is no. Had the question related more to tyranosaurids (still no) or tyrannosauroids (then yes) the answer becomes longer and more complex.

[crazycrowman]

Sbell, I WAS NOT calling you anti feather OR ill informed - I was just commenting in general that I find that statement to be such, and usually, it is something that comes the direction of the anti-feather crowd.

Its a statement that I hate to hear because it is often used in a way as to somehow disregard feathers by comparing them to some absurd thing, like, "well sure, they could have had feathers, anything possible, they could have had tattoos and bad dye jobs too, and eaten liverwurst hoagies and spent all day surfing on long boards!"

"Unless you have evidence of SOMETHING, you have evidence of NOTHING (more often stated as Absence of proof does not equal proof of absence)."

I was saying we have clear evidence that all other archosaurs seem to be covered in scales, feathers or both, and besides the "fluff" on pterosaurs which I did forget to mention and thought of later, that seems to be the choice of logical integuments we have to pick from, thus, it would be highly unlikely that any of the tyrannosaurs would be covered in anything else besides scales or feathers.

"There are no tyrannosaurID skin impressions"

I was 100% certain that there have been tyrannosaur skin impressions found, specifically from an Albertosaur, and if I remember correctly the skin was described as being similar to hadrosaurid skin, (and sort of like crocodilian/tortoise skin). I wish I had the link/more info on it to post.

[tomhet]

Not only we 'anti-feather' people are known to make such remarks. From the Dilong Review:

"I wonder if the author would have preferred a smooth-skinned, aquatic, fish-finned Dilong, as Larry Martin once proposed."

So in any case idiocy is coming both ways.

[tetonbabydoll]

Nov 23, 2008 7:06:02 GMT crazycrowman said:

Sbell, I WAS NOT calling you anti feather OR ill informed - I was just commenting in general that I find that statement to be such, and usually, it is something that comes the direction of the anti-feather crowd.

Its a statement that I hate to hear because it is often used in a way as to somehow disregard feathers by comparing them to some absurd thing, like, "well sure, they could have had feathers, anything possible, they could have had tattoos and bad dye jobs too, and eaten liverwurst hoagies and spent all day surfing on long boards!"

"Unless you have evidence of SOMETHING, you have evidence of NOTHING (more often stated as Absence of proof does not equal proof of absence)."

I was saying we have clear evidence that all other archosaurs seem to be covered in scales, feathers or both, and besides the "fluff" on pterosaurs which I did forget to mention and thought of later, that seems to be the choice of logical integuments we have to pick from, thus, it would be highly unlikely that any of the tyrannosaurs would be covered in anything else besides scales or feathers.

"There are no tyrannosaurID skin impressions"

I was 100% certain that there have been tyrannosaur skin impressions found, specifically from an Albertosaur, and if I remember correctly the skin was described as being similar to hadrosaurid skin, (and sort of like crocodilian/tortoise skin). I wish I had the link/more info on it to post.

I don't know where, but I have heard something similar to this. From a couple of different sources.

[crazycrowman]

I dunno I see that as Larry Martins idiocy as the person who said that WAS just saying that smooth skinned aquatic Dilong was along the lines of something Larry Martin had proposed.

And Larry Martin along with his pal Fedducia are really as anti-feathered "dinosaur" as you can get.

Recently, Feduccua and especially Martin (well, as far back as 04 apparently) are getting more and more on board with the idea that dinosaurs like oviraptiors were not dinosaurs at all, and instead were secondarily flightless birds, that had come to resemble dinosaurs due to convergent evolution.

What makes this the most amusing to me is that by considering the dromaeosaurs (maniraptoria) as birds like they seems to be leaning now, it directly contradicts the 1,2,3 vrs 2,3,4 digits argument and the arguments about differing tooth structure !!!

So, that means, and this is not from me, but from here -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae

"Martin believes that maniraptorans are secondarily flightless birds, and that birds evolved from non–dinosaurian archosaurs (or non-theropod dinosaurs in Czerkas' case), so that most of the species formerly called theropods would now not even be classified as dinosaurs."

[tomhet]

I didn't mean Larry Martin, I meant the person that wrote that comment.

[crazycrowman]

It seems you are suggesting that the person who made the comment on there was spouting the "idiocy", but that person was, like I said above, suggesting something Larry Martin had "proposed".

So if the idiocy you are suggesting is making comments about absurd integuments, (which it seemed to me, you were) it was Larry Martin who did that, not Thag. Thag simply brought the issue up, as in, "Perhaps if you do not like the animal reconstructed with the integument that the organism was found with, you would prefer it was something else, perhaps something that is extraordinarily unlikely, like Larry Martin had implied. (and that, judging by the stance they are now taking, both Martin and Fedducia would be on the other side of !)

[bustosdomecq]

Nov 23, 2008 3:59:38 GMT sbell said:

Watch who you call an 'anti-feather' or ill-informed . I have fancy letters and a parchment to speak otherwise for the latter. In paleo no less. For the former, I have the eternal ire of Piltdown.

I knew it, from the dino-bird paleo's point of view only people who have a degree in paleo have a right to an opinion or to be considered well-informed.

[kuni]

Well, everyone has a right to an opinion...it's just really likely that they have a better understanding if they've gotten a degree, so theirs is worth more

[bustosdomecq]

If having a paleo degree entails believing in 'feathered' dinosaurs [sic] or in the authenticity of the Liaoningsaurs like archaeoraptor then I'm better off without one