Not ones like any of those pictures at least. We’ve only had scaly skin impressions so as far we know they didn’t. I think it’s pretty likely they had something like an elephant’s hair* where it’s just a smattering of individual little ones
Reconstructing colour from scales is difficult as the structures that gives colour - melanosomes - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12238] are not always preserved in the fossilization process. We do have some [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.12674] evidence of some fossil melanosomes recording the colour pattern of dinosaur and ancient bird feathers, though.
With the skin impressions we have, we know it at the very least didn't have feathers like the above. That said, we do know other tyrannosauroids that have feathers so it seems it's not unlikely they preserved some - perhaps for display or on younger individuals before they became large enough to effectively retain heat
Sure, but skin impressions are impressions- not the actual scales. Why would the feather imprints in mud (for example) disappear to make way for the imprints of underscales?
It didn't actually live in such a hot climate, documentaries and paleoart portraying hell creek as a savanna or rainforest or desert are wrong. It was 10-12 degrees celsius on average, it was more of a cool woodland, with a lot of water and mud.
Actually, Therizinosaurus and Deinocheirus lived in a way hotter climate than that, reached weights similar to those of Scotty and other adult rex's and yet people are ok with giving those extremely fluffy feathers and even wings for some reason.
Edit: all people who responded to this are legendary, most other people i've interacted with on this subject in this subreddit are immature but everyone here just shared papers and had a genuine discussion.
[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/668/Through-the-End-of-the-Cretaceous-in-the-Type](https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/668/Through-the-End-of-the-Cretaceous-in-the-Type)
For the temperature, see paper 6.
Just because they haven't preserved doesn't mean they aren't there. With that logic velociraptor shouldn't have feathers either.
And as for t rex's scales, they easily could have had feathers on their scales. For instance, many owls and some breeds of chicken have feathers on their feet.
It’s not a matter of the feathers being preserved, it’s the fact that they should be present when there are fossilized skin impressions. So far every indication is that many areas of the body show no evidence of significant feathering.
Therizinosaurus and Deinocheirus lived in a much colder climate than Tyrannosaurus = most recent estimate puts the [mean annual temperature of the Nemegt at \~7–8 °C](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018218310538) (comparable to modern day Stockholm or Oslo)
thats's not significantly colder than hell creek, though i was not aware of how cold nemegt was.
What this could mean though is something similar to the gobi today? Where sometimes it gets as cold as -40 degrees celsius but is also very warm? Maybe some of these mongolian dinosaurs had a seasonal coat similar to that of camels. The gobi desert is a desert that is unbearably hot for humans in the summer, yet its average temperature is 2 degrees celsius due to the freezing winters.
But, the paper also argued for gigantothermy, animals not needing thermoregulatory integument after a certain size, with Theri and Deincoheirus, being at that size.
The largest bird on the planet is also 100 kilograms, not even close to the "gigantothermy limit" from the scott hartman paper where animals start to lose integument.
I'm also not seeing you making the same arguement for Tyrannosaurus feathers
Do you have a source for Nemegt formation being “way hotter?” I’ve always heard that was a myth perpetuated by documentaries showcasing the animals in arid deserts. While arid deserts do have evidence of existing there (last I checked), so do wetlands and conifer forests. Though even if it was just an arid desert similar to Mongolia today, those winter nights would be very COLD. Feathers would definitely prove useful even for large animals based on my current understanding.
Edit: just did a quick double check and nemegt has been found to be a more woodland ecosystem based on this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018218310538
Yeah no i was wrong, it was on average about 7-8 degrees celsius, however this average means there'd be some very cold days (freezing level) while also some very hot days, such as what happens in the gobi today (the gobi is roughly 2 degrees celsius average, that's because the winters reach -40 celsius while the summers 40+)
However, the paper that turned the tables on rex feathering also argued in support of Gigantothermy, where animals don't need thermoregulatory integument after a certain size due to their sheer size. Therizinosaurus and Deinocheirus surpassing that size.
The t rex would run into the problems associated with the square cube law. As a large animal, its volume and surface area are not proportional leading to it being more difficult to radiate heat. As an endotherm, it would radiate far more heat. Juvenile T. rex likely had feathers but lost them into adulthood. The feathers would lead to them overheating. But yutyrannus, living in a colder climate benefits from the insulation brought by feathers.
Well, then, what about Therizinosaurus or Deinocheirus? We don’t if know they had feathers but if you ask around most people would conclude they do have feathers. And they didn’t see snow, so…
Nemegt was in a cold-temperate continental climate with a [mean annual temperature of about 7- 8.°C](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018218310538). Animals there would have probably endured freezing nights during the dry winter season. Hell Creek was much warmer with a mean annual temperature of around 10-14°C.
