New Tyrannosaurus Wikipedia Image

File: 8sazjTA.jpg (64KB, 1133x705px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1133x705px

>>2166908
Seems pretty accurate to me. I thought the whole "some dinos had feathers" thing would be old news by now.

>>2166908
That's actually pretty cool.

File: anzu.jpg (192KB, 1600x992px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1600x992px

>>2166908
It says speculative feathers inferred by phylogenetic bracketing. It doesn't say t rex definitely has feathers, so people shouldn't be triggered by this.
Also, this is the Anzu from saurian, looks like they're using Bustard proportions in sexual dimorphism.

>>2166908
Very grizzly bear like.

>>2166908
I'm not going to piss myself, I'll live long enough to see this get fixed.

at least it has lips. It appears to be doing an open-mouth roar, something that was ruled out yesterday when somebody said they only coo.

>>2166920
>people shouldn't be triggered by this.
we have skin fossils showing it didn't have feathers.

people will be triggered.

>>2166937
>we have skin fossils showing it didn't have feathers
well, thats a very misleading statement at best

>>2166915
>"some dinos had feathers"

The key word being "some", there's no evidence for t-rex feathers beyond "muh phylogenetic bracketing". There's more evidence for no feathers.

>>2166936
>something that was ruled out yesterday when somebody said they only coo.

The coo you might think of a pigeon doing and the "coo" of a tyrannosaur would be vastly different things however.

File: JurassicPark_T-Rex_With_Feathers1.jpg (350KB, 900x482px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 900x482px

>>2166942
Are you mad, that science "ruined your childhood"?

>>2166939
>well, thats a very misleading statement at best
no, just a mathematical probability.

>find a fossil mammal with a tiny patch of fur
>baldfags cry and say it was bald, elephants and pangolins are bald so this fossil must be 2
>they say we only know it had fur on that one tiny part where the skin is preserved
>maybe it just had a little patch of fur there and the rest was bald!
>baldfags draw my fossil mammal bald with one little patch of fur where we know it had it.
>get their mangy fossil posted on Wikipedia
>lulz

>>2166942
yeah, fair enough. Just saying, Op painted this depiction as absolutely outrageous, while it isnt really an outlandish claim (a lot of close relatives of trex had feathers)

>>2166945
Naw, no mad. Just disappointed that the general public see anything science says in black or white. People hear "some dinosaurs had feathers" and run wildly with it putting them on animals that were clearly not feathered.

It's like when the media talks about researchers finding some substance that kills cancer in vitro and suddenly everyone thinks cancer has been cured without actually looking into the research and reading what it actually says.

>>2166947
You are saying this like it would be weird to have only feathers on some parts of your body and scales on other parts. Thats not as silly as you make it out to be

>>2166948
>a lot of close relatives of trex had feathers
two very distant relatives of T. rex might have had feathers, none of its close relatives did.

>>2166949
>that were clearly not feathered.
Thats what you are saying. Thats what the general public is saying. Thats what Jurassic Park said.
But there isnt really a clear consensus on how the trex looked in science

>>2166957
>there isnt really a clear consensus on how the trex looked in science
oh, there sure is.

everyone whose career is staked on the current diagnosis of Tyrannosauroidea agrees 100% that it was feathered.

anyone whose career is not so precariously balanced agrees it's not.

that is to say, experts on Tyrannosaurus and its relatives agree that it was feathered. Just not really for good reason.

>>2166936
T Rex also has gills.

There. I'm someone who said that. Take my word my for it. They probably made a lot of noises(like most birds). And just because it's mouth is open doesn't mean it's roaring.

>>2166953
Yeah, his relatives had feathers and theropods in general tend to have some sort of feathers. Until we find tissue/imprints of more of their bodies, I dont think it is implausible for the trex to have feathers (but maybe not as fuzzy as in ops pic)

>>2166963
when I said "someone" I meant several people with PhD's relating to the subject.

pretty sure they didn't just walk around with their mouths open all the time. That would ruin the point of having lips. And nostrils.

