Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
Eat this, scaly T. rex fans!; HAHAHAHAHAAA!
Topic Started: Apr 5 2012, 04:51 AM (16,952 Views)
Eotyrannus
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyrannus-a-giant-tyrannosaur-with-feathers/#more-6682

Finally, there is good evidence that large tyrannosaurs had feathers! This is outside of the true tyrannosaurs, being more closely related to creatures such as Guanlong, but sheer size alone makes it a good bet that Tyrannosaurus had feathers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
maker
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This is good:
Posted Image
By Matt Martyniuk (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

And denying most Coelurosaurs have feathers just because you are biased toward scaly Dinosaurs is ridiculous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
This is what it really looked like, trust me, my dad works for nintendo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
maker
Apr 5 2015, 07:44 PM
This is good:
Posted Image
By Matt Martyniuk (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

I doubt T. Rex had this highly visible color on his head. Also, the feathers on its arms don't make much sense considering how it used them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Creeper
Member Avatar
Carboniferous Arthropod

You don't think males could have had bright colored display feathers?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Of course they could have had them, but although T. Rex probably wasn't a very sneaky hunter, I think it wouldn't have been very advantageous to have your prey see you from 2 miles away.
Edited by Spartan, Apr 6 2015, 01:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I highly doubt that larger tyrannosaurs were feathered.

But that is all I'm going to say on the subject, I am not going to get dragged into a flame war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cat
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 11:21 PM
Cat
Aug 12 2012, 09:52 AM
Admantus
Aug 12 2012, 03:26 AM
http://smnt2000.deviantart.com/journal/The-presence-of-feathers-in-Dinosauria-in-6-points-283194520

Just to put the nail in the coffin.

The person in the link puts up a couple of very good points.
No it doesn't. The reality is we don't know. Dinosaurs who lived in cold climates could well have been feathered, and their relatives who lived in warm areas may well be not. Like the existence of the woolly rhino doesn't imply that the other rhino species are covered with hair. But - let's imagine that all the friggin' dinos were feathered. Just as a hypothesis. Can you please explain me why you people are so eager to prove it?? Why do you think that a giant chicken or turkey with teeth is so cool? That is what I really cannot understand. Sorry maybe I'm stupid in that case I apologize. I understand that a raptor can be cool. But it flies, it's a completely different kind of animal. Look at this, if it isn't totally ridiculous: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/dinosaur-revolution-dancing-gigantoraptor.htm
I guess you're all for scaly dinosaurs then.
What does it mean 'you're all for scaly dinosaurs'? We know that at least some dinosaurs were feathered, and there is a possibility that most or all were feathered. Maybe even big dinos were covered with long feathers or hairs - and not just rare, short hairs like rhinos or elephants. I just don't know. If I had to make an educated guess, I would think that there was a huge variation among dinosaurs in integument, as this group of animals was very big and diverse, and spawned an enormous length of time. They had to adapt to a huge range of environmental conditions. It's mind blowing to think that T. rex was closer in time to us than to a Stegosaurus.

What I don't understand is why so many people here seem so enthusiastic about the idea of feathered, 'fluffy' dinosaurs. I think one of the reasons why dinosaurs have always impressed our imagination is the idea that they were 'real life dragons'. Their supposed reptilian nature made them look more alien and threatening to us. And also more fascinating, in the way that 'monsters' are. Maybe there is an inborn fear for reptiles and other animals far removed from us, that is rooted in the genes of our mammalian ancestors. It's just speculation of course. It doesn't seem a coincidence however that most film-makers create monsters that have reptilian or insect-like characteristics. Could you imagine Giger's Alien covered in feathers? I'm sure that most people would think it wouldn't look so scaring, and in fact most would probably think that it would look wholly ridiculous. It's not that birds aren't awesome animals, and some are great predators in their own right. But in our imagination they aren't associated with danger or fear, rather with 'cuteness' or beauty. The reason probably is that birds generally are not a threat to humans. It's possible that early humans never met terror birds ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6313741.stm ) or if they did, the experience maybe was not extensive enough to imprint us with fear for birds. As I said, I'm just speculating. But the reason why I think 'scaly' dinosaurs would be much cooler doesn't depend on the fact that I grew up with that kind of image. When I was a child, the first dinosaurs I 'saw' were on old books where they were depicted as slumbering, tail dragging beasts. They were fascinating enough, but when I later saw the more modern reconstructions I thought they were much cooler. Faster, deadlier versions of the former. In any case, I'm not losing any sleep about this issues, and I'm not even a big 'dinosaur fan'. They were just interesting, fascinating animals, that's all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maker
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Personal bias about which is "cooler" or more "scaring" does not play a role in official scientific restorations, but if you're talking about whether entertainment films should have scales or feathers, it's their choice.
Edited by maker, Apr 9 2015, 03:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
They werent all feathered for sure.
We have scaly skin impressions of a lot of them, including TYRANNOSAURUS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Undescribed, conflicting reports and the same goes for those of other tyrannosaurids.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@cat:
While we’re at it, this whole reasoning is flawed. Of course Giger’s Alien would look ridiculous if you just put feathers on it, that’s because it isn’t a feathered species (that doesn’t mean you could not design a scary-looking feathered monster tough). Conversely, I’m sure the Poukai or Roc would not be very intimidating if you plucked them!