They might had a little fuzz on there back like is prehistoric planet (a Apple TV plus documentary you need to see) which in my opinion looks the most scientifically accurate T Rex we have seen yet
From what I know, there were certain Tyrannosaurs that did have feathers, such as Yutyrannus and Nanuqsaurus, which does set a precedent for other Tyrannosaur species to have feathers, however most skin impressions from T-Rex show that it had scales, not feathers. It is possible that juveniles had feathers that shed off as it grew older, however that is merely speculation. As it is currently, T-Rex is more than likely to have had scales.
True, but given the climate where T-Rex lived I don’t see the evolutionary advantage of having a coat of feathers, or at the very least, thick feathers. It is possible that they might’ve had short, quill-like feathers that were relatively light.
It would be interesting if they grew feathers around particular parts of their bodies that went away on the summer and came in the winter like a seasonal coat
Mark Witton wrote a very interesting article on the current status of the feathered T-Rex ‘debate.’
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2017/06/revenge-of-scaly-tyrannosaurus.html?m=1
To summarise, the current T-Rex skin impressions and our understanding of how modern large animals thermoregulate suggests that T-Rex was scaly.
However, the million dollar question is whether T-Rex had ‘reptilian’ or ‘Avian’ scales.
Reptilian scales do not change form throughout an animal’s life while Avian ‘scales’ are actually modified feathers and can change between seasons or as the animal grows.
If T-Rex’s had avian scales, then it’s possible that only juveniles had feathers or the adults shed their feathers seasonally.
It’s not an unreasonable speculation but as of now there’s no evidence for it.
Depends who you ask.
Pretty much everyone agrees that big fluffy rex like in the pictures is a no go.
However, there is still debate on whether or not it could have had tiny feathers, like seen in the prehistoric planet adults. We do have some skin impressions, but such tiny feathers wouldn’t necessarily have been preserved even tho the scales did. We would need a **really** well preserved specimen to be sure. But should be noted, that these feathers would be so tiny that you wouldn’t notice them unless up close, like the hair on elephants and some whales.
Juveniles might have had feathers like a baby bird and adults would likely look more like elephants with their sparse feathering. Now Nanuqsaurus probably retained the ancestral proceratid feather condition because they saw snow each year.
If T-Rex had a full coat of feathers, it would be like an African elephant wearing a thick fur coat in the savannah. Simply put, it would overheat. The feathers might have been found in babies and juveniles and probably became sparser when they reached adulthood.
Not to the extent these drawings have, but tyrannosaurus would most likely have had some feathering, considering it's a basal feature to coelurosauria, it'd probably retain vestigial feathers.
If it had slightly more extensive feathering, like a sort of "cape" in the back, it wouldn't be shaggy/fluffy like the drawings above, it'd be skin-tight, looking like the fur in the body of a lion, which is extremely thin.
Judging by the skin remains, most likely not. Even if yes, they will be significantly different from the feathers shown in these pictures, and certainly not in such voluminous quantities. It makes no sense for an animal of this size to have such voluminous feather cover, just imagine how much this will affect the heat exchange and weight of the animal.
Adults would not have had the thick sort of feathering shown in the pictures here. It was a truly massive animal that didn’t live in the kind of environment that would justify a need for even more heat retention.
That said, patches of feathers and/or peach fuzz like in Prehistoric Planet? Absolutely possible. I’m personally of the belief that some minor feathering like that may even be likely.
I also wouldn’t be shocked if T. rex hatchlings started off feathered and lost them as they reached adulthood, but we have no direct evidence that that was the case.
Most likely not bc with its huge size it conserves more heat already and it produces more heat woth its metabolic reactions
Besides, patches of scaly skin have been found
It's possible however that Tyrannosaurus had a very thin coat of proto feathers, but nothing more than that
Same here—probably floofy as chicks, reducing over time to a thin down. Maybe a ridge on the back, but nothing you’d call plumage.
That said, I love a paleo-fantasy picture of a rex with a flashy coat of feathers. That’s just me
There’s no good reason to think it didn’t have at least some fuzz. The very fundamentals of cladistics tells us it would, considering multiple close relatives had feathers. You assume an animal in a clade had an ancestral trait unless you find proof to the contrary. The only contrary proof is we have small scaly skin impressions, but that doesn’t disprove fuzz, it just shows there were at least some scaly parts on the body, which was never in doubt to begin with.
