Tyrannosaurid skin impressions

[Jose S.M.]

@ robintaylor: there are some big theropods that were feathered, like Deinocheirus and other large ornithomimosaurs, Therizinosaurs, and closer to Tyrannosaurus is the large tyrannosauroid Yutyrannus, it was 9 meters long, that's pretty big. Feathers are present in the tyrannosaur lineage long before the existence of the proper Tyrannosaurid family and given that Yutyrannus was as big as various tyrannosaurids, it's plausible they were feathered.

[WarrenJB]

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,"

I agree 416.3%

Welp, can't say I'm not disappointed, although I'm a bit confused on a couple of points. I don't know many of the details about the main specimen they studied, but what about previous skin impressions attributed to Tyrannosaurus, described as 'pebbly' rather than 'scaly'? Was that different to what's being scrutinised here?

[robintaylor]

I'm  not suggesting otherwise, it's also plausible they weren't,  people will argue over this endlessly but until there's some solid evidence one way or another it's just a matter of opinion. Or maybe it's something that t rex will never reveal?

[stargatedalek]

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,"

I agree 416.3%

Welp, can't say I'm not disappointed, although I'm a bit confused on a couple of points. I don't know many of the details about the main specimen they studied, but what about previous skin impressions attributed to Tyrannosaurus, described as 'pebbly' rather than 'scaly'? Was that different to what's being scrutinised here?

The difference was that they weren't being referenced by a one-sided paper. This "new" (newly published) impression doesn't actually change anything.

[SpartanSquat]

Interesting thoughts about this: http://paleo-king.deviantart.com/journal/Are-retro-90s-Tyrannosaurs-making-a-comeback-685174289

[Jose S.M.]

I think the bad part of this is that people who were completely against feathers on tyrannosaurs are spreading that they weren't like a certainty and kind of celebrating.
I think this findings doesn't entirely disproves feathers and I'm not sure if this debate can be solve without encountering a fossil like those of hadrosaurs or ankylosaurs that gives a clear view of the skin of the animal. Until that there are good arguments for feathers and arguments for scales.

[ImADinosaurRARR]

TREY the Explainer made an awesome video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxE68c9rYa0

[robintaylor]

I think the bad part of this is that people who were completely against feathers on tyrannosaurs are spreading that they weren't like a certainty and kind of celebrating.
I think this findings doesn't entirely disproves feathers and I'm not sure if this debate can be solve without encountering a fossil like those of hadrosaurs or ankylosaurs that gives a clear view of the skin of the animal. Until that there are good arguments for feathers and arguments for scales.

I agree, pointless argueing about it, until definitive proof appears if ever we will never know for sure. Trouble is some people argue for what they'd prefer rather than what is fact. The only fact is we don't know, just because other theropods had feathers doesn't mean they all did which Imo is unlikely.

[Takama]

TREY the Explainer made an awesome video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxE68c9rYa0

Thank you for posting it so i did not have too.

[Neosodon]

Interesting thoughts about this: http://paleo-king.deviantart.com/journal/Are-retro-90s-Tyrannosaurs-making-a-comeback-685174289

I can relate to this very well. I never fully got on to the feathered T Rex bandwagon ether but but since that was what most scientists were saying I sort of agreed. I could never say this before because I didn't want to be labeled as as a awesomebro JP retro T Rex fanboy. But I always like to imagine T Rex with scales. I fell in love with T Rex as a child after seeing pictures like these.




It's nice to know that science has not completely ruined so many pieces of incredible paleoart. Maybe we will get a new scaly T Rex model in 2018 that isn't shrink wrapped. This is the happiest my inner child has been in a long time!

I think the bad part of this is that people who were completely against feathers on tyrannosaurs are spreading that they weren't like a certainty and kind of celebrating.
I think this findings doesn't entirely disproves feathers and I'm not sure if this debate can be solve without encountering a fossil like those of hadrosaurs or ankylosaurs that gives a clear view of the skin of the animal. Until that there are good arguments for feathers and arguments for scales.

Sorry, I'm one of those people - although I've never completely been against a feathered Tyrannosaurs. But I don't think it is bad that people are celebrating as long as they are not taking this find to far and denying the likely possibility of some feathers. Any dinosaur enthusiast would be exited over a find this significant especially if it fits what they have always believed since childhood.

[SomeRandomPaleoNerd]

Feathered or not t-rex will always be my favorite badass

[suspsy]

Sorry, I'm one of those people - although I've never completely been against a feathered Tyrannosaurs. But I don't think it is bad that people are celebrating as long as they are not taking this find to far and denying the likely possibility of some feathers.

That's precisely what a lot of people are doing right now.

