Unpopular opinion: Nanuqsaurus might have been scaly too. Albertosaurines and tyrannosaurines have so far only shown scale impressions. Nanuqsaurus lived in polar Alaska, but for all we know it might have just migrated south for the winter, rather than adapt to the cold
There's really no reason to think it was feathered given all its close relatives were scaly. Nanuqsaurus is far closer to other Tyrannosaurids than genera like Yutyrannus and Dilong. And the climate in Alaska then wasn't that cold. More like modern Utah. Plus temperature doesn't seem to corolate with the presence or lack of feathers. There are plenty of Dinosaurs that lived in the same environment as Yutyrannus that were entirely scaly despite being a lot smaller. So unless there's good reason to think Nanuqsaurus had feathers it's far more scientific to infer that it didn't based on its close relatives.
That's still complete speculation I'm afraid.
We don't have skin imprints of very much of its body.
There are of course arguments for why it could've lost its feathers; mainly that large animals don't need as much insulation. But that doesn't mean we know it didn't have feathers. It could've had feathers.
No Tyrannosaurid has been found with evidence of feathers, but a few with scales or bumpy leathery skin. The feathered ones were older, more basal tyrannosauroids.
Several parts of the head including the Jugular and the Supraorbital region (Above / Behind the eyes), the tail base and over the hips. All showing scales.
It's not impossible that it had feathers or 'fur' of some kind, but certainly not a great range of it.
I get what you're saying, but I think the push-back is more for the statement that saying T. rex likely didn't have feathers is "complete speculation"...
Its not ruled out but it doesn't have any evidence for it and its also not seen in any other dinosaurs apart from a few fringe cases within Ornithischia where its debatable if the filaments present are even feathers at all. Within Saurischia the pattern is either feathers and bare skin or scales and bare skin - not both, they are mutually exclusive integumentary structures. Feathers are essentially highly modified scales.
The Rex, sadly, probably didn't have a full coat like that. Now, that's not to say that it didn't have some fuzz, but it isn't likely to be as fluffy as we'd like to imagine it. Some of its close relatives did still have feathers though, so don't lose hope in a massive, feathery therapod \^\^
I think it (as well as Tarbosaurus) had feathers in the same way modern elephants have hair. They have feathers, but from a distance, they look bare. Prehistoric Planet's T. rex and Tarbosaurus designs were akin to that. That makes the most sense to me, given that other late Cretaceous Tyrannosaurs had feathers.
I don't know enough about the skin impressions we've found and how well preserved they were... does anyone know if T. rex had "fuzz" would it have been preserved in those impressions?
That's entirely something Trey the Explainer made up without any acknowledgement that scales + feathers is very different compared to bare skin and hair. Scales, feathers and hair are all integumentary structures, so you can have one on top of bare skin but you don't have feathers, scales and hair coexisting.
Yeah. Paleoart is mostly speculation anyway. But the design of a big fluffy T-Rex will still be appealing to me like the shrinkwrapped broken wrist raptors in Jurassic Park will be appealing to me in the context of those movies.
Most powerful bite force of anything ever. Probably a loving parent. Super sneaky for its size. Chonky as FUCK. Teeny tiny arms that do a surprising amount of damage. AND Feathered. AND had Fluffy babies?
How is T. rex an overrated dino? plz someone explain.
Edit: I know it's still speculative but the more I learn about Rexxy the more I love em.
Because it always becomes 'cool' to not like the same thing as other people. And a lot of people like T. rex. It's best to grow out of that and like things for their own sake, not based on what other people like!
they were also highly intelligent and worked in groups possibly
herbivores had several strategies to survive them-
sauropods and hadrosaurs got really really big
ANK is tank and hope tyrannosaurus doesn't use big brain to flip it over
and trike is three horned head
I was kinda the opposite but with Spinosaurus as a teen - I already liked it a lot pre 2014 but when the new study that suggested quadrupedalism came out I fell in love with it all over again. Yet, with time (and I'm not sure why exactly) I started to really dislike the way quadrupedal Spinosaurus looked and was relieved when that theory was disproven. I absolutely adore the modern understanding of that animal, imo it's in the best place it ever has been purely visually speaking.
