Redesigning a tyrant: Meet the new Tyrannosaurus rex

[sauroid]

another T. rex anatomical interpretation (tho nothing that radical)
http://saurian.maxmediacorp.com/?p=553
what do y'all think?

[Dinomike]

I really like the look of that T.rex. I've actually been sculpting something that looks a little bit like that. I'm getting more and more used to Rexy looking like this.

[Mitko]

The depiction of T.rex and other big(11-12m+) theropods with feathers does not appeal to me. Am I too used to the Jurassic park look of Rexy? Probably yes. I would be happy if the possibility of having a northern T.rex with feathers and a southern one without them turns out to be true. 

[tyrantqueen]

I like it. I would have preferred if it had a full, overall coat, but it's still nice. Not sure why it has a blue tongue though

[Dobber]

I really like it. Interesting idea about the tail too.

Chris

[John]

I like that the diagram makers include photos of the skin impressions that aren't seen that often,like that of Daspletosaurus.

[DinoToyForum]

Please avoid all caps titles. It is the internet equivalent of shouting and isn't necessary. Thanks! 

[CityRaptor]

That was also released on the artist's DA page. Comments are mostly postive, expect for some from the usual groups of people...

[Mamasaurus]

I really like the look of this new rex. It has a very natural and believable feel to it, and the amount of plumage makes sense. The naked tail is interesting, and though I don't care too much for it aesthetically, their reasons for it make sense to me.  I also really like the softness in its expression. Extant predators like bears and lions look cute until you're looking into a mouth full of daggers, and crocs have that smile, so this Rex's "cuteness" makes it more believable as a real animal.

Also, who else got shivers watching it move? 

[sauroid]

oh sorry my bad. i copy/pasted the title from the source.

[fleshanthos]

I still get goosebumps every time the Brachiosaurus is revealed in JP. And I've seen it dozens of times, now.

If the design in 'Saurian' is based on the Science, then by definition it is the best design by far. 

[Tyto_Theropod]

I first saw this as a gif on Gwangi's signature. Reaction: O.M.G. They have somehow filmed a living T. rex! That is THE T. rex! The guys have done a really good job on putting all the evidence together and making it look like the bone-crunching ostrich on steroids that it seems to have been.

[Arul]

Please avoid all caps titles. It is the internet equivalent of shouting and isn't necessary. Thanks! 

That is why i change my name from ARUL to Arul  agreed i preferred full feathered just like collecta trex. Sooo now feathered trex is really existed ? 

[Rain]

Please avoid all caps titles. It is the internet equivalent of shouting and isn't necessary. Thanks! 

That is why i change my name from ARUL to Arul  agreed i preferred full feathered just like collecta trex. Sooo now feathered trex is really existed ? 

Not quite, we still don't have direct evidence but it wouldn't be far fetched to say it did have feathers

[Plasticbeast95]

Well, evidence for rex fuzz comes mostly from isolated finds of its relatives with fuzz. No T. rex has been found that shows any direct sign of fuzz or feathers.  At most, T. rex likely only had feathers as a rexlet, they were probably shed at adolescence.

[Patrx]

At most, T. rex likely only had feathers as a rexlet, they were probably shed at adolescence.

As far as I can tell, that notion really isn't based on anything, actually - it seems to be something people started saying because the image of  feathery adult Tyrannosaurus was unpopular. Even once we find feather impressions from an adult tyrannosaurid, I expect there will be those who continue to insist that Tyrannosaurus was some kind of featherless aberration. 

[Plasticbeast95]

At most, T. rex likely only had feathers as a rexlet, they were probably shed at adolescence.

As far as I can tell, that notion really isn't based on anything, actually - it seems to be something people started saying because the image of  feathery adult Tyrannosaurus was unpopular. Even once we find feather impressions from an adult tyrannosaurid, I expect there will be those who continue to insist that Tyrannosaurus was some kind of featherless aberration. 

Well, there's no solid evidence that T. rex was feathered as an adult. And any depiction of adult T. rex as feathered is pure speculation. If you can find evidence of plumage in adult T. rex (T. rex itself, not its relatives). , I will be happy to believe it, but until then, I'm sorry to say that I must remain skeptical.

[Rain]

At most, T. rex likely only had feathers as a rexlet, they were probably shed at adolescence.

As far as I can tell, that notion really isn't based on anything, actually - it seems to be something people started saying because the image of  feathery adult Tyrannosaurus was unpopular. Even once we find feather impressions from an adult tyrannosaurid, I expect there will be those who continue to insist that Tyrannosaurus was some kind of featherless aberration. 

You're acting as if direct evidence has been found that proves T rex was feathered. For the time being, let's not bash on people's preferences , not until we have direct evidence at least.

[stargatedalek]

We do have direct evidence, just not as direct as some people think is necessary. Just to recap:

-We know that relatively close relatives of Tyrannosaurus had feathers, and we know that Tyrannosaurus had the genetic capacity to grow feathers.
-We know that animals as large as Tyrannosaurus still retained their feathers.
-We know that it's incredibly speculative to assume that any animal would loose integument as it grows older (all ages or nothing).
-We have impressions of two different forms of dermal surface for Tyrannosaurids, why would they have scales and bare skin?

Given this it can be said with relative certainty that unless early tyrannosaurids were aquatic (however interesting that would be I can't see it) and then returned to land there's no reason for them to loose their feathers. But even then it's unlikely given that feathers are much better at serving an animal underwater than hair is.

And then we do have fossil (what some people claim is the only thing that qualifies as "direct") evidence too, people arguing against feathers will often cite the presence of both scale and skin impressions in tyrannosaurid fossils but really that makes quite the contrary picture. The scale impressions are all from exactly where you would expect to find scales on an otherwise feathered animal, the thigh, the bottom of the foot, the underside of the tail, and the very underbelly. Why people argue the scale impressions on the bottom of the foot are evidence against feathers I can't fathom, but I've seen it done. These scale impressions decidedly point to neither conclusion, as these areas would likely be scaled regardless of the rest of the animal, the skin impressions however, are far more telling. Skin impressions from the flanks and throat of tyrannosaurids are a huge hole in the argument of scaled tyrannosaurids, since there is no reason why they would have bare skin and scales.

To sum up, it is possible Tyrannosaurids could have lost their feathers, but it's certainly not the conservative assumption.

[Patrx]

At most, T. rex likely only had feathers as a rexlet, they were probably shed at adolescence.

As far as I can tell, that notion really isn't based on anything, actually - it seems to be something people started saying because the image of  feathery adult Tyrannosaurus was unpopular. Even once we find feather impressions from an adult tyrannosaurid, I expect there will be those who continue to insist that Tyrannosaurus was some kind of featherless aberration. 

You're acting as if direct evidence has been found that proves T rex was feathered. For the time being, let's not bash on people's preferences , not until we have direct evidence at least.

Oh, I'm not bashing! Aberrations do occur. If someone prefers the less likely version, that's quite alright, so long as they know it's not likely. Aesthetics and science are distinct, after all.