Re: Feathering proof

[Balaur]

Expanding on what Paul Sereno said, I picked this quote up from an article about Yutyrannus.

So could T.rex also have been covered in feathers? Paul Sereno from the University of Chicago thinks so. "In my lab, I have a T. rex fossil that shows the beast did not have scales," he says.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyrannus-a-giant-tyrannosaur-with-feathers/#.VAaDNWN9fpc

Here are the pictures from Balaur's link.




Now I'm no expert and they do look a bit scaly but honestly, they do greatly resemble plucked bird skin.

Thanks for the pictures!

Yeah, they look like plucked bird skin to me. That's very interesting.

[Megalosaurus]

Thanks for the link Balaur.
Thank you Gwangi for linking the pictures.
Thank you everyone for comment.

I've read all the post and comments Balaur linked. I respect Mr. Martyniuk opinion.
I'll quote part of his comment:

Here are some photos of supposed T. rex skin fossils:
[...See the pictures posted by Gwangi above...]
The upshot seems to be that while typical dinosaurian reticulate scales have been reported, they are either from an unknown portion of the body and/or at or near the leg and underside of the tail.

So he has no doubt that this samples of T.Rex skin are from "reticulate scales". What is in doubt is its exact position is its body.
There's no picture of the bird / elephant's hide like skin he wrote about, he says it was a personal comment.

Undescribed palm-sized patch found with a rib and caudal vertebrae showing "bird-like" naked skin likened by Detrich and Currie to a plucked chicken or an elephant's hide. [Pers. comm. by Alan Detrich and Philip Currie via the DML]

In reply to Mr. Martyniuk comment, user Hadiaz does comment:

how are these impressions not of "true scales"?

I know Amargasaurus posted the second picture before, but I post it again for other users to avoid navigate several pages back in search of it.

The answer was:

Good question! We'll never know until they're described.

Now a personal comment: None of the 4 pictures linked looks like a plucked chicken to me. Chiken skin has round small bumps (where the feathers were attached) and a big space between them (the space varies, but is always noticeable). None of the pictures shows that pattern. But is up to everyone to analyze the pictures by themselves and make your own conclusions.

Expanding on what Paul Sereno said, I picked this quote up from an article about Yutyrannus.

So could T.rex also have been covered in feathers? Paul Sereno from the University of Chicago thinks so. "In my lab, I have a T. rex fossil that shows the beast did not have scales," he says.

Seriously: I want to see that fossil and description. The most fossil material available = The better understanding of the creature. I have no problems with that, but for now we have only words, and we all know a picture worths more than 1000 words. So, lets wait to Mr. Sereno to made it available. As for the expresion: "the beast did not have scales" that implies that the fossil he has is a mummy, or at least a gigantic skin patch. That will be awesome. But otherwise it will point to the scale & bare skin or scale & fuzz mixture postures. That expresion also implies that T.Rex doesn't has scales even in the feet.

Amargasaurus: Thank you very much for correcting me, I'll edit my post. I know it is a triceratops fossil, but may be I get confused when reading its name in the "Featherz" thread. 

For now at least the integument we have preserved for Tyrannosaurus rex is entirely scaled or skin, with ..so far at least, nothing for feathers.

I second that point. And so I wait for more T. Rex skin impressions to be revelated before change my opinion. 

P.D.- I put bold in some relevant parts of the quotes.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I remember reading somewhere hat the gorgosaurus holotype had both scaly skin and smooth skin, perhaps the smooth skin was covered in feathers? I'll have to look for some pictures of it.

EDIT: I found it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgosaurus#cite_note-currie2001lecture-8

There is no paper referenced, just a lecture.  Its also said shortly after that the idea is likely wrong.

[Saurian]

copy my message from another topic :

I think that T Rex was not feathers, no large animals in the southern parts of the world where big indumentum .  Maybe, T Rex have fuzz, as modern rhinos and elephants, but not feathers, where  lived yatirannus was cold and so had feathers,  American big Tyrannosaurid  skin structure and no trace of feathers. I know you will say that this is not proof, but there are no large animals in the southern hemisphere with a big indumentum.   

[Balaur]

copy my message from another topic :

I think that T Rex was not feathers, no large animals in the southern parts of the world where big indumentum .  Maybe, T Rex have fuzz, as modern rhinos and elephants, but not feathers, where  lived yatirannus was cold and so had feathers,  American big Tyrannosaurid  skin structure and no trace of feathers. I know you will say that this is not proof, but there are no large animals in the southern hemisphere with a big indumentum.   