>>2166964
>his relatives had feathers
if T. rex didn't have feathers then those probably weren't his relatives
>and theropods in general tend to have some sort of feathers.
hardly.
>Until we find tissue/imprints of more of their bodies, I dont think it is implausible for the trex to have feathers (but maybe not as fuzzy as in ops pic)
you're allowed to think anything you like.

>>2166967
No, they are his relatives and it is plausible that he had feathers too

>hardly.
but still

>you're allowed to think anything you like.
Well, Im glad a lot paleontologists share my thoughts on this.

>feathers on a snake

>>2166945
>Implying
I was the faggot who was into dragons, go ahead and prove dragon aren't like in the hobbit

>>2166971
>they are his relatives and it is plausible that he had feathers too
even the people that call them his relatives don't speak with such confidence.
>Im glad a lot paleontologists share my thoughts on this.
my guess would be about 20 of them.

>>2166908
I think the goofy look of these feathered dinosaurs is the artists' fault.

They were huge predators, they must've looked menacing, even with feathers.

>>2166997
if they had them they were probably barely noticeable.

we have a few fossil feathers from the Hell Creek formation, none of them are longer than a foot, and none of them are from non-avian dinosaurs.

>>2166983
>even the people that call them his relatives don't speak with such confidence
I dont think saying "it is plausible" is speaking "with much confidence". If you meant taxonomy, I'm pretty sure they can classify them quite well. Maybe "relatives" is a misleading term, but dinosaurs like for example the yutyrannus belong to the same "family" as the t-rex (tyrannosauroidea)

>my guess would be about 20 of them
you would probably be wrong. I dont think the large majority of paleontolgists would declare the possibility of trex having feathers as implausible.

>>2167013
>dont think saying "it is plausible" is speaking "with much confidence".
I mean about their being relatives. It's plausible that they're related, I don't think anyone would just flat out declare it settled.
>I'm pretty sure they can classify them quite well.
I could overturn their classification right now, several people could. The only problem is we don't have a better one to offer and probably won't until more fossils are found.
>I dont think the large majority of paleontolgists would declare the possibility of trex having feathers as implausible
the large majority would have no opinion.
the 20 or so that have published on Tyrannosauroid systematics would agree with you. Well, except for the Yutyrannus authors, they didn't agree.

another 20 or so that study theropods and aren't invested in the discussion would disagree.

>>2167013
>the same "family" as the t-rex (tyrannosauroidea)
Tyrannosauroidea isn't a family. It's a superfamily, one step further removed than even the same family.

>>2167040
Thats why I put it in quotes. It refered more to "relatives" than to the actual taxonomical term. But you are right

>>2167044
you're right too.

If Tyrannosaurus is the same superfamily as Yutyrannus and Dilong it should also have feathers.

the fact that it doesn't indicates they aren't in the same superfamily.

this is a problem for all the paleontologists that have publically claimed they're related, so they ignore it or deny it. Some of them do anyways.

>>2167045
>the fact that it doesn't
That's not really a fact, isnt it? Correct me if I'm wrong but iirc they only found imprints of trex' legs, tail and a little bit of belly. A lot of birds and other dinosaurs have scales in these areas but still have feathers in other spots

>>2166915
Somehow we jumped from "some dinos had feathers" to "all dinos had feathers". No middle ground.

>>2166975
Do dragons have feathers too?

>>2167050
>Correct me if I'm wrong but iirc they only found imprints of trex' legs, tail and a little bit of belly.
yes, they were originally described as underside of the tail, top of the thigh, and throat or belly.

>A lot of birds and other dinosaurs have scales in these areas but still have feathers in other spots
I can't think of a single one.

Kulindadromeus came close but it's not currently considered a feathered dinosaur.

>>2166908
Why does it have fleshy lips?

nice snake dog picture

>>2167072
the hypothesis was presented in lecture a week or two ago.
>https://cansvp.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/csvp-2016-abstract-book-compressed.pdf

the idea is that tooth enamel has to be kept moist, and all animals that have enameled teeth and live on land have lips to cover the teeth and keep them from drying out.

T. rex and other dinosaurs had enameled teeth, so they probably had lips to cover them.

>>2167086
the lecture is listed near the top of page 9 in the schedule of abstracts.

