PSA: Anchiornis feet were scaly AND fully feathered

[Neosodon]

stargatedalek, I think you are trying to over simplify things be assuming T Rex had the same anatomy as birds. There is no bird that has scales on its tail. And we no T Rex did. Anchiornis was more closely related to T Rex than any modern bird. If feathers can grow on scales on one portion of the body then its possible they can do it anywhere.

Saying that T Rex could NOT have a full coating of scales and feathers and the ability to shed them because no modern bird has that trait is like saying T Rex must of clucked like a chicken because no modern bird can roar.

I know it is just a theory and there is no hard evidence for it but saying it is an internet myth because because it does not fit your assumptions on dinosaur anatomy is taking your opinion to far.

All of that is incorrect, and provably so.

There is NO CERTAINTY on what the Tyrannosaurus impressions are. No one knows if these are scales or skin.

Anchiornis is closer to modern birds than it is to Tyrannosaurus. So I really don't understand why that makes any difference.

I didn't say it couldn't, I said this wasn't evidence in favour of that. And IT ISN'T. You aren't reading what I've said. This trait has only been found to occur with a very specific form of scales which are only known from the feet of birds and close relatives. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate this trait occurred with other forms of scales.

Only large cats can roar, so no Tyrannosaurus didn't roar. It may have made very loud sounds, but it didn't roar.

The concept that Tyrannosaurus lost feathers as it aged is an internet myth. It's been circulating since people first suggested Tyrannosaurus had feathers and some people in deep denial came up with the silly notion it may have lost them with age so they could hold onto their precious image of the scaled tyrant.

This is a picture of a T Rex skin impression.

Looks like scales to me.

"Anchiornis was more closely related to T Rex than any modern bird." I meant to say T Rex was closer to Anchiornis than a modern bird so it is a better comparison.

"Only large cats can roar, so no Tyrannosaurus didn't roar. It may have made very loud sounds, but it didn't roar" I'm not really sure how you define a roar but most people think a loud sound from a large predatory animal as a roar. Besides don't bears roar?

An internet myth usually refers to an idea that has been disproved or has absolutely nothing to suggest it being true. T Rex was known to have scales and assumed to have feathers passed down from it's ancestors. It is now proven that feathers CAN grow over scales. It is also known that the seasons during the late cretaceous were becoming more extreme. So it is only logical to conclude that T Rex may have been able to grow and shed feathers over it's scales to adapt to it's changing environment. And with the extinction there were no descendants of T Rex left alive to pass the trait on. There is evidence to back the theory up so no it is not an internet myth and certainly is a scientific possibility.

[Sim]

Just to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding...  Feathers are not known to ever grow through/on scales, and when they occur along with scales on an area of the body, the feathers grow in the gaps between the scales, right?

[Neosodon]

Just to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding...  Feathers are not known to ever grow through/on scales, and when they occur along with scales on an area of the body, the feathers grow in the gaps between the scales, right?

I assume they would grow in between the scales. If the scales were small there would be plenty of space for the feathers to grow. I used to have a chicken with feathered feet. I wish I payed more attention.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

stargatedalek, I think you are trying to over simplify things be assuming T Rex had the same anatomy as birds. There is no bird that has scales on its tail. And we no T Rex did. Anchiornis was more closely related to T Rex than any modern bird. If feathers can grow on scales on one portion of the body then its possible they can do it anywhere.

Saying that T Rex could NOT have a full coating of scales and feathers and the ability to shed them because no modern bird has that trait is like saying T Rex must of clucked like a chicken because no modern bird can roar.

I know it is just a theory and there is no hard evidence for it but saying it is an internet myth because because it does not fit your assumptions on dinosaur anatomy is taking your opinion to far.

All of that is incorrect, and provably so.

There is NO CERTAINTY on what the Tyrannosaurus impressions are. No one knows if these are scales or skin.

Anchiornis is closer to modern birds than it is to Tyrannosaurus. So I really don't understand why that makes any difference.