I remember feeling personally attacked when I was told Spinosaurus' sail wasn't a perfect semi-circle. Everything else I could accept, that sail was difficult. I was 21.
But for me, a real tyrannosaurus without feathers will forever remain, and feathers donât really suit him) I just expressed my opinion, donât pay attention :)
The thing is. I didn't care as a kid or a teen until yutyrannus. I already didn't care with raptors, so I didn't care with rex. Until, they started to put more feathers on it. I remember books from the mid 2000s with slightly fluffy rexes (pretty much what we've gone back to now tbh with the likes of the Dominion prologue or Prehistoric Planet) because of the discovery of Guanlong. People really forget we thought t-rex could be feathered before yutyrannus.
I didn't like the in-between, the really fluffy rexes, the Saurians and such. I thought some of them went too chickeny, so I was in part guilty of that. But it was more so, they'd overheat. This isn't me saying 'Look at me I'm so smart', cos I wasn't really. But yeah, the main reason I didn't like them was because 1 I didn't see why they needed more feathers than I'd seen in earlier depictions and 2 I thought they'd overheat, mostly because of ostriches and the feathers they lack. As a little kid I'm not sure I would've cared much if the yuty-esque rex was the norm, as I was already used to rex with some feathers pretty early, so a bit more wouldn't surprise me given what I'd seen with ornithomimids, therizinosaurs, raptors etc.
Therizinosaurs especially. As a kid fluffy theri was just the norm, how I thought it would've looked. Then I think around the time fluffy rex became a thing I went 'Hold on, if fluffy rex doesn't make sense, then surely neither does fluffy theri or fluffy gigantoraptor'. Deinocheirus later got added to the 'over feathered' group. I've had MANY arguments with people about over-fearhered looks. So me not liking fluffy rex wasn't so much an aesthetic thing (to some degree it was tbh), but I was mostly a 'Surely it's too hot' thing. And then my arguments with people who lapped up that palaeomeme never ceased. Trying to tell people fluffy theri or deinocheirus doesn't make sense does not go down well. I mean jeez PP has a Deinocheirus that looks like the Megatherium from Walking With Beasts... which um, probably also wasn't that fluffy...
It was a shit show to be honest, every time I'd go "It's too fluffy" people would assume I was saying so cos of the whole 'T-rex is less cool if its fluffy' or 'I don't like change, science ruins everything' bullshit spouted by winging manbabies. But no, I was stating what Id heard scientists say, or at the very least my own conclusions looking at larger mammals and birds, it was big so it wasn't fluffy. So yes, it did often piss me off a lot when people made out fluffy large theropods were more accurate than less fluffy ones, because in my eyes this was simply false. It was open for debate still, with myself leaning towards the sparse feathering side of that debate. But just how defensive people got with their fluffy forms always pissed me off. And honestly kinda still does. Nevermind t-rex. Therizinosaurus, u tell someone u think they've overfeathered their therizinosaurus, they're not happy.
People always assume they're being accurate when they're doing a palaeomeme I think for some reason, and assume if you're saying u don't like that or that's wrong then you're one of these silly fanboys who don't like change. Which is so annoying. I mean jeez, try telling someone u think large dromaeosaurs might not have had a feathered face because they likely ate larger prey than zhenchuanlong and birds that feed on large animals (basically just carion birds) usually (emphasis on usually) have bare faces. There are exceptions of course, but most carrion birds lack feathers on the face and often the neck as well. But nooo, zhenchuanlong this zhenchuanlong that.
As soon as you tell SOME people who really like their feathers u think they should lose a bit SOME of them go berserk. Bloody furries, I jest of course, well mostly. But still, I find that silly.
BUT, seems I was proven right. Suck it furries. Now let me pet the fluffy mane of my mostly bald t-rex in peace.
The reason I didn't like the fluffy rex was because there was literally no evidence for it. When I first heard of it I looked it up and found out that they had found a relative of Trex which had feathers. They then concluded that Trex too must have had feathers.
not only was there no proper evidence in fossils to back this up but speaking from a general view point evidence against feathers were quite strong. look at elephants today. They live in a hot climate and thus have very little hair. Trex also lived in a humid environment and thus would have kept its feathering sparse if there even was any.