I don't know why but the mouth reminds me of a bear. Other than that it's kinda cool and not outlandish.

>>2166908
>I'll go grab the popcorn while you piss yourselves

>Implying Wikipedia isn't full of inaccuracies and false confidence.
>Implying dinosaur paleontology isn't full of inaccuracies and false confidence.

your dinosaur has mange.

rat tail
snake mouth
dog lips and fur
why why why why why

>>2167091
1. we know they had scales on the tail, not feathers. this makes for a weird situation when you try to draw them with feathers. Actually we also know they had scales on the upper thigh as well but apparently the artist decided to ignore that part.
2. It's a reptile, so are sneks.
3. it had lips. See >>2167086. It's inferred by some to have fur-like feathers because earlier tyrannosauroids Yutyrannus and Dilong did.

File: original (6).jpg (218KB, 1075x1600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1075x1600px

>>2167091
Dont hate me because I'm beautiful

>>2167086
Interesting, but I'm still skeptical of how they're portrayed in that artwork.

Would Spinosauridae have been an exception to this or would they have had lips too?

>>2167100
snakes are acrodonts and constantly rub thier faces against things
that's dog lips and dog fur not just lips and fur. there are no shortage of furry looking birds around, why'd that motherfucker have to be to lazy to use a model they did not have as a pet

>>2166908
Looks like a giant capybara

>>2167132
>Would Spinosauridae have been an exception to this or would they have had lips too?
they'd be an exception if they were aquatic. Most of them probably were.

File: dragon.jpg (214KB, 1100x731px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1100x731px

>>2167134
looks like regular bird feathers to me.
Probably would've been more accurate if he had used a dog, since the only feathers known from tyrannosauroids looks a lot like fur.

I think most artists are using varanid lips as a model atm.

>>2167132

Exception since they were aquatic.

Even mammals, noted for their lips, have an aquatic species in which the enameled teeth are exposed (Ganges river dolphins).

File: image_2079e-Kulindadromeus-zabaikalicus.jpg (214KB, 1280x818px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1280x818px

>>2167061

Probably because it is true. Dinosaurs are ancestrally feathered, with only some derived forms like ceratopsians, hadrosaurs and sauropods secondarily losing the feathers.

Hell, dinosaur scales are derived from feathers. Reticulae, the type of scales seen in birds, evolved from stunted feathers

>>2167196
>Dinosaurs are ancestrally feathered
currently considered false.

>>2166942
*No direct evidence

>>2167198

Citacion needed. If anything it seems that an ancestrally fuzzy Archosauria is likely.

>>2167206
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/6/20150229

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/most-dinosaurs-were-probably-scaly-not-feathered/

MEGA ULTRA CHICKEN

File: lory_saurs_by_sandara-d8kd71i.jpg (403KB, 1000x635px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1000x635px

What kind of dinosaur do you want?

>>2167263
JUST bird my shit up

>>2166945
that would have been cool

where are my aggressively colored dinos

>>2167233
Just because a new study "suggested" something, does NOT mean its currently accepted.

>>2166908
more like Enraged Rattosaurus

>>2167295
Oh, "suggested" is just the sort of language we use because nothing in science is ever really settled.

and whether or not something is "accepted" has little to do with whether or not it's true.

but notice that I said it's the current view. Perhaps someone will publish some study challenging that view. So far just crickets.

>>2167072

for big sloppy tyrannosaurus blowjobs

What is the best university level textbook or source of information I can find on the phylogeny, biology, and diversity of dinosaurs or prehistoric vertebrate life?

I am willing to buy a textbook at this point. I'm tired of searching for papers

>>2167350
for dinosaurs "The Complete Dinosaur" and "The Dinosauria" are both used as college texts in the US.

File: 1434206217779.jpg (97KB, 485x645px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 485x645px

>Not have the real best image of feathered rex

>>2166949
Underlying in this comment... there's an understanding of science... at least in someway...
and i'm in 4chan at the same time? WHAT?!?!?

