| 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: |
| Eat this, scaly T. rex fans!; HAHAHAHAHAAA! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 5 2012, 04:51 AM (16,950 Views) | |
| Eotyrannus | Apr 5 2012, 04:51 AM Post #1 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Cat | Apr 10 2015, 10:43 PM Post #121 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree. For Carnotaurus there is strong evidence that it was scaly, as I posted in another thread. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Apr 11 2015, 02:01 AM Post #122 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Point is you have no evidence it went bald but we do have evidence that suggests it was not bald (phylogenetic bracketing, intermediate adult metabolism similar to a 1 ton mammal) so to champion the former as more likely is just evidence of your personal bias.
Where do you research these things? the feathers in Yutyrannus are not "a single supposed find", it is clear that your decision to use these words means either you have actullay read very little of Yutyrannus or want to belittle the importance of it, they are there whetever you want to see them or not, no paleontologist has come and said "those are not feathers" even the crazy BANDits like Lingham-Soliar, the 3 specimens preserve patches of feathers from all over their bodies. Also Dilong and Guanlong are Tyrannosauroids, I suppose you meant to use another clade (Tyrannosauridae perhaps?). Edited by blaze, Apr 11 2015, 02:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 11 2015, 03:10 AM Post #123 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not true. The evidence for "T. rex fuzz" comes from several tyrannosaur specimens (at least one Dilong and three of Yutyrannus; Xu et al. 2004, 2012) with unequivocal evidence of feathers, as well as a near-universal bracketing of tyrannosauroids by unequivocally feathered taxa. Honestly, have you even looked at the papers? By comparison, the evidence against it can at best be called flimsy (at worst: non-existant), it entirely consists of figure 1.26B and three sentences in Larson (2008), and what these sentences tell us is that "most of the skin patches (more than a dozen) were found on the bottom side of the articulated tail", which is a region that may well have been scaly in even an extensively feathered species (as illustrated by Kulindadromeus, with its scaly tail and feathered body, Godefroit et al. 2014). also note how only one such patch is figured, and there isn’t even any reference mate to the skin’s structure in the text. So you’re making quite a bit of an assumption actually, for all we know some of them could even preserve feathers without it being known to us. –––REFERENCES: Godefroit, Pascal; Sinitsa, Sofia M.; Dhouailly, Danielle; Bolotsky, Yuri L.; Sizov, Alexander V.; McNamara, Maria E.; Benton, Michael J.; Spagna, Paul: A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales. Science, Vol. 345 (2014); 6195; pp. 451-455 Larson, Neal L.: One Hundred Years of Tyrannosaurus rex: The Skeletons. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington (2008); pp. 1-56 Xu, Xing; Norell, Mark A.; Kuang, Xuewen; Wang, Xialin; Zhao, Qi: Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids. Nature, Vol. 431 (2004); 7009; pp. 680-684 Xu, Xing; Wang, Kebai; Zhang, Ke; Ma, Qingyu; Xing, Lida; Sullivan, Corwin; Hu, Dongyu; Cheng, Shuqing; Wang, Shuo: A gigantic feathered dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of China. Nature, Vol. 484 (2012); 7392; pp. 92-95 Edited by theropod, Apr 11 2015, 08:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| DinosaurFan95 | Apr 11 2015, 04:02 AM Post #124 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh I hate it when people do that. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 11 2015, 05:31 AM Post #125 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Feathers on Yutyrannus and Dilong are evidence that some Tyrannosauroidea were feathered, but not that Tyrannosaurus Rex had feathers. Dilong was much smaller than Tyrannosaurus and even the large Yutyrannus was 4 times smaller than an adult T. Rex. I think it may very well be possible for juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex to be feathered, but I doubt a 6-8 ton animal would have many visible feathers. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 11 2015, 05:37 AM Post #126 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please, to those people who enthuse about reptile skin and skutes in dinosaurs; could you assemble a small collection of scientific literature to support your claims? |
![]() |
|
| Grimace | Apr 11 2015, 06:03 AM Post #127 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I still think a triceratops with huge peacock feathers stuck to it's frill would be super cool. I mean, i don't think it had them, but god would that be cool. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 11 2015, 07:20 AM Post #128 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't "enthuse" about reptile skin in dinosaurs, but there is Carnotaurus and skin impressions of T. Rex also show that it was at least partially scaly. Saying Dinosaurs did not have scales is equally ridiculous as saying they didn't have feathers. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 11 2015, 07:31 PM Post #129 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Dinosaurs do have scales (or if you want to be more precise, scutes and reticulae) , in no way does this mean they don't have feathers too. |
