Tyrannosaurid skin impressions

[amargasaurus cazaui]

All of the debate and back and forth here is part of what makes me enjoy psittacosaurus so much....for those we have a specimen that indicates scales, and patterns and colors, and leaves little to argue about....regarding integument at least.

[HD-man]

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?

Dino scales ARE pebbly.

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.

How are scale impressions in places where known feathered dinos have feathers not "solid evidence"?

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.

What about Carr (See "A flap over feathers": http://www.nature.com/news/palaeontology-the-truth-about-t-rex-1.13988 )?

[robintaylor]

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?

Dino scales ARE pebbly.

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.

How are scale impressions in places where known feathered dinos have feathers not "solid evidence"?

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.

What about Carr (See "A flap over feathers": http://www.nature.com/news/palaeontology-the-truth-about-t-rex-1.13988 )?

How are scale impressions in places where known feathered dinos have feathers not "solid evidence"?

I'm not arguing the case one way or another, that doesn't mean they were feather free either does it? They are only tiny samples. The fact it's still being debated proves only one thing, that nobody knows and until or if something appears that's proves it one way or another that's the way it will be.

[stargatedalek]

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.

How are scale impressions in places where known feathered dinos have feathers not "solid evidence"?

Because Yutyrannus has similarly sized "scale" impressions from its tail and we know that its tail was simultaneously covered in very long thick feathers.

This can be perceived either as "feathers can grow atop this particular pattern of scales" (and it IS a very unique pattern, if they are scales), or "these are not scales at all but either very thick hide or some artifact of decomposition that makes the skin turn rough" (the latter which we see in modern birds).

This is solid evidence of literally nothing. We have either very strange scales that we already know can grow alongside feathers or just strange looking skin. Absolutely nothing about these impressions says Tyrannosaurs would lack feathers.

[Nanuqsaurus]

All of the debate and back and forth here is part of what makes me enjoy psittacosaurus so much....for those we have a specimen that indicates scales, and patterns and colors, and leaves little to argue about....regarding integument at least.

Well, honestly, we're still not sure if Psittacosaurus' quills are related to feathers or if they developed independently, and whether other ceratopsians had them or not. So there's that

[Neosodon]

Since skin decomposes faster than feathers we know for sure that the specimen/s in question did not have feathers in those locations at the time of its death. If T Rex did have a full coat of feathers it would mean that one of the following likely occurred.

• The specimen had a disease that caused the feathers too fall out.
• It died while in the process of molting.
• It shed it's feathers due to a seasonal change.
• It could have been a specific genus with little to no feathering.

Although this find is not "solid evidence" against a fully or mostly feathered T. Rex it significantly reduces the likelihood of it. With the evidence we have now I would say these are the chances for what T. Rex looked like.

10% T. Rex being mostly covered with feathers.
50% T. Rex had some feathers.
40% T. Rex did not have fathers.

[Patrx]

Since skin decomposes faster than feathers we know for sure that the specimen/s in question did not have feathers in those locations at the time of its death.

Wait, it does? Even really thick hide decomposes faster than simple filaments? I don't aim to be confrontational, but that does seem odd. I'm not an expert on taphonomy, mind.

[stargatedalek]

Since skin decomposes faster than feathers we know for sure that the specimen/s in question did not have feathers in those locations at the time of its death. If T Rex did have a full coat of feathers it would mean that one of the following likely occurred.

• The specimen had a disease that caused the feathers too fall out.
• It died while in the process of molting.
• It shed it's feathers due to a seasonal change.
• It could have been a specific genus with little to no feathering.

Although this find is not "solid evidence" against a fully or mostly feathered T. Rex it significantly reduces the likelihood of it. With the evidence we have now I would say these are the chances for what T. Rex looked like.

10% T. Rex being mostly covered with feathers.
50% T. Rex had some feathers.
40% T. Rex did not have fathers.

All lies. And I'm done being nice and saying you're wrong, because at this point you're not wrong, you're lying. I'm seriously sick of you spouting BS off the top of your head about everything and anything and then getting defensive when someone proves you wrong. Just stop.