File: wip_c.gif (102KB, 500x293px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x293px

On a somewhat related question, I saw this model that put this gorgonopsid's ear behind the jaw. Is that really where its ear goes? Does this apply to other therapsids? Do any modern animals have this ear position that far down on its head?

>>2167362
Would pet and give belly rubs

>>2166908
Looks like a Dodorex, if anyone plays ark here they'll understand.

>>2166908
Your dog is sick.

File: UZtzBVY.jpg (75KB, 440x592px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 440x592px

Question: how do we know that T. Rex wasn't aquatic?

File: images-1.jpg (7KB, 267x188px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 267x188px

>>2167372

>>2167496
it has no adaptations to life in the water, it has several adaptations to life on land such as bipedalism and feet strong enough to support it, we have footprints from the animal on land, and we have teeth and teeth marks from the animal on other terrestrial animals.

>>2167372
the bones of the ear began as the bones of the jaw. So yeah, the ear goes directly behind the jaw joint in pretty much all animals, including modern ones.

>>2167372
It also probably had lips, considering it was a protomammal.

>>2167496
it's not build like an aquatic animal

File: tumblr_o7mzhkF1In1s5f2yxo1_1280.png (523KB, 1000x615px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1000x615px

>>2167521

And fur:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/let.12156/abstract

File: 22.png (691KB, 687x528px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 687x528px

T-rex with lips isn't new

But that stupid bloated rat tail...

>>2167517
But isn't that ear too low tho? It looks less like an ear and more like a gill in that sense.

As a bio major this is triggering me really hard.
T-Rex neve rhad feathers like this, that's fucking stupid and I'm sure we would have found some kind of evidence of possible feathering after digging up the fossils.
Please stop this! STOP IT!!!!

File: image.jpg (184KB, 597x295px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 597x295px

All these delusional people
>gee I wonder if these giant turkeys had feathers or not
There's no reasonable argument agenst it anymore,there's so much evidence that that it had feathers it's laughable that people still try argue about it

>>2167643
>There's no reasonable argument agenst it anymore
except that we have skin from T. rex and it had scales, not feathers. So did its closest relatives.

>>2167629
It's pretty low for the external ear, but the earhole is right where it currently is.

the bones of the ear used to be gill bones. So a lower location isn't unreasonable.

>>2166908
>totally naked on spots we have skin impressions of

convenient :^)

>>2166949
Bleach kills cancer... it will also kill any other organism on the planet.

>>2167689
Ironing since the authors that described Yutyrannus knew that T. rex didn't have feathers and specifically talked about that fact in their article.

but if plebs could read they wouldn't be plebs, no?

>>2166908
>Grizzlyhawk

>>2167566
>stupid bloated rat tail
I guess you prefer your dinosaurs to be weak, sickly, and anorexic?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21290/full

>>2167646
>except that we have skin from T. rex and it had scales
skin from the ass.
That's like finding a chickadee foot and saying it couldn't have feathers.

>>2167100
>Actually we also know they had scales on the upper thigh
[Citation Needed]

>>2167747
No the tail isn't fat compared to the body, it just looks like a rat tail that's fat.

Adult tyrannosaurids didn't have feathers!

>>2167748
>That's like finding a chickadee foot and saying it couldn't have feathers
oh, do chickadees have scales on their asses?

>>2167750
Oh look, it's that faggot that can't Google "wyrex skin thigh"

>>2167779
Oh look, it's that faggot who's allergic to the burden of proof

>>2167859
true, I feel no such burden.

If hundreds of paleontologists on the internet writing about the skin from the thigh of wyrex don't convince you then I'm pretty sure you're just a dick.

Hey guys, you do know that we DO have the skin imprints of the upper body of large therapods such as Carnotaurus Sastrei, Edmontosaurus, iguanodon and allosaurus... Right?

No, not all dinosaurs had feathers.

As a palaeontologist, I'm going to have to agree that the picture is stupid; because if an animal evolved feathers, for warmth, or for mating or whatnot; they'd be on the entirety of the tail.
The t.rex imprints did not have this, where other dinosaurs DID- so im going to have to say it wasn't part of their life at least during their adult years.

