Tyrannosaurid skin impressions

[SpartanSquat]

An article about Tyrannosaur skin.
http://westerndigs.org/t-rex-didnt-have-feathers-new-study-of-fossil-skin-finds/

[MLMjp]

Time for the forum experts to debunk this article and explain why skin impressions do not automatically make the presence of feathers impossible.

Countdown....Start!

PD: They used the "Argument" of "feathers would cause too much heat for a big animal".

PD2: A quote from the article: Plus, maybe we can all enjoy Jurassic Park again, without having to worry about its flaws.

Sorry but even if what you said is true, there are plenty of inaccuracies to notice in the film. And just because is inaccurate does not mean that the JP saga can´t be enjoyed.

[suspsy]

You may want to edit the subject line to be more descriptive.

This is interesting stuff. Looking forward to reading the paper. I still think it's possible that T. rex retained light feathering just like how elephants, rhinos, and hippos retain light hair.

[SpartanSquat]

I still think it's possible that T. rex retained light feathering just like how elephants, rhinos, and hippos retain light hair.

This! And probably other tyrannosaurids (Not only big ones: I mean smaller like Alioramus, Nanunqsaurus or Teratophoenus

[Takama]

So my newlty aquired T.Rex is now Outdated? LOL

I feel that this article is Bias to some degree

[suspsy]

Let's not jump to extreme conclusions, please.

Here is a more detailed and balanced article on this topic. Persons states pretty much the same thing that I noted above: it is still possible that T. rex had reduced plumage in the same way that an African savannah elephant has reduced hair all over its body.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/tyrannosaurus-rex-skin-fossils-feathers-scales-science/

And there's this from Brusatte:

"It wouldn't surprise me if some of these dinosaurs, particularly really gigantic ones, reduced or lost their feathers," says Stephen Brusatte, a tyrannosaur expert at the University of Edinburgh. However, Brusatte says, concluding that big tyrannosaurs like T. rex were totally featherless would be premature.

"It takes very special circumstances to preserve soft tissues like feathers, and as far as we know, these big tyrannosaurs are not preserved in those settings," he says.

For example, Brusatte says, if you were to find fossils of elephant skin impressions, you might presume that they had no hair, since elephant skin is thick and crinkly. But we know that elephants do have their share of hair, with juveniles boasting even more than adults.

"I don't think we need to throw out the image of big fluffy tyrannosaurs quite yet," says Brusatte.

"It's still very possible, even likely in my mind, that some big tyrannosaurs were fluffy Big Birds from hell."

[spinosaurus1]

and the plot thickens

[Appalachiosaurus]

I'm interested in how this affects our current view of T. rex. The two most common depictions of feathered Tyrannosaurs either show them with a naked vulture like face or bird-of-prey type of psuedobeak. Depending on what part of the neck this patch is from, both might be considered inaccurate. This and the new study implying crocodile-like face structures are just adding more evidence to scaly Tyrannosaurids, as at the moment really the only thing going for fluff is phylogenetic bracketing.

[Loon]

Pretty neat info for sure. I'd love to find out more about this. Now, let's see how long it takes for YECs to jump on this.

[suspsy]

Pretty neat info for sure. I'd love to find out more about this. Now, let's see how long it takes for YECs to jump on this.

YECs jump on just about every new scientific discovery, but this is not a forum for discussing such topics.

[stargatedalek]

The actual impressions in question aren't even scales, they're an uneven patchwork of raised surfaces. At most liberally these show a hardened "elephantine/plecostamus-ine" hide, more conservatively this could even be evidence of decomposition. Bird skin also becomes "crusted" like this as it's exposed to the elements and starts to decompose.

The recent publication about "scaled faces" is also nonsense. Firstly, it has received very heavy criticism and skepticism from other professionals. But arguably more importantly, it fails to supply any evidence correlating their claims to the fossil evidence. Yes, some Tyrannosaurs have what appear to be sensitive pits along the outside of their jaws, but that in no way means they had scaled faces, and it absolutely does not mean they had exposed teeth. The authors of that paper proposed incredibly unscientific claims based on insufficient evidence and in doing so undermined themselves and the actual remains they published. A shame too, because no one has yet to take a proper look at those sensory pits without jumping to ludicrous conclusions.

The claim that this represents "more evidence Tyrannosaurus lacked feathers" is not only a stretched interpretation of this specific impression, but of every other. We already have plenty of evidence from several Tyrannosaurs that their skin was very varied in texture, varying from thickly scaled feet to sections with varying "smoothness" of skin. Not only is this absolutely nothing new but it's more evidence of a highly varied skin texture which is actually in support of feathers.

The article in the OP is just sillyness, it's nothing but sensationalism quoting outdated arguments.

[Neosodon]

For a long time people have been criticizing scaly models or depictions of T Rex as being unscientific or outdated. But this article is a nice reminder that there is no definite answer as to how T Rex looked. But my personal opinion/preference is that the saurian style half naked half feathered Rex looks downright hideous. 

The main argument for a fathered T Rex is that we know for sure that primitive Tyrannosaurs had feathers and since there is no clear explanation as to why they would evolve out of their feathers it is logical to conclude that T Rex had them too. Early therapods like Dilophosaurus, Cryolophosaurus and Monolophosaurus had fancy head displays but later therapods do not. Why would these features be lost? Evolution does not always take the simple easily understandable route. You cannot make a conclusion on how an animal looked based on how you think evolution would have played out. Taken that the only skin impressions of T Rex are of what are most likely scales, it is not an intellectual sin to think Tyrannosaurus may have not had feathers.