Skin does not decompose faster than feathers. They both decompose at different, entirely distinct rates depending on the surrounding environment. Some conditions preserve feathers longer, some preserve skin longer, and that goes for the varying conditions that can lead to fossilization as well.

Or it could have been any number of far more likely options that have already been discussed at length.

You've made up silly nonsense percents based on literally nothing, good work.

Since skin decomposes faster than feathers we know for sure that the specimen/s in question did not have feathers in those locations at the time of its death.

Wait, it does? Even really thick hide decomposes faster than simple filaments? I don't aim to be confrontational, but that does seem odd. I'm not an expert on taphonomy, mind.

It's fine to be confrontational when somebody says something you know isn't correct, especially if they keep peddling it. Confrontation is a necessary part of communication in the world we live in where people willingly ignore evidence throughout their day to day lives.

[Neosodon]

Since skin decomposes faster than feathers we know for sure that the specimen/s in question did not have feathers in those locations at the time of its death.

Wait, it does? Even really thick hide decomposes faster than simple filaments? I don't aim to be confrontational, but that does seem odd. I'm not an expert on taphonomy, mind.

I'm not positive on this but on ordinary birds the feathers will last longer. It has been a while but I've seen dead birds that had most of there flesh decayed while the feathers remained. Since skin is more edible it generally decomposes faster as there is more that eats it. Also when you see dino bird fossils they are usually of the skelaton and the feathers. If feathers really decomposed faster then why would only the feather impression remain while almost nothing is left of the skin and flesh. About thick hide I assume it would not make a huge difference it is still made of similar substances.

Stargat, since you like getting spicy I'll go ahead and say it like it is too. Out of all the times you been wrong has anyone ever once called you a liar? And top of that you have called me a liar just because you disagree with me without offering a shred of evidence disproving my claim. If you really want to disprove me then go find a freshly dead bird and put it in a cage away from scavengers, maybe in some wet sediment to try and mimic the conditions a Tyrannosaurus would have died in. After a couple weeks go pull it out and see if you have a bird with all its feathers missing while the skin remains. If you do then you can go ha ha I told you so and I won't complain. But what you are doing now is very immature and just plain ridiculous.

I was expecting this thread to get spicy sooner or later but thanks to everyone else for keeping it cool up till this point. This is about as controversial as paleontology gets.

[HD-man]

Because Yutyrannus has similarly sized "scale" impressions from its tail and we know that its tail was simultaneously covered in very long thick feathers.

Source(s)? I ask b/c Bell et al. 2017 says that "scales are unknown" in Yutyrannus & cites Xu et al. 2012.

They are only tiny samples.

To paraphrase Paleo-King, "even though some of the patches are small, they do indicate that the areas that could reasonably be feathered are shrinking, compared to what was possible years ago. Saurian's T. rex is actually invalid based on this evidence, as both its neck and sacrum are feathered in the concept art. Basically we're talking about a feathered torso vest at most, if you still want to insist that there were feathers on T. rex despite no evidence to prove it. I don't think there were any bizarre patterns like [scaly] side tail but feathered ventral tail, or random fuzzy patches with [scaly] patches in between...The sacral area being scaly, is what really makes me doubt the feathering altogether. Any living animal with a [scaly] sacrum, is pretty much [scaly] all over. Never seen any birds with a scaly sacrum. If a feather impression is found anywhere on a T. rex body, then we could at least prove its existence and get an idea for the possible extent of feathering. But as it is, the skin evidence is extremely one-sided in favor of scales" ( http://paleo-king.deviantart.com/journal/Are-retro-90s-Tyrannosaurs-making-a-comeback-685174289 ).

[WarrenJB]

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?

Dino scales ARE pebbly.

Literally described as pebbly. As in 'this skin is pebbly but not scaly'. IIRC the inference was bare but textured skin.

[Reptilia]

Am I exaggerating a bit if I say that there's no fossil evidence of Tyrannosaurus being feathered and there's not enough evidence of Tyrannosaurus being mostly scaly, but if you think that it was feathered you're open minded and pro science while if you think it was scaly you're an obtuse retrograde who still believes that dinosaurs looked like those on Jurassic Park?