It could be safe to assume in early years they did have feathers which were shedded.

However, most small raptors did genuinely and we even know the colours of them thanks to fossilized pigment, such as in squid ink.

Although similar, dinosaurs are NOT just birds, nor are they reptiles. They're separated by 65 million years or more. There are similar things in our world today; but there are no dinosaurs.

>>2167064
Juravenator

>>2167777

Feathered dinosaurs had scaled tails. Birds simply stopped having naked tails because their tails shrunk.

>>2167979

For a supposed paleontology you sure are a retard.

Tail fans =/= FEATHERS AS A WHOLE. Dinosaurs like compasognathids, ornithomimids and Kulindadromeus have scaly tails and feathered bodies.

File: Picture.png (546KB, 587x378px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 587x378px

>>2167526

Technically from a group with already well known fur imprints, but still this is the first repenomamus reconstructed as a proper carnivorous mammal rather than a giant opossum.

>>2166908
>yfw da bears win the superb owl

>>2166920
Fucking mandarin duck/mallard hybrid

>>2167979
>large therapods such as Carnotaurus Sastrei, Edmontosaurus, iguanodon and allosaurus... Right?
>Edmontosaurus, iguanodon
>Theropods
>As a palaeontologist
You're not fooling anyone

>>2167863
>hundreds of paleontologists
when the only relevant result from "wyrex skin thigh" is a single anecdotal mention.
Nice try faggot, go fap to some snakeskin boots.

>>2166952
Seriously, has that guy never seen an average bird before? Or an ostrich? They all have combinations of bare skin, feathers, and scales over the entire body.

>>2168395

>implying scalefags even get out of their basement to look at real birds

>>2168395
>They all have combinations of bare skin, feathers, and scales over the entire body.
yes, but none of them in the same places T. rex had them.
>>2168644
>thinks birds have scaly thighs, necks and tails
>thinks other people don't look at birds

>>2168104
has both scales and feathers on the tail.

no trace of feathers is known from Tyrannosaurus anywhere, including the tail.

I just want to go back in time to maybe 2nd grade and argue with my peers that their dinosaur toys are inaccurate because dinosaurs looked like birds.

>>2167526
Maybe not as fuzzy, like just a coat of short hair. Think like the Tahki horse. Also, the fat hump is genius.

File: repenomamus-mammals-hunting-for-prey-mark-hallett.jpg (147KB, 900x539px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 900x539px

>>2168231
>giant oppossum
I have never seen a possum this terrifying.

File: Kookaburra-2-Blue-Winged-Kookaburra-Chicks-7.jpg (64KB, 380x330px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 380x330px

i think a lot of people don't realize that birds' feathers grow in very limited areas on their bodies, but once they're out of the feather shaft they provide a ton of coverage. when they're very young and are just growing their pinfeathers, it's much easier to see. pic related.

>>2168821
notice the lack of scales between them.

that is the problem our feather-friends have with Tyrannosaurus-

we know it had scales over parts of its body that are feathered in birds and other dinosaurs.

>>2168843
Is there any reason whatsoever there couldn't be scales between them in another animal?
I feel like what you're saying is as valid as me saying "yeah but dinosaurs couldn't have head feathers, I mean notice the lack of a beak?"

>>2168880
>Is there any reason whatsoever there couldn't be scales between them in another animal?
no,

but there wasn't on Tyrannosaurus. We know because we have skin impressions from the thing.

they had scales, no feathers.

>>2168692

Nice try, but birds have highly reduced tails, while other dinosaurs have longer and more muscular tails.

And, again, LOTS of precedent

>>2168843
losing scales as dinos went avian makes sense

>>2168944
>LOTS of precedent
there's been one dinosaur named out of about 50 known, what's that, 2%?

and that one had feathers in with the scales.

so no, no precedent at all.
>>2168949
>losing scales as dinos went avian makes sense
dinos went avian about 90,000,000 years before Tyrannosaurus existed.

File: IUwpNKR0W8Y.jpg (42KB, 604x425px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 604x425px

ITT: scalies and featherfags.