I didn't say it couldn't, I said this wasn't evidence in favour of that. And IT ISN'T. You aren't reading what I've said. This trait has only been found to occur with a very specific form of scales which are only known from the feet of birds and close relatives. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate this trait occurred with other forms of scales.

Only large cats can roar, so no Tyrannosaurus didn't roar. It may have made very loud sounds, but it didn't roar.

The concept that Tyrannosaurus lost feathers as it aged is an internet myth. It's been circulating since people first suggested Tyrannosaurus had feathers and some people in deep denial came up with the silly notion it may have lost them with age so they could hold onto their precious image of the scaled tyrant.

This is a picture of a T Rex skin impression.

Looks like scales to me.

"Anchiornis was more closely related to T Rex than any modern bird." I meant to say T Rex was closer to Anchiornis than a modern bird so it is a better comparison.

"Only large cats can roar, so no Tyrannosaurus didn't roar. It may have made very loud sounds, but it didn't roar" I'm not really sure how you define a roar but most people think a loud sound from a large predatory animal as a roar. Besides don't bears roar?

An internet myth usually refers to an idea that has been disproved or has absolutely nothing to suggest it being true. T Rex was known to have scales and assumed to have feathers passed down from it's ancestors. It is now proven that feathers CAN grow over scales. It is also known that the seasons during the late cretaceous were becoming more extreme. So it is only logical to conclude that T Rex may have been able to grow and shed feathers over it's scales to adapt to it's changing environment. And with the extinction there were no descendants of T Rex left alive to pass the trait on. There is evidence to back the theory up so no it is not an internet myth and certainly is a scientific possibility.

a very minor point, but what you posted is a skin impression from wyrex. It does appear to be impressions of scales, yes...agreed. However it is worth noting it is not actual scales, we have preserved scales from one (1) dinosaur only as far as I last knew......and it was not a theropod, nor was it a Tyrannosaurid . So labeling an impression as scales might be misleading...or not

[stargatedalek]

T Rex was known to have scales and assumed to have feathers passed down from it's ancestors. It is now proven that feathers CAN grow over scales. It is also known that the seasons during the late cretaceous were becoming more extreme. So it is only logical to conclude that T Rex may have been able to grow and shed feathers over it's scales to adapt to it's changing environment. And with the extinction there were no descendants of T Rex left alive to pass the trait on. There is evidence to back the theory up so no it is not an internet myth and certainly is a scientific possibility.

Stop conveniently ignoring the point. There is not a shred of evidence in favour of Tyrannosaurus loosing integument seasonally or as it aged. Feathers can't magically grow through or on scales. The scales on the feet of birds (and Anchiornis) are very different from those found on the bodies of dinosaurs or reptiles (including Tyrannosaurus scales [if they're even scales]). The only reason feathers can grow alongside these scales is because of the way they overlap allowing feathers to grow between them. It wouldn't matter how small or large they are the scales seen on most dinosaurs and on traditional reptiles simply would not allow this to happen.

a very minor point, but what you posted is a skin impression from wyrex. It does appear to be impressions of scales, yes...agreed. However it is worth noting it is not actual scales, we have preserved scales from one (1) dinosaur only as far as I last knew......and it was not a theropod, nor was it a Tyrannosaurid . So labeling an impression as scales might be misleading...or not

We also have scale impressions from large ceratopsians, sauropods, and some ceratosaurs. There is also some evidence of "avian scales" in several maniraptors.

[Dinoguy2]

Just to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding...  Feathers are not known to ever grow through/on scales, and when they occur along with scales on an area of the body, the feathers grow in the gaps between the scales, right?

Feathers may grow through scales in some cases. Scutes at least, not sure about reticulae. Here's a chicken suffering from mites which causes inflamed skin and loss of feathers, but you can see feathers growing through the scutes and follicles in scutes where the feathers have already fallen out: You can see similar things in barn owl feet but I'm not sure if the feathers are just growing out from under the scutes with the scutes warping around them.