Any dinosaur enthusiast would be exited over a find this significant especially if it fits what they have always believed since childhood.

I'm assuming you didn't mean for that to be offensive, but please do not speak for anyone other than yourself.
This really isn't a particularly significant paper. These skin impressions have been around for a long time now; they just haven't been formally presented until now. They are not the final word on T. rex's appearance.

[Neosodon]

Sorry, I'm one of those people - although I've never completely been against a feathered Tyrannosaurs. But I don't think it is bad that people are celebrating as long as they are not taking this find to far and denying the likely possibility of some feathers.

That's precisely what a lot of people are doing right now.

Any dinosaur enthusiast would be exited over a find this significant especially if it fits what they have always believed since childhood.

I'm assuming you didn't mean for that to be offensive, but please do not speak for anyone other than yourself.
This really isn't a particularly significant paper. These skin impressions have been around for a long time now; they just haven't been formally presented until now. They are not the final word on T. rex's appearance.

I was overgeneralizing a little bit but if a find like this does not excite you just a little then I just don't know what to say. I get exited over any fossil discovery that can teach us something new regardless if it challenges my previous views. I just want to know the truth.

I knew there were scale impressions from the tail and legs but the ones from the neck and ilium I've never heard of before.

[Jose S.M.]

I think the bad part of this is that people who were completely against feathers on tyrannosaurs are spreading that they weren't like a certainty and kind of celebrating.

Sorry, I'm one of those people - although I've never completely been against a feathered Tyrannosaurs. But I don't think it is bad that people are celebrating as long as they are not taking this find to far and denying the likely possibility of some feathers. Any dinosaur enthusiast would be exited over a find this significant especially if it fits what they have always believed since childhood.

Oh no, I wasn't talking about you Neosodon, I was referring to people mocking or offending those who defended feathered tyrannosaurs, you haven't done that, you just expressed excitement and that's not bad.

[SpartanSquat]

Nostalgia...
I forgot this one from the great Brian Franczak

[Patrx]

As a matter of personal preference, I find I'm generally drawn to those reconstructions which are the most different from the ones I saw as a child, not the most similar. Some kind of strange reverse-nostalgia, perhaps?

[Dyscrasia]

This really isn't a particularly significant paper. These skin impressions have been around for a long time now; they just haven't been formally presented until now. They are not the final word on T. rex's appearance.

Great point.
People jumping on the "completely scaly T. rex" band wagon should really consider about this.

[Neosodon]

This really isn't a particularly significant paper. These skin impressions have been around for a long time now; they just haven't been formally presented until now. They are not the final word on T. rex's appearance.

Great point.
People jumping on the "completely scaly T. rex" band wagon should really consider about this.

There have been skin impressions of T. Rex discovered before but the ones discussed in the article are new (I think) and in different locations. I have a hard time believing that something like this would just sit around unnoticed or ignored for very long. Whether or not the neck and ilium scale impressions are new or not has no real significance. But for me and many other people this is new stuff.

[stargatedalek]

This really isn't a particularly significant paper. These skin impressions have been around for a long time now; they just haven't been formally presented until now. They are not the final word on T. rex's appearance.

Great point.
People jumping on the "completely scaly T. rex" band wagon should really consider about this.

There have been skin impressions of T. Rex discovered before but the ones discussed in the article are new (I think) and in different locations. I have a hard time believing that something like this would just sit around unnoticed or ignored for very long. Whether or not the neck and ilium scale impressions are new or not has no real significance. But for me and many other people this is new stuff.

They have been very well known for years, you just didn't notice them because no one was claiming they proved Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers.

[Neosodon]

This really isn't a particularly significant paper. These skin impressions have been around for a long time now; they just haven't been formally presented until now. They are not the final word on T. rex's appearance.

Great point.
People jumping on the "completely scaly T. rex" band wagon should really consider about this.

There have been skin impressions of T. Rex discovered before but the ones discussed in the article are new (I think) and in different locations. I have a hard time believing that something like this would just sit around unnoticed or ignored for very long. Whether or not the neck and ilium scale impressions are new or not has no real significance. But for me and many other people this is new stuff.

They have been very well known for years, you just didn't notice them because no one was claiming they proved Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers.

I went through the article and appears they used a combination of new and old fossil material. Now it makes a little more sense.

"We examined skin impressions associated with a partial skull and skeleton of Tyrannosaurus rex ('Wyrex'; HMNS (Houston Museum of Natural Science, Houston) 2006.1743.01 (formerly BHI 6230); Hell Creek Formation, upper Maastrichtian), collected near the town of Baker, Montana. Combined with new observations of skin from other Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurids, including Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus and, for the first time, Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus,"