Gigantic Tyrannosaurs lost their feathers- interesting paper

[tyrantqueen]

As a Tyrannosaurus fan, this caught my attention. Does anyone have access?

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/6/20170092

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I've been out of the loop for a bit.

[Takama]

OH boy, if only you were around when the forum alredy talked about this

http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5792.0

[laticauda]

You can read it here.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317384776_Tyrannosauroid_integument_reveals_conflicting_patterns_of_gigantism_and_feather_evolution

[tyrantqueen]

You can read it here.

Thanks!

OH boy, if only you were around when the forum alredy talked about this

http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5792.0

I don't have time to go through the whole thread. Did someone get into an argument or something?

I have no feeling one way or the other, I just love T. rex whether it was feathered or not.

[laticauda]

You can read it here.

Thanks!

OH boy, if only you were around when the forum alredy talked about this

http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5792.0

I don't have time to go through the whole thread. Did someone get into an argument or something?

You know how feathered debates go.  Many theory's were kicked around and no final answers were agreed upon. 

[Takama]

You can read it here.

Thanks!

OH boy, if only you were around when the forum alredy talked about this

http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5792.0

I don't have time to go through the whole thread. Did someone get into an argument or something?

Not that i can remember, I guess i should of been more careful in my wording.

All i will say is that it was a big topic at the time,

You can read it here.

Thanks!

OH boy, if only you were around when the forum alredy talked about this

http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5792.0

I don't have time to go through the whole thread. Did someone get into an argument or something?

You know how feathered debates go.  Many theory's were kicked around and no final answers were agreed upon. 

Could not have said it better myself

[stargatedalek]

The paper didn't actually present any new remains, it just finally published a review of remains that hadn't been well known until then. It's merely one (heavily biased) interpretation of remains that most professionals were already accounting for in their feathered reconstructions.

It really comes down to whether someone wants to go by what gets published or by how they interpret the data, as anyone reasonably well versed can easily come to either conclusion on their own.

[ZoPteryx]

It is indeed the same paper as posted back in June.

Overall, I think the evidence stands that these skin impressions are interesting, and those from the stomach certainly look scale-like (albeit minuscule), but we need more research to really know what these impressions are.

[Neosodon]

The paper didn't actually present any new remains, it just finally published a review of remains that hadn't been well known until then. It's merely one (heavily biased) interpretation of remains that most professionals were already accounting for in their feathered reconstructions.

Actually it presented a mixture of new and old remains. So now instead of having just 2 skin samples we have like 7. The article is not biased at all. All of the skin impressions show no indication of feathering. Even so the article still said T. rex may have had a dorsal cape of feathers where we do not have any skin impressions. The only reason it was met with so much opposition is because it challenges our previous assumption about feather evolution and scaly T. rex's just aren't cool to some people anymore.

[stargatedalek]

The paper didn't actually present any new remains, it just finally published a review of remains that hadn't been well known until then. It's merely one (heavily biased) interpretation of remains that most professionals were already accounting for in their feathered reconstructions.

Actually it presented a mixture of new and old remains. So now instead of having just 2 skin samples we have like 7. The article is not biased at all. All of the skin impressions show no indication of feathering. Even so the article still said T. rex may have had a dorsal cape of feathers where we do not have any skin impressions. The only reason it was met with so much opposition is because it challenges our previous assumption about feather evolution and scaly T. rex's just aren't cool to some people anymore.

All of the fossils referenced in the paper were already public knowledge, just most weren't formally published. Case in point there are no new impressions that weren't already shown in the Saurian info-graph.

Several of the authors had previously expressed distaste for feathered Tyrannosaurs, and not from a professional perspective, and a certain specific one will probably make less media tie-in money if he supports feathered Tyrannosaurs, Discovery channel doesn't like real science on their station. I'd call that bias and motive. Bias isn't always going to influence someones results but it's still worth keeping in mind.

The skin impressions show no indication of feathering but neither do skin impressions from a number of other animals including true birds. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only if the impressions showed an integument that left no physical space for feathers would that be evidence for absence, and these do not. Nor do they provide sufficient justification for the proposed locations of these impressions.

And see here you've just established your own bias, you're entire argument is based on claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is biased against you and only wants what "they think is cooler" to be right. I for one don't even like Tyrannosaurus, with or without feathers, and as for aesthetics I have no preference in this case.

[Neosodon]

Saurians T. rex still needs to be further altered to match the latest study. They even said they were aware of the study and would address it later on. The skin impressions don't disprove T. rex had feathers but the evidence only points one way. So a scaly T. rex is more scientifically accurate than a fully feathered one. And I wasn't expressing my bias. What I said was true. Many people that were opposed to the study openly admitted they liked seeing T. rex with feathers. Feathered dinosaurs have become a recent hit in the paleo community and that's no bad thing. If the skin impression were found and made public 10 years ago there would have been allot less skepticism.

[Faelrin]

Honestly neither is more accurate to the other until more evidence is found, period.

Edit: For further clarification, it's still highly speculative at this point. A few scaly patches does not = completely scaly T. rex, but it might not mean a highly feathered T. rex is accurate either. Really unless we end up with a situation like Microraptor, Psittacosaurus, the numerous hadrosaurid mummies, or even the unpublished Lane Triceratops integument, it can't be fully weighed one way or the other yet. There just isn't enough right now to do so.

[ZoPteryx]

Honestly neither is more accurate to the other until more evidence is found, period.

Edit: For further clarification, it's still highly speculative at this point. A few scaly patches does not = completely scaly T. rex, but it might not mean a highly feathered T. rex is accurate either. Really unless we end up with a situation like Microraptor, Psittacosaurus, the numerous hadrosaurid mummies, or even the unpublished Lane Triceratops integument, it can't be fully weighed one way or the other yet. There just isn't enough right now to do so.

I agree entirely.

On the one hand there's hard evidence for scaly looking integument in tyrannosaurids, but it's fragmentary and very debatable.  On the other hand, there's excellent circumstantial evidence for feathers in tyrannosaurids based on phylogenetic bracketing with their ancestors.  At this point, I'd say it's a toss up as to which of these lines of thought is more correct.