Tyrannosaurid skin impressions

[Neosodon]

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.

Yutyrannus is primitive in relation to T Rex. It was much older and did not have many of the features of later Tyrannosaurs.



Correct me if I am wrong but it looks like you are trying to argue with things I never said? I don't remember anyone saying T Rex lost its feathers just because it was big. If I had to guess as to why it did not have/lost its feathers I would say it was impacted by life style or lineage like the articles said.

Guanlong and Proceratosaurus are both from the Jurassic. The one exception being Oviraptor. But Ovirapators are so bizzare they hardly represent therapods as a hull. Crests seem to be an ornamental feature that faded out in almost all therapod dinosaurs by the cretaceous. The same story could have played out with feathers in some dinosaurs too.

A word of advice for having a more constructive debate. Don't just dismiss someone else's idea as being totally false or 100% incorrect because it doesn't perfectly match your own viewpoint. Paleontology involves a lot of speculation. If you don't think someone else's idea is very likely just offer a better explanation instead of trying to prove everything they say as being false. If there is a factual discrepancy just point out the correct number or name instead of using that one discrepancy as a weapon to prove that person wrong.

[Sim]

I feel this news has been drawing attention to the exaggerated and unscientific views of both those who seem to dislike feathered dinosaurs and those who seem to want to feather dinosaurs despite evidence against it.  I'm not just referring to tyrannosaurids here.  I'm not referring to people on this forum, but to views I've seen expressed on the Internet by some fans and even palaeontologists.  I don't want to say more about that though, I'm only posting here as I wanted to respond to this:

*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.

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.

I don't agree with the bolded parts, as I find the scales on the ilium very surprising and that is an area that is feathered in 'properly' feathered Tyrannosaurus reconstructions.  Something else I found very surprising was the feature scales on Albertosaurus.  I wonder if these have been a bit overlooked since the photos of them are only in the supplementary material: link

[Patrx]

Further thoughts from Cau on these fossils. He suggests, in short, that these are taphonomic artifacts of some kind, rather than true-to-life reticulae. It's an intriguing notion, even if it does remind me of the strange defenses that cropped up against Sinosauropteryx feathers back in the '90s.

[stargatedalek]

*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.

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.

I don't agree with the bolded parts, as I find the scales on the ilium very surprising and that is an area that is feathered in 'properly' feathered Tyrannosaurus reconstructions.  Something else I found very surprising was the feature scales on Albertosaurus.  I wonder if these have been a bit overlooked since the photos of them are only in the supplementary material: link

I disagree, in modern birds that have extensive bare patches the underside including the general area that would be "externally adjacent" to the ilium is very often bare. Long feathers can cover areas of bare skin quite easily and I think this is the intention of most Tyrannosaurus reconstructions you speak of as this particular patch has been well known of for some time.

[ImADinosaurRARR]

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.

I don't agree with the bolded parts, as I find the scales on the ilium very surprising and that is an area that is feathered in 'properly' feathered Tyrannosaurus reconstructions.  Something else I found very surprising was the feature scales on Albertosaurus.  I wonder if these have been a bit overlooked since the photos of them are only in the supplementary material: link

Well then, I stand corrected. I looked up what a ilium was and it came up with the pelvis. I assumed it was the bottom part of the pelvis considering everything else in the paper, but I was wrong. It is very much the top of the hip. I still wish the study gave a more illustrative way to show where the scales were, especially as it hardly went into explaining it.

Further thoughts from Cau on these fossils. He suggests, in short, that these are taphonomic artifacts of some kind, rather than true-to-life reticulae. It's an intriguing notion, even if it does remind me of the strange defenses that cropped up against Sinosauropteryx feathers back in the '90s.

Now this could throw some spanners into the works 0.0 These skin impressions defiantly need more work on them.

[stargatedalek]

I was greeted by this when I googled "Tyrannosaurus ilium" and for some reason searched no further, falsely assuming the highlighted area was the ilium. That is indeed an odd area to be bare, although most reconstructions seem to leave most of the tail bare. And that's assuming these aren't preservation artifacts or just very thick hide.

