Tyrannosaurus rex: The Once and Future King

[suspsy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/science/tyrannosaurus-rex-dinosaurs.html

A brief article about the upcoming exhibit at the AMNH and the everlasting popularity of T. rex. A couple of things jumped out at me, the first being this quote by Mark Norell:

And it had feathers, more when it was young, but probably a tail plume, at least, at maturity. No T. rex fossil has been found that shows the presence of feathers but, said Dr. Norell, given what we know about other tyrannosaurs, related dinosaurs and the course of dinosaur evolution, "We have as much evidence that T. rex had feathers as we do that Neanderthals had hair."

[/b]

Is Norell aware of the recent Bell paper arguing against integument? Granted, that paper isn't and shouldn't be taken as the final word on tyrannosaurid integument, and a number of paleontologists have disagreed with its conclusions, but it strikes me as interesting that Norell would make a statement this bold.

And the other quote, which I definitely do agree with 100%:

Envy always follows royalty. And Dr. Brusatte said there is some resentment that T. rex draws so much attention and so many paleontologists.

"People who study non-dinosaurs say dinosaurs get all the attention," he said. "People who study dinosaurs say theropods get all the attention. People who study theropods, say, oh, tyrannosaurs get all the attention."

And among tyrannosaurs, there is only one star, the king. But there's a reason T. rex gets so much attention.

"It deserves it," Dr. Currie said.

Truer words were never spoken. Hail to the king!

[Faelrin]

Well good thing I checked before making a new post about this (with a different article). Honestly I have a lot of issues with their reconstructions here. Shrinkwrapping in places, no lips, seems they were unaware of the recent scale findings too. Also odd that the young is fully covered, but the adult is mostly not. I thought that was also debunked as not something that would be possible). The worst offender is the lack of gastralia though, which even the Sue specimen/reconstruction was being updated to include finally.

Really is a shame that this is supposed to be this up to date thing for educating the public, but it is behind the times in several crucial areas.

[Shonisaurus]

The tyrannosaurus rex is undoubtedly the "king of all the carnivorous theropods and of all the dinosaurs". It is the icon of prehistory in the vast majority of those who are amateurs or experts, is the head of all dinosaurs and will be until the end of human history. It is the dinosaur that most "hooks" me and one of the most represented graphic, pictorial and sculpturally speaking.

I think it is one of the best preserved theropods of all time and one of the most fascinating prehistoric animals in the history of paleontology. Not recognizing that tyrannosaurus has an incomparable paleontological importance is sincerely being blind or being a complete envious.

[stargatedalek]

And it had feathers, more when it was young, but probably a tail plume, at least, at maturity. No T. rex fossil has been found that shows the presence of feathers but, said Dr. Norell, given what we know about other tyrannosaurs, related dinosaurs and the course of dinosaur evolution, "We have as much evidence that T. rex had feathers as we do that Neanderthals had hair."

Is Norell aware of the recent Bell paper arguing against integument? Granted, that paper isn't and shouldn't be taken as the final word on tyrannosaurid integument, and a number of paleontologists have disagreed with its conclusions, but it strikes me as interesting that Norell would make a statement this bold.

I would say this statement is still accurate. We have evidence that both animals were at least partially bald, and also evidence that both should have some degree of soft integument. The Smilodon comparison is flawed these days but this one still holds true.

Well good thing I checked before making a new post about this (with a different article). Honestly I have a lot of issues with their reconstructions here. Shrinkwrapping in places, no lips, seems they were unaware of the recent scale findings too. Also odd that the young is fully covered, but the adult is mostly not. I thought that was also debunked as not something that would be possible). The worst offender is the lack of gastralia though, which even the Sue specimen/reconstruction was being updated to include finally.

Really is a shame that this is supposed to be this up to date thing for educating the public, but it is behind the times in several crucial areas.

I still would have to place this in the top ten most accurate depictions funded by large institutions/media companies. It puts what National Geographic has been pumping out to shame that's for sure.

The amount of feathering here is perfectly reasonable, even if we take the conclusions of the Bell paper at face value there is no evidence for bare features along the animals back. My only issue with the feathers is they're split, with two separate patches on the back and the tail that don't meet.

The text also singles out "tail plumes" which is a rather arbitrary assertion.

It's not impossible for animals to loose some degree of feathering as they age, assuming there is a practical purpose for it. Look at cassowary for example, the young are fully feathered and the adults have bald heads to act as display features. What is unrealistic is the idea that Tyrannosaurus could be wholly bald as an adult while having feathers when young, that is a ridiculous notion that exists as little more than attempts to rationalize the evidence of feathers with wanting bald depictions.