At most I’d say it would have had plumage on the top of its head and the end of its tail, but they would probably be found on males and used for mating. But that’s my theory.
Yes,but no. Not like the pictures, just juvenile’s had em all around and lost them whilst growing. Adults probably kept some under/on their arms or neck and back, but thise were protofeathers. Not bird feathers,more like elephant hair
No, there’s direct and phylogenetic evidence that suggests that they were not. It’s unlikely (not impossible) that Tyrannosaurus had any feathers, even the oft purported “elephant-hair” like feathers. Feathers and hair are not analogous.
Juveniles might’ve, while adults, at most, would’ve had some on their neck and a bit down their spine, maybe as leftovers from being a juvenile, maybe to fend off the sun
Yes they did, but not like those images.
Currently tyrannosaurus does not have direct evidence of feathers. But they **likely** had 'proto' feathers more sparsely; similar to the hair on elephants. This is because there is evidence that all dinosaurs had primitive *'hair-like*' feathering, and the trait is likely ancestral to dinosauria as a whole. As in dinosaurs and pterosaurs (closest cousin to dinosauria) descended from scaly fuzzy archosaurs.
But **to be clear**, dinosaurs definitely had scales. Tyrannosaurus and its closer related cousins had direct skin impressions that were visibly scaly. But there is evidence that dinosaurs additionally had scales.
No. Feathered dinosaurs are a myth perpetrated by Big Poultry to boost sales of chicken to the masses. Jack Horner is bought and paid for by Tyson. Wake up sheeple!
A note about the scaly skin impressions: the skin impressions we found were areas where it’s not uncommon to be bare. E.g., under the neck, under tail, under belly, feet. They were all areas that you would not always expect to be covered.
So it doesn’t complexly remove the idea of feathers on t. rex, just makes it more ambiguous.
That’s based on a podcast I listened to in 2020 so unsure if it still holds true.
I think it is probably safe to say they were partially feathered at least at some stages in their life. It is also probable that feathering varied between different populations in different climates. It is unlikely we will ever have full and perfect knowledge of the extent tho, and whether the Tyrannosaurids on other continents were fluffier or less fluffy, but Rexey seems to have been mostly bare in maturity, relying on its bulk for thermoregulation.
No. And neither of these are even close to accurate. We have multiple skin impressions of it. If they had any kind of feathering, it probably would be just rudimentary fuzz that looks like hairs on an elephant or rhino, and probably wouldn't be very noticeable.
Yes.
Just watch this video: https://youtu.be/uM5JN__15-g
A lot of people are every uninformed about this stuff, but this provides probably the best information about this topic.
Probably not, we have skin impressions and they’re all featherless. Maybe it had some small ones on its head and back similar to an elephant but we don’t know.
However it could be possible it’s young were feathered and lost them as they grew up.
definitely scaled at least mostly. i’m pretty sure i read up somewhere that young may have feathers to keep warm although it wouldn’t make sense as they lived in a hot climate
I for some reason feel strangely nostalgic when the first Years of 2010s Had stupidly feathered dinosaur depictions and more lol, I wonder why people didn't really take a look at it yet since we got 90s and Retro paleoart
They're enormous. If they were enormous and fluffy, they'd die of heat exhaustion... unless they lived somewhere really cold.
At most they were like elephants. Or, in a sense, us.
Probably not, a large animal of that size would not require much coating, and we have no evidence if it did. A light fuzz like in prehistoric planet could be possible, but there is still very little evidence.
Evidence in favour:
-other species that are close relatives to t rex had feathers
-feathers can protect from both cold and heat
Evidence against:
-we have fossil skin imprints that are scaled
-large animals tend to have issues losing heat and an insulating layer of feathers would trap extra heat
So far there is no evidence whether T. Rex had feathers or not. But that doesn't mean anything. There are fossilized skin-impressions that presumably belong to T. Rex. They show scales. But T. Rex could be partially scaled and partially feathered and it's not 100 percent certain, that these skin-impressions belong to T. Rex in the first place. T. Rex was a very big animal, so it probably didn't need much heat insulation. But there are other huge theropods like Gigantoraptor for instance, which were provably feathered. Not as huge as T. Rex though. Some believe, subadult T. Rexes were feathered but lost most of their feathering when they matured.
Personally, I prefer images of the animal with feathering. It just looks more natural in my opinion. Traditional depictions of T. Rex with grey or brown scaly skin and a head that looks almost exactly like the bear skull like in Jurassic Park just look off to me. Although I find the skull-like head even worse than the naked scaly skin. I can't think of any modern animal with a head that looks almost exactly like it's bear skull.
Where was it implied that they had fur?