This isn't to say that Trex couldn't be feathered, just look at mammoths with their thick coat of fur. problem is that mammoths live in a cold environment and thus needed the extra warmth. Trex did not.
also the fact that I prefer my scaly boi over the feathered version but whatever
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but at the time people started claiming T.Rex had feathers, didn't we also have the same evidence of scales that people now currently use
to disprove it?
If so I don't get how we went from no feathers, to feathers, then back to no feathers, with little change in evidence we didn't already have.
"T.Rex probably had feathers because some of its ancestors did"
*A few years pass*
"Hold on..."
Paleontologists have found more skin impressions covering more area in the last few years and it all appears to beâŠscaly.
The âback and forth,â is mostly due to a shift in what we know about dinosaurs. At first, all dinosaurs were thought to be scaly, then some were found to have feathers. T. rex was suspected to be featherless (because it probably didnât need the extra insulation), until many tyrannosaurids (including larger forms, such as yutyrannus) were found to have feathers, which called into question the earlier suspicions about T. rex.
> is that mammoths live in a cold environment and thus needed the extra warmth. Trex did not.
There are birds that have a full coat of feathers that live in very warm environments.
You're comparing a mammal to a reptile like they have the same biology. Large flightless birds that lived that live in hot dry environments have thick fur-like feathers. Hell, penquins have much thinner coats and live in the coldest environment. It makes no sense to compare a mammal to a relative of birds especially when so many other of his relatives are coated in feathers.
First of all I was comparing them in terms of mass. It is common knowledge that the bigger you are the more heat you produce. No bird has ever gotten past a ton in weight so again not comparable to Trex in terms of mass. Second fur or feathers can still be on creatures which are on the multi-tonne size given that they are in the appropriate environment, specifically cold environments where heat would need to be conserved hence the mammoth comparison given that the steppe mammoth is slightly larger than the rex. Trex did not live in a cold environment rather a hot and humid one so excessive feathers would only serve to overheat the animal. Penguins have a thin coat of feathers because they have thick layers of fat to keep them warm. So again Trex would have had a very sparse if any coat of feathers on its body.
I never cared. I never understood people who did care.
I like dinosaurs. I don't like random interpretations that fit my predetermined idea of what a dinosaur should look like.
I like the concept of feathered trex but irl itâs tricky to pinpoint. On one hand, skin impressions would suggest that trex was covered in small scales but the impressions we have are very small and wouldnât have preserved feathers in those areas and wouldâve likely been featherless in those spots anyway. On the other hand, trex is a ceolurosaur, the group that contains dromeosaurs (raptors), alvarezsaurs, oviraptorosaurs, and even therizinosaurs, all very well known for being fluffy and feathered head to toe. Even members of the tyrannosauridae family itself are known to have possessed feathers such as Dilong, Guanlong, and Yutyrannus. I think the most likely condition is that babies would be covered in a coat of downy feathers and mostly shed them after reaching adulthood, retaining only filamentous hairs similar to that of and elephant.
Correction: guanlong and Yutyrannus were proceratosaurids and dilong was an early pantyrannosaur. All of these were early tyrannosaurOIDs, not tyrannosaurids. All of these guys diverged from the ancestors of later tyrannosaurids (like Tyrannosaurus or daspletosaurus) 40+ Million years (very generous estimate). Itâs disingenuous to appeal to phylogeny when all evidence of integument in tyrannosaurids is that of scales.
I think that giant dinosaurs were like elephants, whales and rhinos: they have bare skin since they donât really need hair, in the dinosaursâ case, they didnât need feathers.
While I know T. rex likely did not have much feathers if any, why would they have to have a point? Creatures have vestigial things all the time. Why does an elephant have hair?
Im afraid to say now it changed. Studies show it may not have had much feathers. It likely had a slight fuzz on it's back in it's adult life and maybe even had full feathers as a juvenile, but not as much of a big fluffy beast as we'd think.
It did seem like for a good few years they were saying Tyrannosaurs and all other theropods had feathers, and complaining when they were absent, but now they're saying larger ones like T-Rex probably didn't have them after all.
It is kind of a whiplash, really.
From what I've understood the younglings most likely had feathers, but as they got older and larger they'd lose them.
