>Yutyrannus had feathers!! That means T. Rex does, despite

File: 1411008358576.jpg (122KB, 891x695px)

122KB, 891x695px

>>2370042

To be fair, there was almost no evidence at all that dinos had scales. The first remains were just automatically assumed to resemble giant lizards, based on their physiology. We don't have any modern mammals/furry creatures that resemble dinosaurs, so it was assumed they all had scales [like their known descendants, reptiles].

And to be fair, modern reptiles like alligators and crocodiles are still more closely related to dinosaurs than birds.

This is all transient, and things change over time. Pluto used to be considered a planet but now it's not. Not all dinos had scales, and not all had feathers. There's probably reasons, but we don't know them yet.

FYI Mammoths had fur because it was COLD AS FUCK when they existed. Elephants only live in hot/humid places, hence no need for fur.

>>2370042
Yutayrannus lived in a very cold forested climate, so needed downy feathers for insulation
Tyrannosaurus lived in hot open plains like African Elephants, and had no feathers otherwise it would have overheated
I agree with you
People need to realize that there was variation in tyrannosauroids in feathers or scales, similar to how there is variation in hair or skin in elephantids

>>2370062
Plenty of dinosaur fossils have been found with scale prints, T. Rex and Psittacosaurus are prime examples.

Also wasn't Yutyrannus in a colder region, while T. Rex was in a warmer? It's larger too, so it's body heat would probably suffice more.

Good points, though.

>>2370064
Yeah I thought so.
Glad to hear.

>>2370062
>modern reptiles like alligators and crocodiles are still more closely related to dinosaurs than birds
Everyone ignore this bait

File: jeff_goldblum.jpg (219KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 2000x1000px

>>2370068

Didn't mean to trigger you, Dr. Grant.

File: 1465811016716.jpg (11KB, 255x235px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 255x235px

>>2370068

>reptiles did not descend from dinos

>birbs are closer to dinobros than alligators are

>Pluto only stopped bein a planet because we changed the planetary requirements, so that point has no similarities to the feather or scale debate.

The only skin imprints we have of t-Rex are from the tail. We have never seen a skin imprint from where most people speculate they had feathers. 2ndly feathers and fur are different as feathers can be used to help cool down an animal while hair just traps heat. It's why ostriches (the largest living bird) can have tons of feathers on theit body in some of earth's hottest climates.

>>2370294
and they changed planetary requirements specifically to get rid of pluto at that
>can't be a planet if it intersects orbit with another planet
>intersects with neptune
>this disqualifies pluto but not neptune
listen niggas, its either 7 or 9, but it can't be 8

/aq/fag graduating from ruining discussion threads to making bait threads

>>2370558
>>2370294
There is zero proof mars ever had feathers

T rex had feathers my professor told me

>>2370611
Your professor was a faggot
Only faggots think dinos had feathers

>>2370618
It's not even bait at this point

>>2370552

There is no reason to make an assumption either way.

The only reason it's an issue is some faggy scientist wanted attention. Make some world-changing statement, true or not, accomplishes this.

File: 1493532293798.jpg (21KB, 263x287px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 263x287px

I think only a few theropods used to have feathers. I find hard to believe that triceratops, stegosaurs and apatosaurs had feathers too.

>>2371031
no scientist has ever claimed feathers were present on non-theropods, feathers are a feature exclusive to theropods
however
>what does anon think of triceratops with quills?

>>2371118
>>2371031
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulindadromeus
Thoughts on this fluffy motherfucker?

>>2370558
I thought Pluto wasnt a planet anymore because there are literally thousands of pluto sized 'planets' recently discovered in the same area as pluto

>>2371129
Pluto isn't a planet because planets clear out their orbital path
Pluto intersects many orbital paths therefore isn't a planet

>>2371130

so it has nothing to do with the fact that it's tiny?

>>2371123
fug

>>2371129
>>2371130
They're actually debating that definition of a planet because they point out that the farther out an object is, the larger it has to be to clear its orbit of debris (there are also endless arguments on what constitutes a "cleared" orbit)
The kicker is that if a planet the size of earth, which is actually in the high range for how massive a terrestrial planet can be before becoming a gas giant, were out as far as pluto it wouldn't be a planet.

>>2371133
well shit that pretty interesting.

I wouldn't mind at all if we DID get Ceres and the others, accurate of not

File: Triceratops_horridus_skin.jpg (159KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 660x495px

>>2371031
>>2371118
Here's a Triceratops skin impression.

>>2370062
Just google "dinosaur skin impressions". All skin impressions we have of larger dinosaur show very heavily scaled skin.

>>2371123
Seems like bs to me

>>2371123
Kulindadromeus is cute. CUTE!!!

>>2371133
Do those classifications have any actual application or are they just arguing semantics because autism?

>>2371359
they affect policy and money
full-on planets are more likely to be visited than other bodies, and dwarf planets are a little bit more likely to be visited than asteroids

>>2370558
it was targeted at all of the "plutino" bodies, technically rounded under their own gravity and orbiting the Sun, but otherwise very different from the established main planets

>>2370068
How is it bait? It's a bit inaccurate, but all turtles, crocodilians, and avians descend from dinosaur ancestry. They are Archosaurs and they have more in common with one-another than any other extant reptiles (Lepidosaurs).

File: GettyImages-73552624-58c16ae03df78c353c06ae62.jpg (127KB, 2083x1440px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 2083x1440px

We were tubes before it was cool.

>>2371446
Gah! Ignore this, wrong thread

>>2370042
>we found this patch of scales on the ostrich fossil
>this means the ostrich was scaled, not feathered!

Finding scales just means it had scales, not that it didn't have feathers. Finding only feathers doesn't mean it didn't have scales, just that it did have feathers in that location.

Please stop

>>2371443
That's not "Dinosaur ancestry", it just means dinosaurs are *also* descended from basal archosaurs.

>>2371435
THERE'S THE STAAAAARMAAAAAAAAAN
WAITING IN THE SKYYY

>>2371447
>Gah!
kill urself my man

>>2370062
Remembed when Brontosaurus was thought to be a different species than Apatosaurus than that changed in 2015?

Remember when Triceratops and Torosaurus were thought to be the same species in different life stages then Yale researchers called bullshit?

Remember when Spinosaurus stood upright?

There's no way to be 100% sure about dinos, wd can't observe them.

>>2371516
Wait I worded that first one incorrectly

Brontosaurus was thought to not exist until 2015, before then it was considered a different species, then thought to be the same, then confirmed different in 2015.

>>2371443
Reptiles and dinos are more like brothers/cousins than one being the child of the other


Reptiles Dinos
> >
Reptiles Birds

>>2371596
Formatting didnt turn out how I wanted

Reps/dinos are bros, birds are the kid of dinos

File: 0aee74929fb92b178b4ad66394a88a86.png (6KB, 286x146px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 286x146px

>>2371596
Are you sure about that

>>2371622
Yeah I fact-checked myself and realized I screwed up

Dinos are section of reptiles(or kids of a section of reptiles) and birds are a section of dinos (or kids of a section of dinos)

tfw bird is upgraded lizard

>>2371695
Yes