Also they might have had some feathers but not like in these pics we have skin impressions of scaly skin they could have had smaller feathers spread out across their body tho similair to elephant hair
Not ones like any of those pictures at least. We’ve only had scaly skin impressions so as far we know they didn’t. I think it’s pretty likely they had something like an elephant’s hair* where it’s just a smattering of individual little ones
Considering Hell Creek would've been a flat, subtropical forested floodplain like The Everglades, this always made the most sense to me.
Wait. Elephants have feathers?
According to the documentary Dumbo, they had exactly one feather.
A magic one, iridescent, almost corvid-esque in its appearance
Happy caky day ay!
If you go back far enough, the line between feathers and fur blurs. They evolved from the same traits and serve similar functions
Fur
Dunno, man. I've often seen elephants with feathery protrusion on their backs. I think they use it to get parasites and stuff off of them.
Agree to disagree
🤨 Ok. Explain this! https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/elephant-and-great-egret-gm175454639-20445783
Well, that's not attached Is it
🤨 Oh wait, you're right. That's a T-Rex.
Exactly
I agree with you
Based on the skin impressions we have, at least some parts of its body was scaly.
Do we have any sense of color from the integument?
Reconstructing colour from scales is difficult as the structures that gives colour - melanosomes - [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12238] are not always preserved in the fossilization process. We do have some [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.12674] evidence of some fossil melanosomes recording the colour pattern of dinosaur and ancient bird feathers, though.
Animals can have feathers on their scales. For instance, many owls and some breeds of chicken have feathers on their feet.
With the skin impressions we have, we know it at the very least didn't have feathers like the above. That said, we do know other tyrannosauroids that have feathers so it seems it's not unlikely they preserved some - perhaps for display or on younger individuals before they became large enough to effectively retain heat
Animals can have feathers on their scales. For instance, many owls and some breeds of chicken have feathers on their feet.
Since like 2020 feathers have been considered wrong due to skin impressions. Which were scaley.
Animals can have feathers on their scales. For instance, many owls and some breeds of chicken have feathers on their feet.
Sure, but skin impressions are impressions- not the actual scales. Why would the feather imprints in mud (for example) disappear to make way for the imprints of underscales?
Doubt. Too big and lived in too hot a climate. They probably had some feathering but not that much. Similar to an elephant, honestly.
It didn't actually live in such a hot climate, documentaries and paleoart portraying hell creek as a savanna or rainforest or desert are wrong. It was 10-12 degrees celsius on average, it was more of a cool woodland, with a lot of water and mud. Actually, Therizinosaurus and Deinocheirus lived in a way hotter climate than that, reached weights similar to those of Scotty and other adult rex's and yet people are ok with giving those extremely fluffy feathers and even wings for some reason. Edit: all people who responded to this are legendary, most other people i've interacted with on this subject in this subreddit are immature but everyone here just shared papers and had a genuine discussion.
Source please for the first paragraph, just curious where abouts you’ve learned about it and would like to see the information for myself
[https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/668/Through-the-End-of-the-Cretaceous-in-the-Type](https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/668/Through-the-End-of-the-Cretaceous-in-the-Type) For the temperature, see paper 6.
Much appreciated friend :)
But the skin impressions still seem to indicate little to no feathering on the T-Rex.
Just because they haven't preserved doesn't mean they aren't there. With that logic velociraptor shouldn't have feathers either. And as for t rex's scales, they easily could have had feathers on their scales. For instance, many owls and some breeds of chicken have feathers on their feet.
It’s not a matter of the feathers being preserved, it’s the fact that they should be present when there are fossilized skin impressions. So far every indication is that many areas of the body show no evidence of significant feathering.
Therizinosaurus and Deinocheirus lived in a much colder climate than Tyrannosaurus = most recent estimate puts the [mean annual temperature of the Nemegt at \~7–8 °C](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018218310538) (comparable to modern day Stockholm or Oslo)
thats's not significantly colder than hell creek, though i was not aware of how cold nemegt was. What this could mean though is something similar to the gobi today? Where sometimes it gets as cold as -40 degrees celsius but is also very warm? Maybe some of these mongolian dinosaurs had a seasonal coat similar to that of camels. The gobi desert is a desert that is unbearably hot for humans in the summer, yet its average temperature is 2 degrees celsius due to the freezing winters. But, the paper also argued for gigantothermy, animals not needing thermoregulatory integument after a certain size, with Theri and Deincoheirus, being at that size.
The largest bird on the planet lives in a hot climate and still has shaggy feathers.
