Comment on -T. rex vs Triceratops- by arvalis
There are no feathers and also rex probably did not have feathers unfortunately. Its a big bummer.
GODAMNIT I WISH WE COULD FIND DIRECT EVIDENCE ON THIS MATTER
We do, actually - T-rex scale impressions, as well as ones from its cousins.
But that still makes so much debate... was it all scale or half or most feathered... possibly not all scales, they have too close connections to just loose them at rex
I JUST WISHED I COULD GO KNOCK A REX DOWN ON A MUD BANK AND HAVE THAT PERSERVED!
btw is this the postcard sized one I heard of in the Trey video
or a new one?
I JUST WISHED I COULD GO KNOCK A REX DOWN ON A MUD BANK AND HAVE THAT PERSERVED!
btw is this the postcard sized one I heard of in the Trey video
or a new one?
Word of advice with Trey: He's full of shit.
Well damn...
shit is a strong word
And he might just appear like the last time and that'd be awkward
I think you were there... but I was the one saying he's shit
shit is a strong word
And he might just appear like the last time and that'd be awkward
I think you were there... but I was the one saying he's shit
I don't give a damn - he's an asshole who's had it too good for too long.
Ok how so?
View all replies
Why do you say that? The patch of skin recently discovered that came from the rex is one tiny piece of skin that came from a part of the rex's body that probably didn't have feathers anyway. It really sucks how all these JP suck ups are spamming online articles about how rex was a scaly monster because of this one tiny patch of flesh, which, if Tyrannosaurus did have feathers, probably didn't have feathers anyways. Also, feathers and scales act way differently. You don't see massive ostriches overheating on the blistering savannah, because feathers help to thermoregulate both through heat and cold. Let's not forget Yutyrannnus either. Unless we find a full imprint of T. rex's back and/or sides. there's not really any evidence that it didn't have feathers. Also I know my name is dumb I made it when I was like 9 so just ignore it.
Exactly wich piece do reffering to now? Cause i know there is plenty of them out there wich indicates scales.
As it was described to me by Scott Hartman, animals over 3 tons do not received benefits from feathers and actively become detrimental. Yutyrannus falls well within that boundary, T. rex does not. Also unless there is a patch of feathers just on the back of the torso, they cannot really be anywhere else. My experts lean towards no feathers unfortunately.
Comment hidden
I guess you didn't look at the rest of my gallery and have no idea who I am. Many of those videos you linked have my feathered dinosaur artwork. Trey The Explainer is an acquaintance of mine as well. My feathered T. rex illustration is the one of the wikipedia page for T. rex. What I'm saying to you is that there has been new evidence and study this year that makes it very unlikely that T. rex had feathers. This is not to say that all tyrannosaurs did not have feathers, just rex. The experts I personally conferred with are Scott Hartman and Mark Witton, also Tom Holtz and Tom Parker also both believe T. rex did not have feathers. Those are all the most trusted experts in the actually field of paleontology as far as I'm concerned.
Not all theropods had feathers, and its incredibly unlikely that anything with a mass over 3 tons had them. So much to my chagrin, the days of feathered big boy rex is behind me. Please understand that I think Jurassic World is almost intentionally hurting the public's view of dinosaurs and certainly all dromaeosaurs had feathers. I am in no way a jurassic park fan boy, I just follow the science. Maybe next time you come at someone with such ignorance, at least make sure your information is up to date.
Not all theropods had feathers, and its incredibly unlikely that anything with a mass over 3 tons had them. So much to my chagrin, the days of feathered big boy rex is behind me. Please understand that I think Jurassic World is almost intentionally hurting the public's view of dinosaurs and certainly all dromaeosaurs had feathers. I am in no way a jurassic park fan boy, I just follow the science. Maybe next time you come at someone with such ignorance, at least make sure your information is up to date.
Comment hidden
It's perfectly fine, we all make mistakes.
Ok so he didn't mean that T.rex was the only tyrannosaurid that lacked feathers, what he meant was that all large tyrannosaurids (and all massive theropods in general) lacked feathers. The reason why has to do with thermoregulation, as any sufficiently large theropod, say 3 tons or over in mass as RJ said, would easily overheat with a thick fluffy coat. Not only this, but there is actually a quite extensive record of tyrannosaurid scales from all across the body. My friend Joshua Ballze created this chart of known tyrannosaurid scale impressions with the help of paleontologists Thomas Carr and Philip Currie:
scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v…
As you can see, there really isn't any room for feathers to hide except for the dorsum, but even that is doubtful given the nature of reptilian scales. There is a possibility that these scales might be reticula, or scales secondarily evolved from feathers, like on the feet of modern birds. If that is the case, then sparse fuzz like the hair on elephants might be possible. But of course that is an untested hypothesis at the current moment, so take it with a grain of salt.
