HOME | DD
Dontknowwhattodraw94 — Tyrannosaurids and their feathers
#albertosaurus #tyrannosaurus #tyrannosauridae #dontknowwhattodraw94 #nanuqsaurus
Published: 2017-06-29 21:14:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 29150; Favourites: 544; Downloads: 131
Redirect to original
Description
With all the fuzz around Tyrannosaurid scales I guess we were all a bit shaken up, not really because of Bell et al. (2017) itself but more because of the media going full JP fanboy. Luckily there were lots of other replies to give a more nuanced look at the paper so there's that. With that all in mind I decided to draw some Tyrannosaurids again, because I hadn't drawn one a while before the paper and after the paper I hadn't drawn any others eitherbecause I was waiting for all the blogposts, journals and opinions and busy with finals.
Now that I've seen enough about it and I also have the actual time to do some free time drawing it was time to grab the pencils and fineliners again.
So, with Tyrannosaurus showing a wide distribution of scales I'm off the densely feathered wagon and will go for mostly scaly with sparse feathers based on Witton as well as this by .
You might also be aware of Carr et al. (2017) and their Tyrannosaurid facial integument, but their arguments for it aren't particularly strong so I partly disagree and go for keratinized skin on the face like a crocodile, but with a full set of lips.
Also, be aware that even though Tyrannosaurus might be mostly scaly, the scales could also not even be true scales but reticula as in birds (modified feathers that look like scales) which means it not always has to be a reptilian look for Tyrannosaurids. Maybe not even Tyrannosaurus itself when not fully grown or depending on the location of the population. (or even the seasons)
That's why I have a fully feathered Nanuqsaurus here because this Alaskan dwarf species would probably turn into an icicle during winter if it wasnt feathered. There's also a partly feathered Albertosaurus of which we have officially described scale imprints too now, but they're only from the abdomen and Gorgosaurus (which is same-sized and has remains from the same region as Albertosaurus) has some on the tail. These two animals are however inbetween Nanuqsaurus and Tyrannosaurus so how feathered would they be? I went for something inbetween the two, because 1. there's a way larger part of the body we have no impressions whatsoever from and 2. I just wondered about how feathers would retreat during Tyrannosaurid evolution. What I drew here is something similar to how I drew rexes before, but the coat itself is not as dense. Again, this might've varied too for reasons I mentioned earlier.
To get a good look of what we now all have of Tyrannosauroid integument, there's this nice shart.
Related content
Comments: 197
Zwijgen, anders begint ie straks weer
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*sluipt stil weer weg*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
>but they're only from the abdomen and Gorgosaurus (which is same-sized and has remains from the same region as Albertosaurus) has some on the tail. These two animals are however inbetween Nanuqsaurus and Tyrannosaurus so how feathered would they be? I went for something inbetween the two,
Wasn’t there a scaleless skin of a gorgosaurus?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have no idea and it isn't included in the paper, so I'm just going to ignore that. If it isn't published in the literature, it doesn't really have any value.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh okay, then.
I kinda found the info through Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if it's reliable.
dml.cmnh.org/2001Jul/msg00243.…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see.
Well, he doesn't literally mean skin, it's just that the scales are ridiculously small and kinda dispersed. Could be just small scales. Or skin with bumps where feathers were attached. Or something else.
But this isn't an official paper it seems, so I'd just let it be. It's good to know though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
K.
Just wanted to know if the paper was legitimate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On the side note, what do you think of this?
3.bp.blogspot.com/-Oe16L-qoG5k…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is it me or does that Nanuqsaurus look a lot like an Arctodus?
youtu.be/sHH0RaBWOmk?t=62
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's coincidence!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, I get it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is there any real evidence that says T. rex had feathers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
not as of yet
there are still many parts of the T.rex and close relative tyrannosaurids that are having missing skin impressions
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know. It's already been debunked.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
not yet debunked
its still in debate
the debate still needs more evidence to settle a proper conclusion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have you watched AK Rex's video's covering this topic? He's also done some amazing interviews with some of the best Paleontologists in the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that still does not justify that T.rex is fully scaly
that was just a possibility in the range
there are plenty of missing skin impressions
even then the evidence are tiny
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And?
That's like saying T. rex has fur and could fly. There zero evidence for that... but it's a possibly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
how did you get to that conclusion?