[Neosodon]

T Rex was known to have scales and assumed to have feathers passed down from it's ancestors. It is now proven that feathers CAN grow over scales. It is also known that the seasons during the late cretaceous were becoming more extreme. So it is only logical to conclude that T Rex may have been able to grow and shed feathers over it's scales to adapt to it's changing environment. And with the extinction there were no descendants of T Rex left alive to pass the trait on. There is evidence to back the theory up so no it is not an internet myth and certainly is a scientific possibility.

Stop conveniently ignoring the point. There is not a shred of evidence in favour of Tyrannosaurus loosing integument seasonally or as it aged. Feathers can't magically grow through or on scales. The scales on the feet of birds (and Anchiornis) are very different from those found on the bodies of dinosaurs or reptiles (including Tyrannosaurus scales [if they're even scales]). The only reason feathers can grow alongside these scales is because of the way they overlap allowing feathers to grow between them. It wouldn't matter how small or large they are the scales seen on most dinosaurs and on traditional reptiles simply would not allow this to happen.

a very minor point, but what you posted is a skin impression from wyrex. It does appear to be impressions of scales, yes...agreed. However it is worth noting it is not actual scales, we have preserved scales from one (1) dinosaur only as far as I last knew......and it was not a theropod, nor was it a Tyrannosaurid . So labeling an impression as scales might be misleading...or not

We also have scale impressions from large ceratopsians, sauropods, and some ceratosaurs. There is also some evidence of "avian scales" in several maniraptors.

How can you say the scales on birds feet are very different from those on T Rex when you earlier said "There is NO CERTAINTY on what the Tyrannosaurus impressions are." If there is no certainty on what skin T Rex had then how do you know it didn't have scales that could support feathers.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

T Rex was known to have scales and assumed to have feathers passed down from it's ancestors. It is now proven that feathers CAN grow over scales. It is also known that the seasons during the late cretaceous were becoming more extreme. So it is only logical to conclude that T Rex may have been able to grow and shed feathers over it's scales to adapt to it's changing environment. And with the extinction there were no descendants of T Rex left alive to pass the trait on. There is evidence to back the theory up so no it is not an internet myth and certainly is a scientific possibility.

Stop conveniently ignoring the point. There is not a shred of evidence in favour of Tyrannosaurus loosing integument seasonally or as it aged. Feathers can't magically grow through or on scales. The scales on the feet of birds (and Anchiornis) are very different from those found on the bodies of dinosaurs or reptiles (including Tyrannosaurus scales [if they're even scales]). The only reason feathers can grow alongside these scales is because of the way they overlap allowing feathers to grow between them. It wouldn't matter how small or large they are the scales seen on most dinosaurs and on traditional reptiles simply would not allow this to happen.

a very minor point, but what you posted is a skin impression from wyrex. It does appear to be impressions of scales, yes...agreed. However it is worth noting it is not actual scales, we have preserved scales from one (1) dinosaur only as far as I last knew......and it was not a theropod, nor was it a Tyrannosaurid . So labeling an impression as scales might be misleading...or not

We also have scale impressions from large ceratopsians, sauropods, and some ceratosaurs. There is also some evidence of "avian scales" in several maniraptors.

Indeed Dalek, we have impressions from many types of dinosaurs, agreed. We only have fossil scales from one..(1) specimen however.....and that was the point I was making.

[stargatedalek]

Indeed Dalek, we have impressions from many types of dinosaurs, agreed. We only have fossil scales from one..(1) specimen however.....and that was the point I was making.

Aah yes my bad. Indeed Psittacosaurus is the only one. Even the mummies don't have the actual scales last I heard.

Just to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding...  Feathers are not known to ever grow through/on scales, and when they occur along with scales on an area of the body, the feathers grow in the gaps between the scales, right?

Feathers may grow through scales in some cases. Scutes at least, not sure about reticulae. Here's a chicken suffering from mites which causes inflamed skin and loss of feathers, but you can see feathers growing through the scutes and follicles in scutes where the feathers have already fallen out: You can see similar things in barn owl feet but I'm not sure if the feathers are just growing out from under the scutes with the scutes warping around them.