There might have been a misleading fanfare for old-fashioned scaly T-Rex on the web after this new study, but intransigence ain't good on both sides, I think. As a reader of such debates, cause I don't know or understand enough to take actually part in the discussion, I'd like to see more people citing sources to support their claims. One thing is guessing and another is constantly proving wrong others with nothing more than definitive statements and a general attitude of annoyance.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

All of the debate and back and forth here is part of what makes me enjoy psittacosaurus so much....for those we have a specimen that indicates scales, and patterns and colors, and leaves little to argue about....regarding integument at least.

Well, honestly, we're still not sure if Psittacosaurus' quills are related to feathers or if they developed independently, and whether other ceratopsians had them or not. So there's that

the relationship between the quills of psittacosaurus and actual feathers is not clearly understood at this point true...but we can fairly accept the specimen we do have was not feathered and demonstrates scale preservation over almost the entire body cavity. That is the evidence.........we also understand that psittacosaurus seems to be an evoloutionary dead-end, and at least to this point we lack evidence for quills in more derived species of ceratopsian. Evidence prior to psittacosaurus within the ceratopsian family for quills also seems elusive. The quills could possibly be explained as sexual markers, traits lost or gained as the animal matured (the senkenberg specimen is sub-adult) or possibly unique in some way to this one species , within a family that seems to have nearly as many members as the proverbial birds .

[ZoPteryx]

Going to have to throw my lot in with Andrea Cau on this one.  If these are scales, they don't resemble any types found in other dinosaurs that I'm aware of.  Their tiny size and amorphous shapes contrast strongly with known scales of similar sized dinosaurs which are typically several times larger and polygonal in nature.  Some depositional/taphonomic data would be very helpful.  At best, all we can say is these specimens represent shriveled desicated skin, make of that what you will.  At worst, these structures might not even be epidermal tissue.

RE Feather vs Skin decomposition:  It's important to consider what type of skin and feathers we're talking about.  While the rachis of modern feathers is very sturdy, tyrannosaur feathers would have almost certainly lacked a rachis.  What's more, feathers of all types quickly fall away from a carcass as it begins to decompose.  So their absence here means little.  Sediment types also have a big impact, coarse sediments are far less likely to preserve soft structures.

I'd really like a more detailed look at those albertosaurine ventral scales, now those really do sound scale-like.  I'll have to wait until I have a better internet connection.

For now, I'm staying in the feathered camp, circumstantial though the evidence may be.

[Neosodon]

Going to have to throw my lot in with Andrea Cau on this one.  If these are scales, they don't resemble any types found in other dinosaurs that I'm aware of.  Their tiny size and amorphous shapes contrast strongly with known scales of similar sized dinosaurs which are typically several times larger and polygonal in nature.  Some depositional/taphonomic data would be very helpful.  At best, all we can say is these specimens represent shriveled desicated skin, make of that what you will.  At worst, these structures might not even be epidermal tissue.

RE Feather vs Skin decomposition:  It's important to consider what type of skin and feathers we're talking about.  While the rachis of modern feathers is very sturdy, tyrannosaur feathers would have almost certainly lacked a rachis.  What's more, feathers of all types quickly fall away from a carcass as it begins to decompose.  So their absence here means little.  Sediment types also have a big impact, coarse sediments are far less likely to preserve soft structures.

I'd really like a more detailed look at those albertosaurine ventral scales, now those really do sound scale-like.  I'll have to wait until I have a better internet connection.

For now, I'm staying in the feathered camp, circumstantial though the evidence may be.

Tyrannosaurs are their own unique group of dinosaur so we wouldn't really expect their scales to match those of other dinosaurs. Maybe they would match up with scale impressions from other coelurosaurs but dinosaurs of drastically different groups will typically have their own unique scale pattern.

I could not find any info on skin vs feather decomposition/fossilization unfortunately. But in order for the dinosaur to be fossilized it would need to be buried in sediments which would hold the feathers in place as it decomposed. Unless their was a scenario in which a flood swept a partially rotten Tyrannosaurus away tearing the loosened feathers off before it came to rest in were it was eventually fossilized.