>>2168951
I'm the guy saying T. rex had scales.
I like feathers, I have no problem with them on raptors and therizinosaurs and even tyrannosauroids and carcharodontosaurids if appropriate.

T. rex didn't have them is all.

File: Styracosaurus 2015 Witton low res.jpg (268KB, 1400x964px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1400x964px

>>2168960
That seems fair.
Now what about the whole "styracosaurus might have been a scavenger" thing?

>>2168962
I don't really have any good arguments for or against that one.

the beak would be good for scavenging, but that horn would seem to get in the way.

File: 1465517921653.gif (787KB, 800x1148px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 800x1148px

>>2168964
Maybe it would have a similar function to boar tusks.
Also, is that you? The theropod expert I met a while back?

>>2168965
shhh, don't tell anyone...
I don't want people to think I'm this guy:
>>2167979

File: xlarge.jpg (67KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x360px

>>2168968
Nah, I don't think they'll mistake you for that guy. You ain't as snobbish.

>>2168816

One of the mos tinteresting ones, I'll admit, since it gave it the colouration of a bush dog.

Still, I preffer Witton's "thylacine lynx" look

>>2168950
>one

Several, imbeciles, Several compsognathids + Kulindadromeus + ornithomimids + basal tyrnnosaurs

These are on wildly disparate sections of the dinosaur phylogenetic tree, implying it to be the general condition among dinosaurs.

>>2169270

Also Scansoriopteryx, albeit only on the underside

>>2169270
>Kulindadromeus + ornithomimids
not feathers
>Several compsognathids
like?
>basal tyrnnosaurs
nope.

>Also Scansoriopteryx, albeit only on the underside
again, all of these animals have feathers on the tail as well.

Tyrannosaurus had scales, no feathers.

>>2169270
>>2169273
I'll say it again since you seem a bit stupid:

Tyrannosaurus had scales on the tail without feathers.

there is no precedent for this in any feathered dinosaur now or ever.

File: Gualicho.png (240KB, 2069x611px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 2069x611px

>yfw this is an allosaoroid

File: allosaurskull_dsc_9707.jpg (43KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x450px

>>2169315
>yfw this meets all the diagnostic criteria to be a tyrannosauroid

Allosauroids are indistinguishable from tyrannosauroids.

they're probably the same thing.

I take more offense to the part that's "scaled" looking exactly like skin and to the way the feathers ridiculously stop immediately instead of tapering off than to the fact that someone wants to draw it with feathers.

File: t3MHnEY.gif (2MB, 331x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x197px

>>2169311
>ornithomimids
>not feathers
what?

>>2169318
So would that revamp carnosaurs or coelurosaurs?
>>2169395
If you look at the deviantart version you can see there are actual scales.

>>2169440
my mistake, I read it as ornithischians because it was right next to Kulindadromeus.

Ornithomimids certainly had feathers.

they just didn't have a bald tail covered only with scales.

>>2169442
>So would that revamp carnosaurs or coelurosaurs?
neither.
we just need a better method of distinguishing the two.

when I say they're the same thing I don't mean to imply they were literally the same biological lineage. Just that the diagnoses are indistinguishable, they're the same thing.

>>2166908

And once again, evolution re-written and made up as they go.

If you had a million dollars to put in a bank, would you choose a bank that changes names and logos every month, or one that has stood strong for over 2000 years?

Evolution cannot explain why ancient societies knew of and wrote about living dinosaurs. And why trees would stand on end through "millions of years" of fossil layers.

A missionary in my church actually witnessed a living triceratops in the 1990s in central Africa.

In the Bible, Job would write of a herbivorous creature with a tail as big a cedar tree, who lied down in the shade during the day, and who could "drink up a river". Africans describe a creature such as this to this day.

>>2169461
kys.

>>2169444
>>2169440

Ornithomimids had scales on their tails. See the new study that compares their integument to ostriches; feathers everywhere but legs and tail, and scales on latter

>>2169312

I've given you multiple examples of dinosaurs with feathers that had scaly tails.

Either your reading comprehension is at an all time low, or you're really delusional.

>>2169461

Agreed.

