"Scales" under feathers! A new paper.

[Patrx]

Fossilized skin reveals coevolution with feathers and metabolism in feathered dinosaurs and early birds

A close look at skin underneath the feathers of three nonavian dinosaurs reveals something interesting; reticulate "scales", just like the ones found on lots of other dinosaurs.

[Halichoeres]

I guess we gotta find a new way to rule out feathers then.

[CityRaptor]

Guess Tyrannosaurids might have been fluffy, afterall.

[suspsy]

The case for feathered T. rex and other large theropods remains open. As I knew it would.

[Faelrin]

Bingo. Then again this comes as no surprise for me since Anchiornis had something like this going on with its 'hand's, and I think some modern bird species have made a point that feathers and scales are not mutually exclusive as well. But this is really fascinating still, especially to see Microraptor as one of the species this was done with, because that could change things up again with how dromaeosaurid wing fingers (as I'm calling them now), and other body parts are restored. This also changes things up in the sense that if feathers are modified scales, and they have these reticulate like scales underneath the feathers, then does that mean they have 'scales' on their 'scales'? I guess I'll have to give this a read tomorrow for any questions I might have with this, and also because it is interesting.


Also yes I think this could also open up the possibility of tyrannosaurids having some fluff again (not that I really accepted it clear cut and dry with the minimal evidence right now, if I'm being honest). Too bad Saurian's team just redesigned their rex to be completely scaly (even if it is the safer then sorry 'vanilla' state to be scaly, with the evidence there now), because now with this it wouldn't have hurt to possibly keep some of the fluff. Although true we still won't know for sure what is going on with this animal until there is more evidence, and I can only wish we get closer to that some day, to finally put this (controversial) mystery to rest, like in the case of Deinocheirus.


@CityRaptor What comic is that? That looks hilarious.

[CityRaptor]

It's "Flesh" from the anthology comic "2000 AD".  It's from the first series, published in 1977. Yep, that comic had feathered ( but called furry ) Tyrannosaurus back then.

[Dilopho]

I think the sequel series to that comic is wild, It's about mankind, who has become starved in the future, going back in time to fish for prehistoric animals in the ocean to eat.

I always finds photos of dinosaur skin to be absolutely fascinating.

[Sim]

Er, maybe I've missed something, but where in the paper does it say these are scales?  Also, the skin of the extant zebra finch that's shown in the paper looks like the skin you're saying shows "scales".  The skin detail shown in this paper is microscopic, I'm not aware of dinosaur scales ever being microscopic.  Even the small scales known from Tyrannosaurus rex are large enough to be seen with the unaided eye.

[HD-man]

Fossilized skin reveals coevolution with feathers and metabolism in feathered dinosaurs and early birds

A close look at skin underneath the feathers of three nonavian dinosaurs reveals something interesting; reticulate "scales", just like the ones found on lots of other dinosaurs.

McNamara et al. don't say anything about said dinos having "reticulate "scales", just like the ones found on lots of other dinosaurs". In fact, they say that "the texture of these fossil tissues differs from that of conchostracan shells and fish scales from the host sediment, the shell of modern Mytilus, modern and fossil feather rachis and modern reptile epidermis".

Er, maybe I've missed something, but where in the paper does it say these are scales?  Also, the skin of the extant zebra finch that's shown in the paper looks like the skin you're saying shows "scales".  The skin detail shown in this paper is microscopic, I'm not aware of dinosaur scales ever being microscopic.  Even the small scales known from Tyrannosaurus rex are large enough to be seen with the unaided eye.

Exactly! It's also worth mentioning that the skin structures in question are MUCH more irregular than real actual scales.

[Neosodon]

"Crocodilians and birds, the groups that phylogenetically bracket non-avian dinosaurs, both possess the basal condition; parsimony suggests that this skin shedding mechanism was shared with non-avian dinosaurs."


The paper seems to me to be about skin shedding. I read nothing having to do with scales being underneath feathers. The "scale" images are just microscopic pictures of breaking up and shedding skin. The fact that someone can take this as evidence for a feathered T.rex really goes to show how subjective the debate has become.