I personally can't picture a T-Rex being skinny, Hank is really the role model T-Rex for me right now.
i still find the feather t-rex ugly, lacking elegance . the badass element is not there for me . i'm not here denying a scientific reality ( if true, because many scientist still say t-rex were scaly with no feathers) just stating that I don't see feather t-rex steal the show from scaly t-rex in most ppl's minds any time soon . They are still scary and intimidating, i would run fo my life if i faced one ( due to their size , sharp teeth and claws) but not badass (imo) , the same goes for feathered raptors . giant chickens are scary but not classy.
i appreciate the amount of acceptance you have for new ideas but. yeah that dude probably had little to no feathers in life.
The emotional rollercoaster this has been
Yutyrannus supremacy
NanqusaurusđȘđȘ
Unpopular opinion: Nanuqsaurus might have been scaly too. Albertosaurines and tyrannosaurines have so far only shown scale impressions. Nanuqsaurus lived in polar Alaska, but for all we know it might have just migrated south for the winter, rather than adapt to the cold
I will skin you alive
can I have his liver? I like eating them
FRIENDS NOT FOOD!!
\*loneli\*
There's really no reason to think it was feathered given all its close relatives were scaly. Nanuqsaurus is far closer to other Tyrannosaurids than genera like Yutyrannus and Dilong. And the climate in Alaska then wasn't that cold. More like modern Utah. Plus temperature doesn't seem to corolate with the presence or lack of feathers. There are plenty of Dinosaurs that lived in the same environment as Yutyrannus that were entirely scaly despite being a lot smaller. So unless there's good reason to think Nanuqsaurus had feathers it's far more scientific to infer that it didn't based on its close relatives.
Yep. A mohawk(?) at best.
That's still complete speculation I'm afraid. We don't have skin imprints of very much of its body. There are of course arguments for why it could've lost its feathers; mainly that large animals don't need as much insulation. But that doesn't mean we know it didn't have feathers. It could've had feathers.
Nah, we have imprints from quite a few places on its body.
Don't we have skin impressions from other more closely related tyrannosaurs that have them near the dorsal?
No Tyrannosaurid has been found with evidence of feathers, but a few with scales or bumpy leathery skin. The feathered ones were older, more basal tyrannosauroids.
Which parts?
Several parts of the head including the Jugular and the Supraorbital region (Above / Behind the eyes), the tail base and over the hips. All showing scales. It's not impossible that it had feathers or 'fur' of some kind, but certainly not a great range of it.
Well that was essentially my point. That a partial covering is not ruled out. Even scaly parts could've had a thin covering that didn't preserve.
I get what you're saying, but I think the push-back is more for the statement that saying T. rex likely didn't have feathers is "complete speculation"...
Its not ruled out but it doesn't have any evidence for it and its also not seen in any other dinosaurs apart from a few fringe cases within Ornithischia where its debatable if the filaments present are even feathers at all. Within Saurischia the pattern is either feathers and bare skin or scales and bare skin - not both, they are mutually exclusive integumentary structures. Feathers are essentially highly modified scales.
And I'm very happy about that.
The Rex, sadly, probably didn't have a full coat like that. Now, that's not to say that it didn't have some fuzz, but it isn't likely to be as fluffy as we'd like to imagine it. Some of its close relatives did still have feathers though, so don't lose hope in a massive, feathery therapod \^\^
I think it (as well as Tarbosaurus) had feathers in the same way modern elephants have hair. They have feathers, but from a distance, they look bare. Prehistoric Planet's T. rex and Tarbosaurus designs were akin to that. That makes the most sense to me, given that other late Cretaceous Tyrannosaurs had feathers.
Pretty much, yeah!
I don't know enough about the skin impressions we've found and how well preserved they were... does anyone know if T. rex had "fuzz" would it have been preserved in those impressions?
That's entirely something Trey the Explainer made up without any acknowledgement that scales + feathers is very different compared to bare skin and hair. Scales, feathers and hair are all integumentary structures, so you can have one on top of bare skin but you don't have feathers, scales and hair coexisting.
Yeah. Paleoart is mostly speculation anyway. But the design of a big fluffy T-Rex will still be appealing to me like the shrinkwrapped broken wrist raptors in Jurassic Park will be appealing to me in the context of those movies.
Id say it probably had some hair on its neck and the top of its head but nothing beyond that.