"That's like saying T. rex has fur and could fly. There zero evidence for that... but it's a possibly."
first of all this analogy is so faulty because T.rex is not a mammal or not even related to any dicynodonts and its descedants. second T.rex flying is a strange jump of logic.
i seem to forgot that i say within range
despite not being as related
T.rex is still a celourosaurian (sorry if i misspell) and a relative to Yutyrannus and Di Long respectively
therefore since these two are feathered it is possible for T.rex to be feathered.
to what extent however is still in debate.
from what i have seen
are you adamant on making everyone believe that T.rex is fully scaly?
despite its not even being proven as fact yet due to the missing skin impression elsewhere
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I only ask for evidence from artist who claim that their artwork is the most accurate ever, let NONE of them can pervaded me with any links or evidence for their claim. And when I ask them for proof all I get is the same bullshit answer that has already been debunked time ever time ever time again (paging RJ Palmer and other dipshits like him)
That or they just give me a link too videos from that dishonest fuck Trey The Explainer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah....
looks like your statement is kind of off that their artwork is the most accurate ever when several or more never said that. some can be classified none other than saurian fan art.
some are just their speculation going along with evidence, since nothing has been be proven for entirely scaly either.
even the debunked one is not entirely true due to the lack of skin impressions across many missing parts (particularly the back and the back of the neck).
even then you seem to not trust phylogenetic bracketing, even though T.rex no matter how distant it is.
its still a relative to many dinosaurs with feathers, the same way hippos and whales are to mammals with alot of hair no matter how distant they are.
so they should have a certain extension of feathers, how much is still in debate
its best if you do not just claim words like this:
" And when I ask them for proof all I get is the same bullshit answer that has already been debunked time ever time ever time again (paging RJ Palmer and other dipshits like him)
That or they just give me a link too videos from that dishonest fuck Trey The Explainer. "
it makes yourself look like an asshole comparable to your own words to them.
also how they act=/= their validity of evidence
besides everyone makes mistakes (particularly on Trey's case, i don't know for RJ)
but you fully agreeing that its debunked is pretty much your interpretation and not a fact.
if not we should have impressions on the missing area's saying so.
now is just vague.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Saurian is suppose to be the "most Accurate dinosaur game ever" and yet they don't provide evidence for it. Since that ass-clown RJ doesn't provide links it comes across as lazy and secretly realizing that he and his crew have made a huge mistake of claiming something so stupid. Trey's idiotic T. rex videos have been debunked by AK and Trey admitted it in the comments.
T. rex's relatives did not have feathers. That interview explained that fully. It was a misunderstanding that went completely haywire.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Saurian is suppose to be the "most Accurate dinosaur game ever" and yet they don't provide evidence for it. Since that ass-clown RJ doesn't provide links it comes across as lazy and secretly realizing that he and his crew have made a huge mistake of claiming something so stupid."
actually it still going to be updated to live up to its title competing with Prehistoric kingdom
also you are accusing of RJ being the sole member of Saurian who does research. when in reality is multiple people not just RJ. RJ's view is different to his colleagues.
"Trey's idiotic T. rex videos have been debunked by AK and Trey admitted it in the comments. "
yes because that's 2017 but that does not dispute all possibilities that T.rex have feathers.
"T. rex's relatives did not have feathers. That interview explained that fully. It was a misunderstanding that went completely haywire."
than why is it still placed within the feathered dinosaur line of its family tree (celourosasurians)
also then why its relatives have feathers (Yutyrannus) granted not as close as daspletosaurus but its still a relative.
just like how whales and hippos still have hair
that does not dispute the possibilities of T.rex having feathers within the range
as long as the missing impressions are still there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Phylogenetic bracketing and basically any other mammal today that you can use as a guideline if you want to call that evidence. I mean, if elephants, rhinos and whales still have some form of hair on their body than you just can't really go and say Tyrannosaurids were 100% featherless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have you seen AK Rex's videos on this topic?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nicely done, if there's something we should learn out of these feather vs. scales recent controversy is that dinosaurian, or atleast tyrannosaur integument was extremely flexible and its placement or lack thereof depended on whether the animal needed it or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, these new findings really show how much freedom these things could've had in their integument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice.
i don't mind if T. rex was feathered or scaly or weird as hell looking.
i go with the facts and still think it's a badass animal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks!
And that's how it should
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well on more northern territories (Nanuqsaurus) they surely would need feathers, but on southern territories we have direct evidence for scales covering most of the animal. Ah and a paleontologist that found scaly skin on the back of a T. rex in Montana says it looks like the scales of a Komodo Dragon. Anyway this art is amazing man.