Yeah, but feathers cannot be compared to the fuzzy and hair of mammals. Both have different properties and uses. Hair is used mainly to keep an animal warm. Feathers are used mostly for the same reason, but can be used to cool down or dry an animal. Also, abscenece of feathers is not proof of no feathers. As said before, the skin of Tyrannosaurus looks like a plucked chickens skin.

[stargatedalek]

no offense but I find that logic incredibly flawed, to base something like that by region and not by relation just doesn't work

tyrannosaurus lived in North America anyway...

[Saurian]

T Rex also existed in the southern regions of America, as I said, maybe all the reconstruction of dinosaurs are not true, and we debate  here 
And unfortunately we will never know what they looked like
and there is no evidence that the T Rex had feathers that yatirannus who lived in, where the temperature can be 10 ° C (for applications with scientists) had feathers, nothing to prove.
And when actually find the remains of T Rex with traces or feather, I am the first who will be talking about it, and now it is speculative, and it is unlikely that they will find the remains of 

[DinoLord]

Like I've said before: It's hard to think of an evolutionary reason for tyrannosaurs to have completely lost their feathers over time...

[Saurian]

Yes, I do not deny that it is possible T Rex was fuzz, but not as  large indumentum as yatirannus, Asian family, who lived in the other, a cold climate, and it is strange to portray T Rex as  large indumentum ,  as the type who lived in a completely different climate, and so there is no evidence that

maybe even a sauropod was a little fuzz, we will probably never know

[stargatedalek]

*cough*
"pelicans live in tropical climates, so unlike skuas who live in the arctic pelicans don't have feathers"

you see how crazy that sounds? you can't base feathers off of region

[Saurian]

Pelicans do not weigh 5 tons, a large animal is a little different mechanisms work if yatiranus wore feathers for temperature, Rex coated with a superheated  in their locality


I just do not like speculation, if everything will depict T Rex with feathers, and then it turns out that this is not so,or he had fuzz, such moments in paleontology was many

which is why some companies make toy versions same time Rex with feathers and without feathers

[Balaur]

As said before, the insular properties of feathers are different than hair. The two are not synonomous with each other. Also, Ostriches are huge, they live in warm areas, (hot areas) and they have a bucket load of feathers.

@DinoLord: I totally agree with you. Why would they loose feathers? It makes no since to me. Having feathers seems advantageous to having scales or skin.

[Megalosaurus]

Why would they loose feathers? It makes no since to me. Having feathers seems advantageous to having scales or skin.

So a Komodo dragon will have more advantages if it get feathers? A Rhinoceros or an Elephant will do?

If the statement "having feathers seems advantageous to having scales or skin" is true. Why don't all species have feathers or something homologous instead of scales or skin?
I'm not saying that scales or skin are better than feathers, all types have its own advantages in diferent environments, body plans, behaivors, etc. a ton of factors get involved

In some cases skin or scale can have advantages, even for a T. Rex. Less fuzzed animals have less room for skin parasites (no immune to them of cource). They need less grooming time. They spend less nutrients by not generate so large integument, nor to have special oil glands to groom it. Scale coats can serve as an armour in some cases, specially when having plates and spikes. Also thick skin can serve as protection.
A T. Rex was exposed to the claws or horns of its prey, even to the bite of another T. Rex. Which will be more advantageus in those situations: a) soft feathered skin b)scaly hide c)think rhino like skin?

"Why T. Rex lost feathers?" May be it never have feathers. Which is the direct feathered ancestor of T.Rex? I mean direct, not similar or close in a cladogram. We cannot be 100% secure of its direct lineage. We only have fossil proof of fuzz in a few members of Tyrannosauroidea. And we lack more fossils than we have.

I love the birds, I love feathers. But I not dissmiss any body covering / feature / plan. All of them are beautiful and advantageous in its own ways.

[amanda]

Well I will skip the previous 99,00 pages. One glance above covers it. Same old same old. Tyrannosaurus Rex has no direct evidence of feathers. Period. There is no skin impression to suggest they did.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