[ITdactyl]

A couple of local media outlets even "shared" this news with the tagline "first evidence of prehistoric dandruff".  They've since edited the web articles but I'm trying to track down the printed papers that had the old headline - just for laughs.

[EDIT:  I should've realized they just recycled articles from American news outlets]

[Dinoguy2]

It's true that these are not scales. This is just the pattern of the top layers of epidermis.

HOWEVER, it does look suspiciously like the pattern of so called "scales" in some other dinosaurs. Someone on Facebook pointed out that while these structures are tiny, compared to body size they are the same scale (no pun intended) as simil-looking structures on tyrannosauroids that have been interpreted as scales in the past. It's possible that the "scales" of tyrannosauroids and some other dinosaurs are not in fact scales but corrugated skin texture like this. To prove that though would require a lot more research.

[suspsy]

It's true that these are not scales. This is just the pattern of the top layers of epidermis.

HOWEVER, it does look suspiciously like the pattern of so called "scales" in some other dinosaurs. Someone on Facebook pointed out that while these structures are tiny, compared to body size they are the same scale (no pun intended) as simil-looking structures on tyrannosauroids that have been interpreted as scales in the past. It's possible that the "scales" of tyrannosauroids and some other dinosaurs are not in fact scales but corrugated skin texture like this. To prove that though would require a lot more research.

Yes, this is what both Andrea Cau and Thomas Holtz have been saying on Facebook. It's not a smoking gun one way or the other with regard to tyrannosaur integument; it's a "don't jump to any conclusions until a lot more research is done" discovery.

[ZoPteryx]

It's true that these are not scales. This is just the pattern of the top layers of epidermis.

HOWEVER, it does look suspiciously like the pattern of so called "scales" in some other dinosaurs. Someone on Facebook pointed out that while these structures are tiny, compared to body size they are the same scale (no pun intended) as simil-looking structures on tyrannosauroids that have been interpreted as scales in the past. It's possible that the "scales" of tyrannosauroids and some other dinosaurs are not in fact scales but corrugated skin texture like this. To prove that though would require a lot more research.

Yes, this is what both Andrea Cau and Thomas Holtz have been saying on Facebook. It's not a smoking gun one way or the other with regard to tyrannosaur integument; it's a "don't jump to any conclusions until a lot more research is done" discovery.

Agreed.  Barring a chemical test on those alleged tyrannosaur "scales" (and I'm not sure even that would solve anything) it seems the jury is still very much out on tyrannosaur integument.

Here's a thread of discussion for those interested:
https://twitter.com/SerpenIllus/status/1000102467978317824

[John]

First,thanks for the link to the Twitter thread on the subject ZoPteryx.I like to see the responses from everyone on things like this.
Dinosaur scales like those of hadrosaurs,sauropods and ceratopsians have more regular patterns than what are shown in the shedding skin of the non avian feathered dinosaurs in the pictures from the paper on the first page of this thread.
But...I have to admit that the irregular patterns do strongly resemble those seen in the most clear tyrannosaurid skin impressions:those of Tyrannosaurus rex that were used in the study that seemed to take most of the feathers off of tyrannosaurids in general.

Agreed.  Barring a chemical test on those alleged tyrannosaur "scales" (and I'm not sure even that would solve anything) it seems the jury is still very much out on tyrannosaur integument.

The impressions are just imprints in the rock,not organic traces that would be able to be tested with chemicals.But those of T. rex are still clear enough to be used in a study to compare with the flaking skin of the feathered non avian dinosaurs and scaled impressions of other dinosaurs to see which one is the closest match.

[Sim]

Dinosaur scales like those of hadrosaurs,sauropods and ceratopsians have more regular patterns than what are shown in the shedding skin of the non avian feathered dinosaurs in the pictures from the paper on the first page of this thread.

I can't comment on sauropod scales as I've only really read about them, but I also find that the scales of hadrosaurs, ceratopsians and Carnotaurus as well have more regular patterns than the microscopic skin detail shown in the paper.