Doctor Kent Hovind spoke out about this. And got sent to prison due to IRS audits. Go figure

>>2169461
>>2169487
I lol

>>2169481
>>2169483
these are examples of DINOSAURS WITH SCALES AND FEATHERS ON THEIR TAILS.

TYRANOSAURUS ONLY HAD SCALES.
NO FEATHERS.

holy shit you're slow.

>>2169481
>feathers everywhere but legs and tail, and scales on latter
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-ornithomimus-dinosaur-tail-feathers-skin.html

>>2169555
get me a tyrannosaurus skin imprint to back that up or fuck off back to jurassic park

>>2169698
I've posted it for you at least a hundred times now, you pathetic brain-damaged troll.

>>2169705
you never posted any proper sources

>>2169821
>a peer reviewed book of scientific articles isn't a proper source.

go fuck yourself.

>>2169848
which you never posted

File: your citation, dumbass.png (8KB, 438x85px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 438x85px

>>2169858
I've posted it at least 10 times now.
but let's go over it again, shall we?

first we'll go to the Tyrannosaurus page this thread is about:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus
next we click on "skin and feathers."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Skin_and_feathers
then we find the part about skin and click on the little citation number:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#cite_note-larson2008-37
and that gives us pic related.
your citation.

>>2166943
Yeah, this vid is also a coo, if you are a clickbait writer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCx8oFETyDQ

>>2166908
Looks like the world's biggest rat.

>>2166908
Awesome. this is done by the guy who drew the realistic pokemon images. arvalis I think

why are so many people getting upset about feathers, toughen up you fuckin babies

File: 1463422500083.jpg (166KB, 1024x1280px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x1280px

>>2166920
Post Anzu

>>2171074
nobody's getting upset about feathers.

one or two of us are just pointing out that T. rex probably didn't have any.

>>2171124
Not that anemic goblin please.

>>2171124
We post animals in /an/
Not monstrosities

File: cutebutstillaroach.jpg (1MB, 3033x2018px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3033x2018px

>>2171124

>>2166908
Someone needs to add a fedora and 150lbs to this silhouette.

>>2166960
>experts on Tyrannosaurus and its relatives agree that it was feathered
Only as a juvenile.

what makes more sense to me is that t-rex only had feathers in young age, as some kind of residual trait from their early feathered ancestry. then shed them off as adults

>>2166908

Is there any fossil evidence for this beyond skeletal structure or is just a theory still

>>2172210
Kind of like how human infants are born covered in fur and shed it as the grow older?

>>2169918
>please buy that book
>trust me, it totally gives irrefutable evidence, although we didnt find enough imprints to really know this

>>2170360
>dat vibrations
holy fucking shit

>>2171124
>if only we had mods

File: parasaurolophus.jpg (26KB, 500x408px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x408px

I've always liked the parasaurolophus, are they a dinosaur for pussies?

>>2172336
you don't have to buy it, the amazon preview has the entire chapter.

I've posted the relevant parts here so often I should be paying the publisher royalties.

Yeah, we only have substantial fur on parts of our bodies.

>>2172341
I like them too. They also probably sounded pretty creepy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtpSOpUDCb8

I even once read a hypothesis that they could have been so loud, that a group of them could use the sounds to hurt attacking predators.

>>2167306
Couldn't they at least have them use their claws to harvest berries or whatever. What the fuck is the terriblle claw supposed to be for?

>>2172345
>trust me, it totally gives irrefutable evidence, although we didnt find enough imprints to really know this

>>2172364
To test your faith in god

File: poseidon-rex-03-saint-pauly-wtf.jpg (275KB, 1919x1078px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1919x1078px

>>2167496
It made for an enjoyably bad movie at least.

>>2167703
To be fair the comic only claims that we'll be representing T-Rex feathered, not that it will be an accurate representation.
So it's correct.

>>2172365
I didn't write it and if you want you can read it.

but it's more fun to pretend I'm asking you to take my word for it, right?

>>2172373
just post evidence of the t-rex not having feathers anywhere anon

>>2167703
>knew that T. rex didn't have feathers
how did they "knew" that?