If feather loss during the decomposing and fossilization process was a likely scenario then it seems like it would have been brought up in the original scientific paper. I was adamant that feathers decomposed slower than skin because if it were not the case it should have been brought up way before now. If feathers could just fall away or decompose without leaving a trace behind on the skin impression you could use that as an excuse to deny any find of scales or skin and argue that every find of bare skin or scales on a dinosaur was invalid.

Without any hard evidence I can't prove this wrong or right but these are just my thoughts. I'll have to remember to ask a real paleontologist about this some day.

[Reptilia]

I'll have to remember to ask a real paleontologist about this some day.

That's what most people should do, to be honest.

[Takama]

 I ask Thomas Holtz the ocasinal qustion all the time.

[robintaylor]

Going to have to throw my lot in with Andrea Cau on this one.  If these are scales, they don't resemble any types found in other dinosaurs that I'm aware of.  Their tiny size and amorphous shapes contrast strongly with known scales of similar sized dinosaurs which are typically several times larger and polygonal in nature.  Some depositional/taphonomic data would be very helpful.  At best, all we can say is these specimens represent shriveled desicated skin, make of that what you will.  At worst, these structures might not even be epidermal tissue.

RE Feather vs Skin decomposition:  It's important to consider what type of skin and feathers we're talking about.  While the rachis of modern feathers is very sturdy, tyrannosaur feathers would have almost certainly lacked a rachis.  What's more, feathers of all types quickly fall away from a carcass as it begins to decompose.  So their absence here means little.  Sediment types also have a big impact, coarse sediments are far less likely to preserve soft structures.

I'd really like a more detailed look at those albertosaurine ventral scales, now those really do sound scale-like.  I'll have to wait until I have a better internet connection.

For now, I'm staying in the feathered camp, circumstantial though the evidence may be.

Tyrannosaurs are their own unique group of dinosaur so we wouldn't really expect their scales to match those of other dinosaurs. Maybe they would match up with scale impressions from other coelurosaurs but dinosaurs of drastically different groups will typically have their own unique scale pattern.

I could not find any info on skin vs feather decomposition/fossilization unfortunately. But in order for the dinosaur to be fossilized it would need to be buried in sediments which would hold the feathers in place as it decomposed. Unless their was a scenario in which a flood swept a partially rotten Tyrannosaurus away tearing the loosened feathers off before it came to rest in were it was eventually fossilized.

If feather loss during the decomposing and fossilization process was a likely scenario then it seems like it would have been brought up in the original scientific paper. I was adamant that feathers decomposed slower than skin because if it were not the case it should have been brought up way before now. If feathers could just fall away or decompose without leaving a trace behind on the skin impression you could use that as an excuse to deny any find of scales or skin and argue that every find of bare skin or scales on a dinosaur was invalid.

Without any hard evidence I can't prove this wrong or right but these are just my thoughts. I'll have to remember to ask a real paleontologist about this some day.

No real paleontologist could give an completely accurate answer either that's why it's still so debatable but I do believe that going by what I've read the probability is more in favour of it having some kind of featheration, though again until someone finds some fossils that will give the answer out right the debate will go on and on and on.............

[Derek.McManus]

This one is controversial...just saying! 😀

[Appalachiosaurus]

It could always be a prehistoric case of the Montauk Monster.

A dead Tyrannosaurus get pulled out to sea where its carcass bloats and the primitive, hair-like feathers fall off. The body then washes back up onshore to be buried by the tide. Of course that gross speculation, but it could explain why the scales are apparently so strange as well as why some reports of Tyrannosaur impressions describe it as bare.

In all honesty, I don't really believe that though. If T. rex is scaly or feathered, it shouldn't matter. I never understood why people get so attached to a particular reconstruction, especially in a field of study filled with so much speculation. Its pretty much inevitable that the way we see dinosaurs will be changed in the future. Not too long ago we thought Spinosaurus was terrestrial and Deinocheirus was just a big ornithomimosaur for example. I get the nostalgia factor, but why is it so hard for people to separate the real animals from the outdated ideas of the 90s? The Jurassic Park T. rex is a fictionalized version of a real T. rex, like the ants from A Bug's Life or the elephants from Dumbo. We don't go and pretend that ants are bipedal or that elephants can fly, so why does everyone hope and pray that Tyrannosaurs were scaly and toothy?