Very interesting. I must admit I'd never seen a feathered chickens foot up close (only owls which indeed grow from underneath the scales). I'd never heard anything about them having actual follicles in the scutes. I wonder of these follicles would be visible in fossils?

How can you say the scales on birds feet are very different from those on T Rex when you earlier said "There is NO CERTAINTY on what the Tyrannosaurus impressions are." If there is no certainty on what skin T Rex had then how do you know it didn't have scales that could support feathers.

You posted an image of them yourself. If these were scales on birds feet it would be immediately apparent. And your argument still ignores what the scales are used for. If having scales provided an advantage just by being there ostriches wouldn't have lost much of theirs in favor of bare skin. Scales aren't automatically better than skin, they need a logical reason to exist.

[Sim]

I find it hard to tell if feathers are actually growing through scales in those images, or if the feathers are growing from gaps between the scales.  In the two photos of owl feet, to me it looks more like the feathers are growing between scales.  In the chicken foot photo, I'm seeing what look like follicles clearly in between scales (rather than in the scales).  On the chicken's foot, there are also what looks like could be follicles in scales, but after looking at more photos here http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/830608/updated-feet-mites-and-infection-and-or-bumblefoot-treatments I'm not sure those follicles aren't actually in bare skin.

[stargatedalek]

I find it hard to tell if feathers are actually growing through scales in those images, or if the feathers are growing from gaps between the scales.  In the two photos of owl feet, to me it looks more like the feathers are growing between scales.  In the chicken foot photo, I'm seeing what look like follicles clearly in between scales (rather than in the scales).  On the chicken's foot, there are also what looks like could be follicles in scales, but after looking at more photos here http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/830608/updated-feet-mites-and-infection-and-or-bumblefoot-treatments I'm not sure those follicles aren't actually in bare skin.

They definitely grow between the scales in owls, can confirm from personal experience.

And I think you may be right on the chicken too, it seems like a lot of the actual scales have fallen off of the foot.

[Sim]

Thanks for the confirmation regarding owl feet, stargatedalek, that's good to know!

[Neosodon]

How can you say the scales on birds feet are very different from those on T Rex when you earlier said "There is NO CERTAINTY on what the Tyrannosaurus impressions are." If there is no certainty on what skin T Rex had then how do you know it didn't have scales that could support feathers.

You posted an image of them yourself. If these were scales on birds feet it would be immediately apparent. And your argument still ignores what the scales are used for. If having scales provided an advantage just by being there ostriches wouldn't have lost much of theirs in favor of bare skin. Scales aren't automatically better than skin, they need a logical reason to exist.

They look similar enough to me.


It's pretty obvious what the scales on a T Rex would be used for. As a big animal like T Rex walked through the woods it would be pushing through brush and branches. With totally bare skin it would be covered with cuts and gashes. I've tried walking through brush with shorts on before and it's not fun. Scales can also protect against biting insects. Ostriches haven't lost much of their scales. They might not be as robust as other birds scales like Emu's because they are prairie animals but there is defiantly scaling going on there.

[The Atroxious]

If you read the paper linked in the article they actually discuss this. There is some material behind the ulna that might be a pretty substantial postpatagium but it's hard to tell with all the feathers there.

To answer other questions in the thread: yes, the second two fingers were attached in a fleshy mitten. The propatagium has also been found in Caudipteryx, Scansoriopteryx, Archaeopteryx, and Microraptor, so it was probably common to maniraptorans. There is evidence that other maniraptorans also has connected fingers, especially in some oviraptorosaurs, and this might explain why some species reduce or lose digit 3, like in Caudipteryx.

Interesting to note, thanks! I didn't read (or even notice the link to) the paper, since I was preoccupied at the time, so I skimmed Hartman's post. Going to have to check that out now.

After reading that all I could think of was how Anchiornis wings would've tasted... 

See, this was where John Hammond truly failed. Jurassic Park should have been Jurassic Farm: a wondrous place where the mighty (non-avian) dinosaurs that once ruled the Earth are now another tasty meal for the current dominant species of the planet.