[Sim]

@stargatedalek: I was going to reply regarding the disagreement you expressed with what I said, but I see I don't need to now as you had misunderstood what the ilium was.

Guanlong and Proceratosaurus are both from the Jurassic. The one exception being Oviraptor. But Ovirapators are so bizzare they hardly represent therapods as a hull. Crests seem to be an ornamental feature that faded out in almost all therapod dinosaurs by the cretaceous. The same story could have played out with feathers in some dinosaurs too.

Oviraptor isn't one exception.  Firstly, it's not known if Oviraptor has a crest because the only skeleton it is known from doesn't preserve the top of the skull, as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptor  Oviraptor is known from poor remains, many reconstructions of Oviraptor are actually the almost complete 100/42 oviraptorosaur which at one time was thought to be Oviraptor.  This distinctive unnamed species has more recently been thought by people to be a species of Citipati, but it isn't necessarily a Citipati either.  It really needs to be named, it's been so well-known for so long!  There's also more than one oviraptorosaur species with a crest, the image below shows a number of them:

  (image source)

Different theropod groups tend to be bizarre in different ways.  The examples you used, Dilophosaurus, Cryolophosaurus and Monolophosaurus are all bizarre in their own way and don't represent theropods as a whole either.  Additionally, post-Jurassic crested theropods include, in addition to oviraptorosaurs: Pelecanimimus, spinosaurids, tyrannosauroids, and birds, some of which are alive today.  Body covering feathers affect thermoregulation, so they wouldn't be lost as an ornamental feature.

[Dyscrasia]

A word of advice for having a more constructive debate. Don't just dismiss someone else's idea as being totally false or 100% incorrect because it doesn't perfectly match your own viewpoint. Paleontology involves a lot of speculation. If you don't think someone else's idea is very likely just offer a better explanation instead of trying to prove everything they say as being false. If there is a factual discrepancy just point out the correct number or name instead of using that one discrepancy as a weapon to prove that person wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment.

*As a note, this isn't targeted to a specific forum member(s), but it is something I generally felt about people that tend to dismiss scientific papers from professionally trained experts too easily just because it does not match their viewpoint. As Neosodon has stated, paleontology does involve a lot of speculation, and it isn't uncommon to see reputable studies being overturned by new findings and/or more in-depth subsequent researches. However, anyone that has actually published scientific papers in legit journals will know how much effort and time is needed to actually get their work out (this is also based on first hand experience). One can argue that there are "trash" papers even in top tier journals, but those are definitely not the norm, and I hope to see a bit more respect towards paleontologists and their publications (even if you don't agree with them).

[Dyscrasia]

Back on topic, I still find this paper extremely interesting, and I sincerely hope to see follow up work and comments from other paleontologists.

[Neosodon]

@Sim:

I meant oviraptorosauria as in the group not the species. I just got lazy and said Oviraptors. Sorry about the confusion.

[HD-man]

Further thoughts from Cau on these fossils. He suggests, in short, that these are taphonomic artifacts of some kind, rather than true-to-life reticulae. It's an intriguing notion, even if it does remind me of the strange defenses that cropped up against Sinosauropteryx feathers back in the '90s.

See "Semi-good": http://blogevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources.html

I was greeted by this when I googled "Tyrannosaurus ilium" and for some reason searched no further, falsely assuming the highlighted area was the ilium. That is indeed an odd area to be bare, although most reconstructions seem to leave most of the tail bare.

Scaly =/= "bare." To quote Jura, "Scales are a unique form of integument akin to hair and feathers, nails, and claws" (See "The feather-scale dichotomy": http://reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathers-on-the-big-feathers-on-the-small-but-feathers-for-dinosaurs-one-and-all/ ). Also, just in case anyone else here is confused about dino hips (which seriously surprised me given that the hips are a defining feature of dinos):

[Reptilia]

A word of advice for having a more constructive debate. Don't just dismiss someone else's idea as being totally false or 100% incorrect because it doesn't perfectly match your own viewpoint. Paleontology involves a lot of speculation. If you don't think someone else's idea is very likely just offer a better explanation instead of trying to prove everything they say as being false. If there is a factual discrepancy just point out the correct number or name instead of using that one discrepancy as a weapon to prove that person wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment.