Dinosaurs aren’t some naked alien species, so even if your only criterium for liking them is being big and scary, the feathers don’t change anything about that. Remove them and you have the equivalent of an eagle in an iguana skin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cat
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Apr 10 2015, 03:26 AM
@cat:
While we’re at it, this whole reasoning is flawed. Of course Giger’s Alien would look ridiculous if you just put feathers on it, that’s because it isn’t a feathered species (that doesn’t mean you could not design a scary-looking feathered monster tough). Conversely, I’m sure the Poukai or Roc would not be very intimidating if you plucked them!

Dinosaurs aren’t some naked alien species, so even if your only criterium for liking them is being big and scary, the feathers don’t change anything about that. Remove them and you have the equivalent of an eagle in an iguana skin.
Alien is not a real species, is a fantastic creature, so whether it could have feathers or not depends exclusively on the artists and film-makers. My point is that the reason why they decided to give it and many other creatures reptilian or invertebrate features (like exoskeletons or tentacles) is that they probably evoke deep fears that birds don't. Some fantastic monsters, like werewolves, have mammal-like features likely because predators like wolves evoke similar fears. Anyway, of course all this is about human psychology, not zoology. Obviously this doesn't have any relevance for science. I was just commenting at the reactions of some posters, not arguing that the dinosaurs had scales. I'm aware that the only patches of fossil skin from T-rex are scaly, but since they are just small patches and come - if I remember correctly - from the tail, it doesn't exclude that T-rex had feathers in other parts of its body.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Apr 10 2015, 02:19 AM
Undescribed, conflicting reports and the same goes for those of other tyrannosaurids.
The only proof of T. rex fuzz comes from a single find of supposed fuzz on Yutyrannus. And it's certainly possible for the tyrannosaur lineage to have "got bald" as time went on.

And before you bring up Dilong and Guanlong, these two are too far removed from tyrannosauriods to provide adequate examples of their coverings.
Edited by DinosaurFan95, Apr 10 2015, 05:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cat
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Allosaurusatrox
Apr 10 2015, 05:10 PM
blaze
Apr 10 2015, 02:19 AM
Undescribed, conflicting reports and the same goes for those of other tyrannosaurids.
The only proof of T. rex fuzz comes from a single find of supposed fuzz on Yutyrannus. And it's certainly possible for the tyrannosaur lineage to have "got bald" as time went on.

And before you bring up Dilong and Guanlong, these two are too far removed from tyrannosauriods to provide adequate examples of their coverings.
It is possible that T-rex and other big late tyrannosaurids 'went bold', at least in the sense of elephants and rhinos, who technically have hairs but so small and sparse to be prectically invisible. Evolution is not a linear process. If a trait becomes unecessary, even if it's not directly damaging, it tends to disappear, because its mantainace would be energetically expensive. Producing a coat of hair or feathers comes to a price. As I wrote earlier, dinosaurs came in such a variety of forms and lived in very different environmental conditions under an enormous length of time, therefore uniformity of traits such as integument and coating seems unlikely. It's of course possible that even a 'bold' T-rex retained some feathers for dsplay, but again there is no proof or even strong reasons to assume that. In birds there is a huge variety of plumage, and not all of them have display feathers or exhibit big gender dimorphism. Male and female eagles generally differ in size but not in plumage or coloration. Moreover, even closely related species may differ in this aspect. Male lions have a mane but male tigers don't. So, regardless of our personal preferences, it seems more rational to admit that at the momemt, with our current fossil records, we just don't know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
It is possible that tyrannosaurus had some amount of feathers somewhere, but some people is starting to believe that sauropods and ceratopsians were giant balls of fuzz. I have seen even feathered Carnotaurus and Stegosaurus, animals which had scaly reptile skin and scutes.
Edited by Wombatman, Apr 10 2015, 07:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.