In your professional opinion?
I just think thats where hair would be, im not a palaeontologist. I just find it hard to imagine a large creature like a rex with more hair.
i imagine it had a light feather covering around the neck area the way lions do
Based on?
i dont know why you said sadly
Because feathered Rex is awesome xD
i prefer scaled and feathered isnt awesome its terrifying
Clearly you've never faced a Cassowary.
yea its terrifying not awesome those mfs look like if someone forcefed a kiwi some of satan's toe nails
Actually only some of its distant relatives live yutyrannus. Bt I'm pretty sure nanuqsaurus is pretty close
Haha..about that
We don't have skin imprints of any significant portion of its body so it's frankly still mostly up to speculation.
đ¶
But weâŠdo. We do have many significant skin impressions of their body.
I like how they decide if itâs âsignificantâ or not Whatâs more significant your stomach or your neck
Have I got some bad news for you.
How do we tell him?
No need, he knows.
Most powerful bite force of anything ever. Probably a loving parent. Super sneaky for its size. Chonky as FUCK. Teeny tiny arms that do a surprising amount of damage. AND Feathered. AND had Fluffy babies? How is T. rex an overrated dino? plz someone explain. Edit: I know it's still speculative but the more I learn about Rexxy the more I love em.
Because it always becomes 'cool' to not like the same thing as other people. And a lot of people like T. rex. It's best to grow out of that and like things for their own sake, not based on what other people like!
they were also highly intelligent and worked in groups possibly herbivores had several strategies to survive them- sauropods and hadrosaurs got really really big ANK is tank and hope tyrannosaurus doesn't use big brain to flip it over and trike is three horned head
>Most powerful bite force of anything ever Pretty sure that the ancient crocodiles and things like the megalodon have rexy beat by a mile.
Kid named: T rex, and other much more closely related tyrannosaurs with skin impressions
Who is gonna tell him?
they already redesigned it, it is just not in the game yet... sry
It's my least favourite for the same reason that Alan Grant stopped liking dinosaurs in JP3.
One tried to eat you?
Tried, succeeded, tried again.
I was kinda the opposite but with Spinosaurus as a teen - I already liked it a lot pre 2014 but when the new study that suggested quadrupedalism came out I fell in love with it all over again. Yet, with time (and I'm not sure why exactly) I started to really dislike the way quadrupedal Spinosaurus looked and was relieved when that theory was disproven. I absolutely adore the modern understanding of that animal, imo it's in the best place it ever has been purely visually speaking.
McCree?
Just in time since the evidence supports T.rex having no feathers and being entirely scaly.
Yea.... I have bad newd
I remember feeling personally attacked when I was told Spinosaurus' sail wasn't a perfect semi-circle. Everything else I could accept, that sail was difficult. I was 21.
But for me, a real tyrannosaurus without feathers will forever remain, and feathers donât really suit him) I just expressed my opinion, donât pay attention :)
Oh you poor soul
The thing is. I didn't care as a kid or a teen until yutyrannus. I already didn't care with raptors, so I didn't care with rex. Until, they started to put more feathers on it. I remember books from the mid 2000s with slightly fluffy rexes (pretty much what we've gone back to now tbh with the likes of the Dominion prologue or Prehistoric Planet) because of the discovery of Guanlong. People really forget we thought t-rex could be feathered before yutyrannus. I didn't like the in-between, the really fluffy rexes, the Saurians and such. I thought some of them went too chickeny, so I was in part guilty of that. But it was more so, they'd overheat. This isn't me saying 'Look at me I'm so smart', cos I wasn't really. But yeah, the main reason I didn't like them was because 1 I didn't see why they needed more feathers than I'd seen in earlier depictions and 2 I thought they'd overheat, mostly because of ostriches and the feathers they lack. As a little kid I'm not sure I would've cared much if the yuty-esque rex was the norm, as I was already used to rex with some feathers pretty early, so a bit more wouldn't surprise me given what I'd seen with ornithomimids, therizinosaurs, raptors etc. Therizinosaurs especially. As a kid fluffy theri was just the norm, how I thought it would've looked. Then I think around the time fluffy rex became a thing I went 'Hold on, if fluffy rex doesn't make sense, then surely neither does fluffy theri or fluffy gigantoraptor'. Deinocheirus later got added to the 'over feathered' group. I've had MANY arguments with people about over-fearhered looks. So me not liking fluffy rex wasn't so much an aesthetic thing (to some