But...I have to admit that the irregular patterns do strongly resemble those seen in the most clear tyrannosaurid skin impressions:those of Tyrannosaurus rex that were used in the study that seemed to take most of the feathers off of tyrannosaurids in general.

I agree.  However, I think it's possible for scales to have an irregular pattern, even if it might be unusual, as shown by this dodo foot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Dodo_leg.jpg


That Twitter comment says:

Today's paper on the skin impressions of Confuciusornis and other feathered non-avian dinosaurs has me wondering if feathers were unknown for these species, these skin impressions would have been interpreted as scales

I don't think those skin impressions would be interpreted as scales, since the detail is microscopic.  I don't know enough about the microscopic structure of skin in animals to be confident in what I say, but some thoughts I have:

- Isn't the microscopic skin detail shown in the paper the expected microscopic structure for (bare) skin?  As I mentioned earlier, the paper also shows the skin of the extant zebra finch looks like this.  Doesn't human skin look a lot like this too at the microscopic level?

- Does the actual size of the skin structures being discussed matter?  My understanding is the skin structures in this new paper are understood to be cells.  If it's being suggested that the structures seen on the T. rex skin are the same thing even though they are noticeably larger, then how plausible is it that T. rex's skin cells would be of this size?

[John]

Dinosaur scales like those of hadrosaurs,sauropods and ceratopsians have more regular patterns than what are shown in the shedding skin of the non avian feathered dinosaurs in the pictures from the paper on the first page of this thread.

I can't comment on sauropod scales as I've only really read about them, but I also find that the scales of hadrosaurs, ceratopsians and Carnotaurus as well have more regular patterns than the microscopic skin detail shown in the paper.

But...I have to admit that the irregular patterns do strongly resemble those seen in the most clear tyrannosaurid skin impressions:those of Tyrannosaurus rex that were used in the study that seemed to take most of the feathers off of tyrannosaurids in general.

I agree.  However, I think it's possible for scales to have an irregular pattern, even if it might be unusual, as shown by this dodo foot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Dodo_leg.jpg


That Twitter comment says:

Today's paper on the skin impressions of Confuciusornis and other feathered non-avian dinosaurs has me wondering if feathers were unknown for these species, these skin impressions would have been interpreted as scales

I don't think those skin impressions would be interpreted as scales, since the detail is microscopic.  I don't know enough about the microscopic structure of skin in animals to be confident in what I say, but some thoughts I have:

- Isn't the microscopic skin detail shown in the paper the expected microscopic structure for (bare) skin?  As I mentioned earlier, the paper also shows the skin of the extant zebra finch looks like this.  Doesn't human skin look a lot like this too at the microscopic level?

- Does the actual size of the skin structures being discussed matter?  My understanding is the skin structures in this new paper are understood to be cells.  If it's being suggested that the structures seen on the T. rex skin are the same thing even though they are noticeably larger, then how plausible is it that T. rex's skin cells would be of this size?

I'm not sure of the exact details with the skin in the pictures,so until something (if anything) ever comes of this whole thing,I will for now have to take the advice of someone who had told me what the smartest thing an intelligent person can ever say was.And that is "I don't know."

[Neosodon]

The T. rex impressions, not only were they larger, they had a more 3 dimensional shape. The T. rex impressions actually formed bumps I recall, while flaking skin is relatively flat. I made the mistake with crocodiles once. Certain crocodiles will have patches of skin on their heads that do not have scales. But I though otherwise because the layer of Keratin was cracked to form a segmented pattern. The way to tell scales is they tend to be more robust.

[HD-man]

The T. rex impressions, not only were they larger, they had a more 3 dimensional shape. The T. rex impressions actually formed bumps I recall, while flaking skin is relatively flat. I made the mistake with crocodiles once. Certain crocodiles will have patches of skin on their heads that do not have scales. But I though otherwise because the layer of Keratin was cracked to form a segmented pattern. The way to tell scales is they tend to be more robust.

This.