*As a note, this isn't targeted to a specific forum member(s), but it is something I generally felt about people that tend to dismiss scientific papers from professionally trained experts too easily just because it does not match their viewpoint. As Neosodon has stated, paleontology does involve a lot of speculation, and it isn't uncommon to see reputable studies being overturned by new findings and/or more in-depth subsequent researches. However, anyone that has actually published scientific papers in legit journals will know how much effort and time is needed to actually get their work out (this is also based on first hand experience). One can argue that there are "trash" papers even in top tier journals, but those are definitely not the norm, and I hope to see a bit more respect towards paleontologists and their publications (even if you don't agree with them).

Agree with both of you. Thank you for pointing it out.

[spinosaurus1]

i can't wait to see the resolution in this. as of now, i'm holding off on my tyrannosaurus drawing until more peer review is made.

[John]

@spinosaurus1:One thing you are going to want to take into account is that the "Wyrex" specimen from which the impressions come from is a juvenile,about half grown maybe 20 feet long or so.Your silhouette looks to be that of the largest adult so the impressions as they are in your diagram are much too small in proportion.

[sauroid]

A word of advice for having a more constructive debate. Don't just dismiss someone else's idea as being totally false or 100% incorrect because it doesn't perfectly match your own viewpoint. Paleontology involves a lot of speculation. If you don't think someone else's idea is very likely just offer a better explanation instead of trying to prove everything they say as being false. If there is a factual discrepancy just point out the correct number or name instead of using that one discrepancy as a weapon to prove that person wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment.

*As a note, this isn't targeted to a specific forum member(s), but it is something I generally felt about people that tend to dismiss scientific papers from professionally trained experts too easily just because it does not match their viewpoint. As Neosodon has stated, paleontology does involve a lot of speculation, and it isn't uncommon to see reputable studies being overturned by new findings and/or more in-depth subsequent researches. However, anyone that has actually published scientific papers in legit journals will know how much effort and time is needed to actually get their work out (this is also based on first hand experience). One can argue that there are "trash" papers even in top tier journals, but those are definitely not the norm, and I hope to see a bit more respect towards paleontologists and their publications (even if you don't agree with them).

i agree 1000%. some people are just in denial.

another "sensationalist" article on the same issue:
https://www.seeker.com/earth/animals/rumors-of-t-rexs-feathery-past-were-greatly-exaggerated

[suspsy]

It's morbidly funny how you say you "agree 1000%" with showing respect for everyone, then immediately accuse people who are objecting to how the media is reporting this story as being "just in denial," sauroid. A number of paleontologists has expressed their doubts about the conclusions of this paper, and disgust at how so many headlines are screaming an exaggerated one.

[spinosaurus1]

@spinosaurus1:One thing you are going to want to take into account is that the "Wyrex" specimen from which the impressions come from is a juvenile,about half grown maybe 20 feet long or so.Your silhouette looks to be that of the largest adult so the impressions as they are in your diagram are much too small in proportion.

this isn't my shiloette. i got it from a tumbler post that created an imfagraph based on this subject. the scales here are tacken from multiple tyrannosaur specimens and are scale to match tyrannosaurus proportions. they really would be that tiny in comparison to a tyrannosaurus.

[SpartanSquat]

New article with Phil Currie, Bakker, Peter Larson and Dareen Tanke
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/6/20170092

[robintaylor]

This is something we may never know for sure, it's quite feasible that it didn't have feathers, correct me If I'm wrong but I've not read other of the larger theropods having feathers so why the rex? At the same time imo it's also feasible it might have had but until some hard evidence is unearthed we won't know , I've just bought the safari feathered t rex and might not be as accurate as some think

[suspsy]

New article with Phil Currie, Bakker, Peter Larson and Dareen Tanke
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/6/20170092

This was already posted on the previous page.

Have to say again, it's annoying to see the media overblowing this study with headlines blazing about the debate being settled. Even Discover Magazine is doing it.