Think of the menu!

Tyranno-steak!
Brachio-burgers!
Buffalo-style Velociraptor!
Dilophosaurus 'Spit Pea' Soup!
Compy-nuggets for the kids' Hatchlings Menu!

Let's be honest, it's not that hard to predict what these things would taste like. Having eaten alligator meat, as well as various types of birds, I've noticed that there's a pretty general archosaur flavor that all these animals possess. I doubt that non-avian dinosaurs would be too far off from this.

[Sim]

Indeed Dalek, we have impressions from many types of dinosaurs, agreed. We only have fossil scales from one..(1) specimen however.....and that was the point I was making.

Aah yes my bad. Indeed Psittacosaurus is the only one. Even the mummies don't have the actual scales last I heard.

What about the subject of this thread, Anchiornis?  Reading the new paper about it, it seems scales are preserved for it like they are for that Psittacosaurus specimen?  http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14576

[Papi-Anon]

Let's be honest, it's not that hard to predict what these things would taste like. Having eaten alligator meat, as well as various types of birds, I've noticed that there's a pretty general archosaur flavor that all these animals possess. I doubt that non-avian dinosaurs would be too far off from this.

True, but would the raptors taste good with a lysine-rich diet?

Then there's the eggs...Free-range vs. cooped?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Indeed Dalek, we have impressions from many types of dinosaurs, agreed. We only have fossil scales from one..(1) specimen however.....and that was the point I was making.

Aah yes my bad. Indeed Psittacosaurus is the only one. Even the mummies don't have the actual scales last I heard.

What about the subject of this thread, Anchiornis?  Reading the new paper about it, it seems scales are preserved for it like they are for that Psittacosaurus specimen?  http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14576

I am unsure what to make of the paper sim but it does state it is unknown if the scales are mineral or organic in nature which to me suggests an unknown...it also uses the term body outline frequently and barely discernible outlines, not quite what I consider comparable to the distinct and well outlined scales for the psittacosaurus......the wording leaves doubt, but also seems to suggest the possibility I agree

[Faelrin]

That fleshy mitten thing is really interesting. Would it have even used its claws for anything (or been able to use them)? Every discovery like this really changes up what I know, or what I thought I knew. Perhaps it's time I start studying birds as well, since it will probably help me to better understand these creatures from the past.

[Sim]

Indeed Dalek, we have impressions from many types of dinosaurs, agreed. We only have fossil scales from one..(1) specimen however.....and that was the point I was making.

Aah yes my bad. Indeed Psittacosaurus is the only one. Even the mummies don't have the actual scales last I heard.

What about the subject of this thread, Anchiornis?  Reading the new paper about it, it seems scales are preserved for it like they are for that Psittacosaurus specimen?  http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14576

I am unsure what to make of the paper sim but it does state it is unknown if the scales are mineral or organic in nature which to me suggests an unknown...it also uses the term body outline frequently and barely discernible outlines, not quite what I consider comparable to the distinct and well outlined scales for the psittacosaurus......the wording leaves doubt, but also seems to suggest the possibility I agree

I know quite little about different forms of fossil preservation, so I got quite confused.  I agree with you, except for one thing: In Figure 3 of the paper, the scales on the underside of the Anchiornis foot look distinctly visible under laser light.  What it says is minimally discernible is the dorsal foot scales.

[Sim]

There is evidence that other maniraptorans also has connected fingers, especially in some oviraptorosaurs, and this might explain why some species reduce or lose digit 3, like in Caudipteryx.

Anchiornis having its second and third fingers connected by skin has made me wonder to what extent this feature was present in other dinosaurs.  Maybe it was present in dromaeosaurids, troodontids and avialans at least?  I would've thought oviraptorosaurs too, but I feel quite uncertain about that after seeing the positions those fingers are preserved in on specimens of Citipati and Similicaudipteryx.  What evidence is there for oviraptorosaurs having the second and third fingers connected?