Ok so he didn't mean that T.rex was the only tyrannosaurid that lacked feathers, what he meant was that all large tyrannosaurids (and all massive theropods in general) lacked feathers. The reason why has to do with thermoregulation, as any sufficiently large theropod, say 3 tons or over in mass as RJ said, would easily overheat with a thick fluffy coat. Not only this, but there is actually a quite extensive record of tyrannosaurid scales from all across the body. My friend Joshua Ballze created this chart of known tyrannosaurid scale impressions with the help of paleontologists Thomas Carr and Philip Currie:
scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v…
As you can see, there really isn't any room for feathers to hide except for the dorsum, but even that is doubtful given the nature of reptilian scales. There is a possibility that these scales might be reticula, or scales secondarily evolved from feathers, like on the feet of modern birds. If that is the case, then sparse fuzz like the hair on elephants might be possible. But of course that is an untested hypothesis at the current moment, so take it with a grain of salt.
You know how ignorant you have to be of basic paleontology to be saying that?
Yes it is true that more basal Tyrannosauoids such as Yutyrannus and Dilong did in fact possess a body-wide covering of filamentous feathers (Xu et al. 2004, 2012), but the fossil evidence that T. rex and it's closer relatives lacked feathery integument has been piling up immensely since the beginning of this year. Prominent dinosaur paleontologists such as Thomas Carr, Philip Currie, Peter Larson, and Robert Bakker have published papers on the extensive record of skin impressions from species like Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, Daspletosaurus, and Albertosaurus, and they all indicate that derived Tyrannosaurids had a uniform and body-wide covering of scales (Bell et al. 2017, Carr et al. 2017). Also, how dare you accuse RJ Palmer of being ignorant of the fossil evidence! He actually did create a wonderful reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus with a full covering of feathers back in 2016: Tyrannosaurus rex-2016
But the evidence has changed, and now our paleoart is changing with it whether you like it or not. So get your facts straight before accusing very scientifically inclined paleoartists of just being jurassic park fanboys.
Bell et al. 2017 "Tyrannosauroid integument reveals conflicting patterns of gigantism and feather evolution" rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.or…
Carr et al. 2017 "A new tyrannosaur with evidence for anagenesis and crocodile-like facial sensory system" www.nature.com/articles/srep44…
Mark Witton: Revenge of the scaly Tyrannosaurus
markwitton-com.blogspot.com/20…
Yes it is true that more basal Tyrannosauoids such as Yutyrannus and Dilong did in fact possess a body-wide covering of filamentous feathers (Xu et al. 2004, 2012), but the fossil evidence that T. rex and it's closer relatives lacked feathery integument has been piling up immensely since the beginning of this year. Prominent dinosaur paleontologists such as Thomas Carr, Philip Currie, Peter Larson, and Robert Bakker have published papers on the extensive record of skin impressions from species like Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, Daspletosaurus, and Albertosaurus, and they all indicate that derived Tyrannosaurids had a uniform and body-wide covering of scales (Bell et al. 2017, Carr et al. 2017). Also, how dare you accuse RJ Palmer of being ignorant of the fossil evidence! He actually did create a wonderful reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus with a full covering of feathers back in 2016: Tyrannosaurus rex-2016
But the evidence has changed, and now our paleoart is changing with it whether you like it or not. So get your facts straight before accusing very scientifically inclined paleoartists of just being jurassic park fanboys.
Bell et al. 2017 "Tyrannosauroid integument reveals conflicting patterns of gigantism and feather evolution" rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.or…
Carr et al. 2017 "A new tyrannosaur with evidence for anagenesis and crocodile-like facial sensory system" www.nature.com/articles/srep44…
Mark Witton: Revenge of the scaly Tyrannosaurus
markwitton-com.blogspot.com/20…
Well said.
Interesting, those who persecuted "awesomebros' and "JP fanboys" for not letting go of outdated scaly models, can't seem to let go of outdated feathered models. On a side note would juvenile and hatchling tyrannosaurs still possess feathers or is that completely out of the window?
Where in my comment did I claim all dinosaurs were scaly?
Because some people are extremely biased or want to be superior to others on the science side
now that has been totally flipped some of them them can't go back on what they've said or just hate the non science ones because they ended up "winning"
now that has been totally flipped some of them them can't go back on what they've said or just hate the non science ones because they ended up "winning"
i suggest you listen to this interview with mr carr www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJOR1…
Comment hidden
....Trey's not an expert. He has zero qualifications, and he clearly didn't read the paper.
You are a picture-perfect definition of what is wrong with the Internet Dinosaur Fandom.
You are a picture-perfect definition of what is wrong with the Internet Dinosaur Fandom.
Comment hidden
THis is a man who does not understand how basic perspective works, frequently makes wild theories based on single specimens, and thinks that National Geographic and Smithsonian are 'awesomebro media'. That is not a credible source.
Just cause one dinosaur is scaly dosen mean all of them were all bears exepect polar bears have smooth Skin under their fur but polar bears have blubber just cause one was scaly doesn’t mean all were