Also why did you put lips on them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Don't Komodo Dragon scales look a bit like reticula from a distance?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
www.artwallpaperhi.com/thumbna…
They aren't structurally the same, but apperance wise, they are quite similar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
the bird in ur picture looks different than trex skin
trex skin is more like australian lizard then bird or komodo Dragon
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They look similar enough that they would be mistaken.
Also, australian lizard isn't very specific.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow they actually do.
But still komodo dragon scales are quite different from bird scales
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, they do have differences, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone mistook the two.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Would be weird if it looked like monitor lizard scales because those on the pelvis from Wyrex are really small thingies. Any link maybe on that?
Because the new paper on that Daspletosaurus horneri facial integument doesn't mention lips at all I've heard while only Thomas Carr made the claim to journalists. Mind you, I still need to give that paper a proper read, but for as far as I've read from others there isn't really any true evidence to get rid of lips.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well a link is not possible because it has just been found and it can not be published yet. I only know about it because of a friend that directly contacted the paleontologist who found it.
The issue is that, as Carr said, the bone texture extends almost all the way to the tooth row, leaving no room for large lips. I was not talking only about the paper, but the paper AND Carr's ratiocination.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, okay.
A texture doesn't necesarry mean that the covering had to be like an alligator's. Could as well be anchor points for the skin itself so that it is better attached to the skull, which makes sense in things that regurarly did some face biting. Also note how the foramina in the lower jaw of D. horneri are lower than the teeth of the upper jaw can reach in contrary to those on American alligator skulls where the foramina can be covered by the teeth of the upper jaw. That's why I gave my Tyrannosaurids indeed a crocodile-like face covering, but still lips.
The problem with Carr is that he makes the claim for no lips, but it isn't mentioned in the paper at all. What bothers me the most is the paper's claim of facial scales in alligators while they and all other crocodilians actually have none at all. Their faces are covered in keratinized skin, not scales, and alligators actually have a nice and smooth covering that isn't cracked in contrary to the reconstruction of D. horneri that went along with the paper.
That's why I'm sticking with lips as long as I don't come across other palaeontologists or enthusiasts that can support Carr's claim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually in this case it does mean an alligator like, keratinized skin. It was already discovered that the irregular bone texture of alligators and crocodiles are a result of the resistance of such hardened skin as the animal grows, and tyrannosaurids show the sam pattern (tough on a smaller area of the skull). About the foramina, you may be right or not (I do not know), but the point is not the foramina, but the area covered by the irregular texture as Carr said.
Also notice that such skin would be really, really hard. Like this it would prevent T. rex from properly hunting as lips like those would cover the upper teeth, and since the skin was hard it would prevent the upper teeth from piercing trough the prey's flesh and it would cause a lot of pain for the animal. Also T. rex bite marks show that both it's upper and lower teeth pierced trough the flesh to get to the bone.
Well indeed the paper does not mention it DIRECTLY, but this is not a reason to not use the data of the paper to talk about it directly. And while those are indeed not actual scales, you still get the point so whatever 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have some very odd misconceptions about how lips function in tetrapods , theres no merit for implying that lips covering the teeth would inhibit predation in theropod dinosaurs by that notion pretty much every predatory reptile save for crocodilians should be incapable of capturing prey properly , especially monitors and snakes. I’d take a look at this : markwitton-com.blogspot.com/20…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have changed my opinion on the matter since I first commented this. At the time I tought that the keratinized skin on part of the snout would mean the lips would be hard as well, but now I see it is completely possible for part of the snout to be more keratinized than the lips. Also I have to say that Mark Witton's point regarding the foramina pattern did convince me that T. rex had lips, but that does not necessarily mean they were long enough to completely cover the teeth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There’s no reason to believe that the extra oral tissue in the jawline of Tyrannosaurus rex (gums, lips and all) was not able to conceal the teeth when the jaws were closed. Especially given current evidence from foramina count (50-100) does indicate to us that said tissue created a type of “seal” when the animal shut its mouth in a similar manner to monitors, other lizards and tuataras. I’m not really sure whether your contentions on the subject arise from contrasting fact or simply personal disbelief. There are others far more educated on the topic than myself who’ve produced literature on the subject including Jaime who I see you’ve already talked to before on Twitter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>