>talked about that fact
[citation needed]
I want to see a serious paleontologist, who declares a featherless t-rex as "fact"

>>2167306
How is the Deinonychus able to stand on one toe?

>>2172375
already have, you're just too bad at math to understand it.

it's ok, paleontologists usually don't suffer from your brand of ignorance. They can calculate the odds of finding only unfeathered skin from a feathered animal in a random sample.

>>2172379
>I want to see a serious paleontologist, who declares a featherless t-rex as "fact"
read the Yutyrannus paper.
there's a whole batch of them there.

>>2172380
His dance lessons paid off.

>>2172363
>I even once read a hypothesis that they could have been so loud, that a group of them could use the sounds to hurt attacking predators.

Neat, now it appeals to me even more since I find sound very interesting in general.

>>2172381
so there is no evidence.

What odds? You know that there are countless examples of animals, who have varying types of skin covering, right?

>>2172382
sounds like ass-pull to me.

File: screen shot 2015-06-05 at 5.32.26 pm.jpg (99KB, 1739x731px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1739x731px

Can everyone just shut the fuck up? T. rex almost certainly had at least some feathers.

"You are like a little baby. Watch this..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5JN__15-g

>>2172401
s u c c

>>2172397
>sounds like ass-pull to me.
you respond to posts remarkably well for someone that can't read.

>>2172408
They declared nowhere that a featherless t.rex is an absolute irrefutable fact.

>>2172411
ah so you can read.

we've been over this before.
come up with something new.

>>2172418
>we've been over this before
exactly. It isnt implausible for the t.rex to have some feathers at all

>>2172418
>They declared nowhere that a featherless t.rex is an absolute irrefutable fact
>ah so you can read.

so your claim
>T. rex didn't have feathers and specifically talked about that fact in their article.
was indeed ass-pull

>>2172420
the authors discuss the fact as if it were fact.

scientists aren't in the habit of declaring facts to be facts, they just state them and then discuss them.

sorry if that chaps your ass.
you're welcome if you think that won you something.

>>2172421
Are you telling me, you mistake postulating in a hypothesis for proving something to be a fact?

>>2172425
hypotheses are based on facts,
they don't prove them.

I still get a laugh every time you say science proves things to be fact.

>>2172426
I never said that. I expressed my believe in you thinking that way.
Please read what I post and stop strawmanning

File: eosinopteryx_by_ewilloughby-d5t3alh.jpg (813KB, 1300x927px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 1300x927px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK-3rlwyKxI

>>2172210

Except that's a bullshit theory not taken seriously as it has no precedent in any vertebrate group.

Feathers are not like fur. And even fur cools the animal down, as studies on elepehants show.

>>2166965
Correct, and I do have to admit that they wouldn't just go making a bunch of noise for the hell of it, but let's say they're trying to scare something off (like a rival). Birds and crocs will open their mouth (in the croc's case, flashing its teeth) all the time when threatened. Why would an animal that was related to both of said creatures AND possessed extremely intimidating teeth the size of bananas not do the same? It makes it him look bigger and scarier.

>>2167689
If you guys have ever heard a cassowary cry then you have an idea of what real dinos sounded like even with feathers things that would make these kind of sounds would make you shit your pants. I mean just imagine hearing 0:08 in the middle of the forest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dcQO6Zb8Eg

YOURE WATCHING BIRD UP THE WORST SHOW ON TELEVISION

The T-Rex also had wings and gills, you heard it here first.

File: 1468929444045.jpg (13KB, 288x432px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 288x432px

>>2166920
>yfw Chocobos were real.

File: image.jpg (497KB, 1214x804px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1214x804px

Did smilodon have lips?

>>2172341

Nah, they're pretty cool. They just aren't *metal*.

>>2167187

THICC

>>2173576
Seems likely at this point, given the recent paper about how it relates to tooth enamel.

>>2167414
Under rated post

>>2173392

Wings are possible, actually.

>>2168644
>scalefags
o i am laffin

>>2173387
FUCK BIRD UP

IT'S ABOUT SNAIL DOWN