   I am not really what you would label a BANDer, but I tend to follow the fossil evidence itself. It is my feeling you can make or draw as many cladograms or charts as you want, but when it does not work with all the availible evidence , there is something wrong, missing or incomplete with the idea. I think there is more to the argument than did or did not have feathers....the feathered tyrannosaurids we have found so far in China if I understand correctly are somewhat beforehand to tyrannosaurus rex, and they are also from another environment which it has been suggested was possibly colder.There are also feathered dinosaurs we find in China that have feathers where we have found integument suggesting scales, here in our country. It is a difficult argument to determine unti further evidence presents....the basic understanding of dinosaur families and their relationships to one another does strongly suggest many dinosaurs were feathered , that we just do not have fossil evidence to support so far.
   One question I constantly ask myself and wonder about...do we generally find what we believe we will find? Suppose that in the past paleontologists might have well found dinosaurs here in North America that were preserved with feathered impressions but because they were looking for large reptiles it never even ocurred to them the possibility?I believe you listen to your search engine and if they were not looking for an anything is possible type fossil, they would not have known it when they saw it. I do know many great fossil finds have been lost...imagine the time and setting where Cope and Marsh would actually grab all the bones they could and then sledgehammer or dynamite a site to prevent the other party from quarrying further? or the other thing that makes me ill...the Sternbergs were known to have found a hardosaur mummy so well preserved that it shamed any other ever found, and it was sold to a foreign country. In route a Nazi U-boat sent the ship to the bottom, losing the fossil again forever.
We may have already found the proof and then either ignored it accidently or destroyed it in our petty bickering.
    I think there is room for everyones opinion at the table....and I have no issues with or against a feathered Tyrannosaurus Rex, provided the evidence supports it . I always had understood Albert Einstein to say the best measure of true inteligence is the ability to support as many conflicting points of view on the same issue as possible.

[DinoToyForum]

Now, I know I will now be called, crazy (which I am, actually), moronic and stupid. I know you will proceed to beat the living pulp outta me, as is SAP here.

This sort of vilifying is provoking and completely untrue. Nobody is calling anyone stupid or moronic in these threads, it is rude to suggest it, and if it were true then their would be repercussions. Please don't post things like this again because we are banning people for this sort of unproductive comment. Thank you. 

[DinoLord]

   One question I constantly ask myself and wonder about...do we generally find what we believe we will find? Suppose that in the past paleontologists might have well found dinosaurs here in North America that were preserved with feathered impressions but because they were looking for large reptiles it never even ocurred to them the possibility?
We may have already found the proof and then either ignored it accidently or destroyed it in our petty bickering.

This is a very good point. Heck, it took over a century for people to realize Ornithomimus had feathers. Even the exact fossils that led to this discovery were almost two decades old.

[amanda]

Now, I know I will now be called, crazy (which I am, actually), moronic and stupid. I know you will proceed to beat the living pulp outta me, as is SAP here.

This sort of vilifying is provoking and completely untrue. Nobody is calling anyone stupid or moronic in these threads, it is rude to suggest it, and if it were true then their would be repercussions. Please don't post things like this again because we are banning people for this sort of unproductive comment. Thank you. 

I apologize. And 'tis edited, sorry.

On the other side of the coin, have any actual feather impressions been found in North America for a dinosaur? Could this just be as simple as the environment here was more hostile to the preservation of them?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I do not believe much as been found here aside from some carbon markings in Ornithimimus that were indicated as feathers. The argument here  always states that generally a preservation that supports scales seldom is ideal for feathers. Most of the feathered dragons from China were preserved in Lagerstaten type environments, and here in North America we seem to lack any of these that are the proper age and formation to display feathered dinosaurs. I hope I said that right.....I am sure a few others will chime in and fix whatever errors I did make

[Patrx]

From the eighth page of this thread:

The trouble with finding feather remains in North America is that the sediment at these sites rarely allows for it. Generally, you find feathered fossils in lagerstätten, a type of very fine deposit. Mesozoic lagerstätten sites have been found places like Russia, China, Germany, and South America, but not in North America (with a few exceptions like the Triassic Ghost Ranch). The aforementioned ornithomimusaur feathers were observed in the Hell Creek formation, however. I recall that they were very faint and would generally have been overlooked, but it does make me wonder what other traces could be found now that we know more about what to look for.

I'm not a geologist or paleontologist but I really think preservation bias is the answer here... The Mesozoic fossil sites in North America that we've found so far just don't preserve animals the same way. Notice I specified Mesozoic fossil sites, because there are other fossil sites in North America that preserve plants and animals in a similar way, they're just not Mesozoic plants and animals. One of the most famous sites in North America and for the Eocene in particular is the Green River formation.

Here is a bird from the Green River formation.


So again, sites do exist here like those in China, just not from the Mesozoic. Maybe there is one we have not found yet. I strongly doubt evolutionary pressure in Asia vs. North America was so different that related and unrelated animals on separate continents would independently lose or evolve feather-like body coverings, especially since for much of the Mesozoic animals could move back and forth between the two.