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Apr 11 2015, 11:10 PM Post #130 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Feathers were the exception rather than the rule for dinosaurs Survey of dinosaur family tree finds that most had scaly skin like reptiles. Matt Kaplan 27 December 2013 Article toolsRights & Permissions ![]() The late-Cretaceous Triceratops were among the majority of dinosaurs that had featheless, scaly skins. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and dinosaur fossils are often covered with impressions of feathers, which made some palaeontologists speculate whether feathers were a common trait that appeared early in their history. Now a team analysing feathers on the overall dinosaur family tree argues this is taking things too far. Palaeontologists have known for about two decades that theropods, the dinosaur group that contained the likes of Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor and from which modern birds evolved, were covered in feathery structures from early on in their history. By contrast, the ornithischian lineage — which contained animals such as Triceratops, Stegosaurus and Ankylosaurus — and the huge, long-necked dinosaurs in the sauropod lineage were considered to be scaly, similar to modern reptiles. Indeed, all evidence pointed in this direction until the discovery, beginning in 20021, 2, of a few ornithischians with filament-like structures in their skin. This led to speculation that feather-like structures were an ancestral trait for all dinosaur groups. Keen to know more, palaeontologists Paul Barrett of the Natural History Museum in London and David Evans of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto created a database of all known impressions of dinosaur skin tissues. They then identified those that had feathers or feather-like structures, and considered relationships in the dinosaurian family tree. The results, which Barrett revealed at the Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology’s annual meeting in Los Angeles in late October, indicate that although some ornithischians, such as Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong, had quills or filaments in their skin, the overwhelming majority had scales or armour. Among sauropods, scales were also the norm. “I’d go so far as to say that all dinosaurs had some sort of genetic trait that made it easy for their skin to sprout filaments, quills and even feathers,” says Barrett. ”But with scales so common throughout the family tree, they still look like they are the ancestral condition.” The findings provide “a valuable reality check for all of us who have been enthusiastic about suggesting dinosaurs were primitively feathered”, says Richard Butler, a palaeontologist at the University of Birmingham, UK, who was not associated with the study. Even so, Butler points out that the findings are not set in stone. “We don’t have primitive dinosaurs from the late Triassic and early Jurassic periods preserved in the right conditions for us to find skin or feather impressions,” he says. “This picture could quickly change if we start finding early dinosaurs with feathers on them.” Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14379 http://www.nature.com/news/feathers-were-the-exception-rather-than-the-rule-for-dinosaurs-1.14379 |
![]() |
|
| maker | Apr 12 2015, 09:56 AM Post #131 |
|
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^that's an old one, here's the recent one:http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2014/july/fossils-found-in-siberia-suggest-all-dinosaurs-had-feathers.html But I don't disagree that all dinosaurs had scales. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 22 2015, 01:12 AM Post #132 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Even though I am a feather-dino fan, I have to say that your article does not refute the one of Taipan, it rather states the other position. After all, Taipan's article said: “I’d go so far as to say that all dinosaurs had some sort of genetic trait that made it easy for their skin to sprout filaments, quills and even feathers” So, Kulindadromeus doesn't really destroy it. I am still on the feather side though, since scales and very sparse body cover that won't preserve (like in large mammals today, that would be most likely for large dinos as well) don't contradict each other. I don't see why a genetic trait that eases to create something should be that successful in a group like dinosaurs. Its evolutionary advantages are only indirect. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Apr 22 2015, 01:53 AM Post #133 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Deleted
Edited by Hatzegopteryx, Apr 22 2015, 01:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| maker | Apr 24 2015, 03:19 PM Post #134 |
|
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where's the poll? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
9:43 AM Jul 11
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)


![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








9:43 AM Jul 11