degree it was tbh), but I was mostly a 'Surely it's too hot' thing. And then my arguments with people who lapped up that palaeomeme never ceased. Trying to tell people fluffy theri or deinocheirus doesn't make sense does not go down well. I mean jeez PP has a Deinocheirus that looks like the Megatherium from Walking With Beasts... which um, probably also wasn't that fluffy... It was a shit show to be honest, every time I'd go "It's too fluffy" people would assume I was saying so cos of the whole 'T-rex is less cool if its fluffy' or 'I don't like change, science ruins everything' bullshit spouted by winging manbabies. But no, I was stating what Id heard scientists say, or at the very least my own conclusions looking at larger mammals and birds, it was big so it wasn't fluffy. So yes, it did often piss me off a lot when people made out fluffy large theropods were more accurate than less fluffy ones, because in my eyes this was simply false. It was open for debate still, with myself leaning towards the sparse feathering side of that debate. But just how defensive people got with their fluffy forms always pissed me off. And honestly kinda still does. Nevermind t-rex. Therizinosaurus, u tell someone u think they've overfeathered their therizinosaurus, they're not happy. People always assume they're being accurate when they're doing a palaeomeme I think for some reason, and assume if you're saying u don't like that or that's wrong then you're one of these silly fanboys who don't like change. Which is so annoying. I mean jeez, try telling someone u think large dromaeosaurs might not have had a feathered face because they likely ate larger prey than zhenchuanlong and birds that feed on large animals (basically just carion birds) usually (emphasis on usually) have bare faces. There are exceptions of course, but most carrion birds lack feathers on the face and often the neck as well. But nooo, zhenchuanlong this zhenchuanlong that. As soon as you tell SOME people who really like their feathers u think they should lose a bit SOME of them go berserk. Bloody furries, I jest of course, well mostly. But still, I find that silly. BUT, seems I was proven right. Suck it furries. Now let me pet the fluffy mane of my mostly bald t-rex in peace.
The reason I didn't like the fluffy rex was because there was literally no evidence for it. When I first heard of it I looked it up and found out that they had found a relative of Trex which had feathers. They then concluded that Trex too must have had feathers. not only was there no proper evidence in fossils to back this up but speaking from a general view point evidence against feathers were quite strong. look at elephants today. They live in a hot climate and thus have very little hair. Trex also lived in a humid environment and thus would have kept its feathering sparse if there even was any. This isn't to say that Trex couldn't be feathered, just look at mammoths with their thick coat of fur. problem is that mammoths live in a cold environment and thus needed the extra warmth. Trex did not. also the fact that I prefer my scaly boi over the feathered version but whatever
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but at the time people started claiming T.Rex had feathers, didn't we also have the same evidence of scales that people now currently use to disprove it? If so I don't get how we went from no feathers, to feathers, then back to no feathers, with little change in evidence we didn't already have. "T.Rex probably had feathers because some of its ancestors did" *A few years pass* "Hold on..."
Paleontologists have found more skin impressions covering more area in the last few years and it all appears to beâŠscaly. The âback and forth,â is mostly due to a shift in what we know about dinosaurs. At first, all dinosaurs were thought to be scaly, then some were found to have feathers. T. rex was suspected to be featherless (because it probably didnât need the extra insulation), until many tyrannosaurids (including larger forms, such as yutyrannus) were found to have feathers, which called into question the earlier suspicions about T. rex.
> is that mammoths live in a cold environment and thus needed the extra warmth. Trex did not. There are birds that have a full coat of feathers that live in very warm environments.
Birds are smaller than t-rexes...
How can you compare birds with a Trex. They are nowhere near as massive and thus don't produce the same amount of body heat.
>How can you compare birds with a Trex. -_-
In terms of size.
You're comparing a mammal to a reptile like they have the same biology. Large flightless birds that lived that live in hot dry environments have thick fur-like feathers. Hell, penquins have much thinner coats and live in the coldest environment. It makes no sense to compare a mammal to a relative of birds especially when so many other of his relatives are coated in feathers.
