Primarys or Wing Feathers on Tyrannosaurs.

[Takama]

Simple Question. Is there any evidence for Primary Or wing feathers on Tyrannosaurs (any of them, from Guanlong to T.Rex)

[tyrantqueen]

As far as I'm aware, there is no fossil evidence for any kind of feathers for Tyrannosaurus rex. I don't think even Yutyrannus had primaries. It was just a shaggy coat of fuzz.

[Takama]

So protofuzz or Down is what they had then?    Makes sense.

[stargatedalek]

Think something similar to an emu in terms of structure. Yutyrannus shows no sign of wing feathers, the feathers on the arms were more like sleeves than wings, ending at the wrists and the hand was bare (you know, like monster movie channels wish dromaeosaur feathers were like ). Its possible that some sort of enlarged feather may have adorned the arms of tyrannosaurus for display, but they did not have "true wings".

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Oh, I'm glad I found this thread! I've had the same question in my head for awhile, especially since I keep reading requests for feathered T. rexes. I didn't think there was any evidence yet. As far as I've known so far, it's still a speculative notion because of Yutyrannus. And, they don't even know for sure if T. rex chicks even had anything in the feathers category. Right?

[DinoLord]

The issue of feathered tyrannosaurids is an interesting one. You'd think with feathered ancestors like Guanlong and Yutyrannus that they would have feathers, but so far there is no evidence of feathers - whatever tyrannosaurid integument preserved shows scales!

It seems to me there are several possible confounding factors. Maybe the types of formations they come from aren't suited to preserving feathers. Maybe the impressions came from a scaly part of the body (birds still have some scaly parts like the feet). Or maybe for some evolutionary reason the derived tyrannosaurs lost their feathers for some reason.

This really is one of the more open paleontological mysteries that remains unsolved - it'll take more time and discoveries to be come closer to a conclusion.

[Tyto_Theropod]

Think something similar to an emu in terms of structure. Yutyrannus shows no sign of wing feathers, the feathers on the arms were more like sleeves than wings, ending at the wrists and the hand was bare (you know, like monster movie channels wish dromaeosaur feathers were like ). Its possible that some sort of enlarged feather may have adorned the arms of tyrannosaurus for display, but they did not have "true wings".

Glad to hear this! I'm doing a custom of the Carnegie rex ATM (I personally though the paint job was sloppy and the texture was a bit dull), and I'm basing the feathering (and indeed my colour concept) on ratites, so it's good to know I'm on the right track. I just assumed this would be the case as ratites are quite basal and their feather structure is very primitive - more like fir in some cases. I was also able to get a close look at some stuffed kiwis in museums I visited. I've also seen and photographed Darwin's Rheas at Edinburgh Zoo (they also had Cassowary last time I looked, but they were shyer and harder to get a good look at). They're very impressive birds to stand beside, and they certainly look very Dinosaurian!



The feathers on its body are quite advanced for this type of bird, and I suspect Tyrannosaurs would have had something more like the ones on its head and neck.

As for Tyrannosaurus itself, I'm not aware of any direct evidence of feathers. I believe there have been skin impressions found and they showed scales, but as they were only for parts of the body the animal may have had feathers elsewhere. Personally I don't buy the 'not the right conditions for preserving feathers' theory, at least not if it's applied to parts of the body with impressions of scales. As far as I'm aware, there's no known example of an animal with feathers on top of scales.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[Dinoguy2]

For the record, here is a chart showing the known skin impressions from certain tyrannosaurids. Top is T. rex, second is Tarbosaurus, bottom is Gorgosaurus. Red = scales, green = smooth skin.


From here: http://dino-sours.tumblr.com/post/92429345702/avisuchian-assuming-dinosaur-avisuchian

This is what people mean when they say we have T. rex skin impressions. So...

(There are supposedly more from Pyrex but they haven't been described. Paul Sereno also claims to be working on some that show extensive areas of smooth skin with no scales. The green patch on Gorgo has caused some controversy - apparently it is smooth skin interpresered with widely spaced scales so it's sort of a hybrid skin).

If I had to guess based only on this evidence, i'd say it looks like tyrannosaurids had scaly bellies that transitioned into smooth skin about 1/3 of the way up the side. Wether or not that smooth skin was really smooth or was feathered is unknown, since feathers could have fallen off during decay, leaving the skin looking smooth.

[Tyto_Theropod]

Interesting, Dinoguy! Thanks for this

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Yes, thanks, Dinoguy2! Most of these patches are so small. How do they know exactly what areas they came from? I find this fascinating.

[Megalosaurus]

This is from WyRex (which is in fact a TRex). Small patch, but I can't call it 'smoth skin'.

TYrannosaurs Rex scale impressions, "Wyrex"
Not an ambigous fossil, quite clear scales. This for now is all we have for Tyrannosaurus Rex.

[Patrx]

I think I'll wait for "Wyrex" to be properly published instead of relying on my own untrained eyes - but at a glance, those impressions do resemble reticulae.

[Gwangi]

I think I'll wait for "Wyrex" to be properly published instead of relying on my own untrained eyes - but at a glance, those impressions do resemble reticulae.

Agreed, until a paper is published this is of little use.

[HD-man]

I think I'll wait for "Wyrex" to be properly published instead of relying on my own untrained eyes - but at a glance, those impressions do resemble reticulae.

Agreed, until a paper is published this is of little use.

See N. Larson 2008 (I.e. Chapter 1 of Larson/Carpenter's Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King).

[suspsy]

A small patch of bare skin is hardly proof of being featherless, as any ostrich will gladly tell you.

As paleontologist Mark Norell has put it, "We have as much evidence that T. rex was feathered, at least during some stage of its life, as we do that australopithecines like Lucy had hair."

[Tyto_Theropod]

A small patch of bare skin is hardly proof of being featherless, as any ostrich will gladly tell you.

Agreed, see also that rhea. You can't see its feet in my picture because it's resting, but trust me, they're very scaly and dinosaurian looking.

[Megalosaurus]

Lets stop this discussion.
By now it has been clarified that even if TRex was feathered (many disagree) it more likely had simple feathers, not primaries like the original question.

[HD-man]

A small patch of bare skin is hardly proof of being featherless, as any ostrich will gladly tell you.

Agreed, see also that rhea. You can't see its feet in my picture because it's resting, but trust me, they're very scaly and dinosaurian looking.

Actually, scales =/= "bare skin." To quote Jura, "Scales are a unique form of integument akin to hair and feathers, nails, and claws."

As for the relationship between scales & feathers, see "The feather-scale dichotomy" for what Evo-Devo currently tells us (& yes, it does cover the issue of feathered feet): http://reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathers-on-the-big-feathers-on-the-small-but-feathers-for-dinosaurs-one-and-all/