[Dyscrasia]

Instead of news sites with misleading hyperbolic headlines and insufficient descriptions, check out the actual paper as it is open access.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/6/20170092

Tyrannosauroid integument reveals conflicting patterns of gigantism and feather evolution
Phil R. Bell, Nicolás E. Campione, W. Scott Persons, Philip J. Currie, Peter L. Larson, Darren H. Tanke, Robert T. Bakker
Published 7 June 2017. Biology Letters. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2017.0092

[stargatedalek]

The main argument for a fathered T Rex is that we know for sure that primitive Tyrannosaurs had feathers and since there is no clear explanation as to why they would evolve out of their feathers it is logical to conclude that T Rex had them too. Early therapods like Dilophosaurus, Cryolophosaurus and Monolophosaurus had fancy head displays but later therapods do not. Why would these features be lost? Evolution does not always take the simple easily understandable route. You cannot make a conclusion on how an animal looked based on how you think evolution would have played out. Taken that the only skin impressions of T Rex are of what are most likely scales, it is not an intellectual sin to think Tyrannosaurus may have not had feathers.

All of that is incorrect.

The Tyrannosauroids with direct impressions of feathers were fairly derived, a "primitive" ancestor of Tyrannosaurs having feathers would be like saying "well the rest of Tyrannoraptora have feathers, maybe Tyrannosaurus did too".

Yutyrannus was not as "primitive" as some people say, and was larger than many Tyrannosaurs that are generally considered as close relatives of Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus. It's silly to say that Tyrannosaurs could have lost feathers solely because of their larger size because they had only become larger than Yutyrannus (and frankly not significantly so) very recently prior to Tyrannosaurus itself appearing. Hell Creek was at times of the year just as cold as the Yixian and actually had more drastic change between seasons, just nipping that in the bud before anyone claims climate as a reason for Yutyrannus alone being feathered.

A great many feathered theropods had large display crests on their heads. Among Oviraptorids in particular these sort of structures were very widespread, but there's also Guanlong, Proceratosaurus, and countless smaller yet distinctive crests scattered throughout coelurosaurs.



As for the actual paper, while I still disagree with their final conclusions* these researchers avoided falling into all of the fallacies I just went over above and that in itself at least deserved recognition seeing how many people parrot those same things, even in formal papers. My only point of contention regarding the actual work itself is the idea that impressions from other dinosaur lineages should be taken into account, seemingly in favour of other coelurosaurs. Tyrannosaurs are quite thickly embedded in a group the common ancestors of which were already feathered. And so while I appreciate the comparative plausibility of Tyrannosaurids lacking feathers not because of gigantism but because they split from Dilong early on, it still doesn't explain why they ever would have lost their feathers and so I must simply acknowledge it as that; an interesting and comparatively plausible reason for why Tyrannosaurs could have lacked feathers, albeit one with insufficient evidence to support it at this time.

*I think it's more likely these structures show very thick skin after decomposition and exposure, nor do I consider these impressions extensive enough to rule out feathering even if they were scaled or too thick in life to support feather growth. I and many others have said this before, but again, all of the scale/hide impressions from Tyrannosaurs are exactly where we would find scales or hide on them even if they were feathered, which heavily implies preservation bias.

[Patrx]

Has anybody found a decently-written article about this that doesn't have some lame headline about Tyrannosaurus not having feathers? I'd like to share this with people, but I can't really expect them to read the whole paper.

Actually, the paper itself seems a little misleading, too. I think I'll wait until folks like Naish, Witton, and Martynuik weigh in before drawing any "conclusions" of my own. For now, here are Andrea Cau's thoughts on the matter, via Theropoda.

[CityRaptor]

I think that is wise. 

Could someone change the title of this thread? It is irking me.

[LeapingLaelaps]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/tyrannosaurus-rex-skin-fossils-feathers-scales-science/

Interesting article I saw on Facebook, don't think it's been posted here yet.

What do you guys think about this?

[ImADinosaurRARR]

Has anybody found a decently-written article about this that doesn't have some lame headline about Tyrannosaurus not having feathers? I'd like to share this with people, but I can't really expect them to read the whole paper.

If your up for tumblr then this is a good post: http://a-dinosaur-a-day.com/post/161548830960/t-rex-feathers-scales-and-science-meigs-take

What I really don't like is the neck scales. I read the hole paper wanting to know if the scales were dorsal of ventral and it came up with nothing. I really hope someone could get in touch with the authors and ask where they are. That's the only thing that could possibly change the image if T rex, yet they never told us.

[ImADinosaurRARR]

Sorry dude. The conversation has already started: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5792.msg173243;topicseen#new

[Patrx]

Not to worry, I've merged the two discussions and changed the title while I was at it However, on reflection, I suppose they're not necessarily skin "impressions", are they? Hm. I should have gone with "fragments".

Has anybody found a decently-written article about this that doesn't have some lame headline about Tyrannosaurus not having feathers? I'd like to share this with people, but I can't really expect them to read the whole paper.

If your up for tumblr then this is a good post: http://a-dinosaur-a-day.com/post/161548830960/t-rex-feathers-scales-and-science-meigs-take

Aha, thanks - I'll take a look at that.