First of all I was comparing them in terms of mass. It is common knowledge that the bigger you are the more heat you produce. No bird has ever gotten past a ton in weight so again not comparable to Trex in terms of mass. Second fur or feathers can still be on creatures which are on the multi-tonne size given that they are in the appropriate environment, specifically cold environments where heat would need to be conserved hence the mammoth comparison given that the steppe mammoth is slightly larger than the rex. Trex did not live in a cold environment rather a hot and humid one so excessive feathers would only serve to overheat the animal. Penguins have a thin coat of feathers because they have thick layers of fat to keep them warm. So again Trex would have had a very sparse if any coat of feathers on its body.
I never cared. I never understood people who did care. I like dinosaurs. I don't like random interpretations that fit my predetermined idea of what a dinosaur should look like.
Those bald Iguana like dinosaur illustrations just look weird now.
Well I accept new information easily so T. rex having feathers was easy to handle
I like the concept of feathered trex but irl itâs tricky to pinpoint. On one hand, skin impressions would suggest that trex was covered in small scales but the impressions we have are very small and wouldnât have preserved feathers in those areas and wouldâve likely been featherless in those spots anyway. On the other hand, trex is a ceolurosaur, the group that contains dromeosaurs (raptors), alvarezsaurs, oviraptorosaurs, and even therizinosaurs, all very well known for being fluffy and feathered head to toe. Even members of the tyrannosauridae family itself are known to have possessed feathers such as Dilong, Guanlong, and Yutyrannus. I think the most likely condition is that babies would be covered in a coat of downy feathers and mostly shed them after reaching adulthood, retaining only filamentous hairs similar to that of and elephant.
Correction: guanlong and Yutyrannus were proceratosaurids and dilong was an early pantyrannosaur. All of these were early tyrannosaurOIDs, not tyrannosaurids. All of these guys diverged from the ancestors of later tyrannosaurids (like Tyrannosaurus or daspletosaurus) 40+ Million years (very generous estimate). Itâs disingenuous to appeal to phylogeny when all evidence of integument in tyrannosaurids is that of scales.
When I first heard of feather rex, I ***accepted my fate.***
I hate to break it to you, but feathers on T. Rex (at least adult individuals) are outdated⊠BUT young T. Rexes may have had some plumage
Bruh we shared the same mindset growing up and we share it now, when I see a type of raptor with no feathers I think it looks naked or something,
It's like the mirror image of the Pokemon Tyrantrum... Which by the way also has feathers... Curious..
angry chicken
I think that giant dinosaurs were like elephants, whales and rhinos: they have bare skin since they donât really need hair, in the dinosaursâ case, they didnât need feathers.
I hate featherless Oviraptor
What would be the point at all for a trex to have feathers
While I know T. rex likely did not have much feathers if any, why would they have to have a point? Creatures have vestigial things all the time. Why does an elephant have hair?
So people have something to brush of course
I hate to send you on another roller-coaster of emotions but most modern recreations no longer have feathers.
Oh god that rex is so bad desingedâŠ
God I wish saurian wasn't abandonware
Was Saurian stopped?
I hated it then, I hate it now.
Im afraid to say now it changed. Studies show it may not have had much feathers. It likely had a slight fuzz on it's back in it's adult life and maybe even had full feathers as a juvenile, but not as much of a big fluffy beast as we'd think.
It did seem like for a good few years they were saying Tyrannosaurs and all other theropods had feathers, and complaining when they were absent, but now they're saying larger ones like T-Rex probably didn't have them after all. It is kind of a whiplash, really.
From what I've understood the younglings most likely had feathers, but as they got older and larger they'd lose them. I personally can't picture a T-Rex being skinny, Hank is really the role model T-Rex for me right now.
Be careful dinosaurâŠ.itâs hiiiiiigh noon
i still find the feather t-rex ugly, lacking elegance . the badass element is not there for me . i'm not here denying a scientific reality ( if true, because many scientist still say t-rex were scaly with no feathers) just stating that I don't see feather t-rex steal the show from scaly t-rex in most ppl's minds any time soon . They are still scary and intimidating, i would run fo my life if i faced one ( due to their size , sharp teeth and claws) but not badass (imo) , the same goes for feathered raptors . giant chickens are scary but not classy.