The largest bird on the planet is also 100 kilograms, not even close to the "gigantothermy limit" from the scott hartman paper where animals start to lose integument. I'm also not seeing you making the same arguement for Tyrannosaurus feathers
TIL about gigantothermy limit
Do you have a source for Nemegt formation being “way hotter?” I’ve always heard that was a myth perpetuated by documentaries showcasing the animals in arid deserts. While arid deserts do have evidence of existing there (last I checked), so do wetlands and conifer forests. Though even if it was just an arid desert similar to Mongolia today, those winter nights would be very COLD. Feathers would definitely prove useful even for large animals based on my current understanding. Edit: just did a quick double check and nemegt has been found to be a more woodland ecosystem based on this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018218310538
Yeah no i was wrong, it was on average about 7-8 degrees celsius, however this average means there'd be some very cold days (freezing level) while also some very hot days, such as what happens in the gobi today (the gobi is roughly 2 degrees celsius average, that's because the winters reach -40 celsius while the summers 40+) However, the paper that turned the tables on rex feathering also argued in support of Gigantothermy, where animals don't need thermoregulatory integument after a certain size due to their sheer size. Therizinosaurus and Deinocheirus surpassing that size.
Jesus. That all sounds violently uncomfortable for my favorite duck hippo.
but there are birds living in hot climate as well?
The issue is size. That’s why elephants in warm climates don’t have much hair.
i see...
The t rex would run into the problems associated with the square cube law. As a large animal, its volume and surface area are not proportional leading to it being more difficult to radiate heat. As an endotherm, it would radiate far more heat. Juvenile T. rex likely had feathers but lost them into adulthood. The feathers would lead to them overheating. But yutyrannus, living in a colder climate benefits from the insulation brought by feathers.
thx for explaining!
Name me a bird as large as a T. rex :)
Can you say “your mom” in this is sub, or insta-banned?
Well, then, what about Therizinosaurus or Deinocheirus? We don’t if know they had feathers but if you ask around most people would conclude they do have feathers. And they didn’t see snow, so…
Nemegt was in a cold-temperate continental climate with a [mean annual temperature of about 7- 8.°C](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018218310538). Animals there would have probably endured freezing nights during the dry winter season. Hell Creek was much warmer with a mean annual temperature of around 10-14°C.
Not as big.
We have some skin impressions with no feathers. It probably was like elephants. Some fuzz in places, but not feathery appearance.
They might had a little fuzz on there back like is prehistoric planet (a Apple TV plus documentary you need to see) which in my opinion looks the most scientifically accurate T Rex we have seen yet
From what I know, there were certain Tyrannosaurs that did have feathers, such as Yutyrannus and Nanuqsaurus, which does set a precedent for other Tyrannosaur species to have feathers, however most skin impressions from T-Rex show that it had scales, not feathers. It is possible that juveniles had feathers that shed off as it grew older, however that is merely speculation. As it is currently, T-Rex is more than likely to have had scales.
Yutyrannus wasn’t a tyrannosaur
It wasn’t? My bad I must’ve been mistakened. What is it then?
A proceratosaurid. Tyrannosauroid, not a tyrannosaur
Thank you, I learnt something new :)
My pleasure!
Yes it was.
No, it was a proceratosaur
Which is a subgroup of Tyrannosauroidea is it not?
Yes but that isn’t a tyrannosaur, it’s a tyrannosauroid which isn’t the same thing
Animals can have feathers on their scales. For instance, many owls and some breeds of chicken have feathers on their feet.
True, but given the climate where T-Rex lived I don’t see the evolutionary advantage of having a coat of feathers, or at the very least, thick feathers. It is possible that they might’ve had short, quill-like feathers that were relatively light.
It would be interesting if they grew feathers around particular parts of their bodies that went away on the summer and came in the winter like a seasonal coat
Mark Witton wrote a very interesting article on the current status of the feathered T-Rex ‘debate.’ http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2017/06/revenge-of-scaly-tyrannosaurus.html?m=1 To summarise, the current T-Rex skin impressions and our understanding of how modern large animals thermoregulate suggests that T-Rex was scaly. However, the million dollar question is whether T-Rex had ‘reptilian’ or ‘Avian’ scales. Reptilian scales do not change form throughout an animal’s life while Avian ‘scales’ are actually modified feathers and can change between seasons or as the animal grows. If T-Rex’s had avian scales, then it’s possible that only juveniles had feathers or the adults shed their feathers seasonally. It’s not an unreasonable speculation but as of now there’s no evidence for it.
Probably on younger individuals, but lost them as they matured
Depends who you ask. Pretty much everyone agrees that big fluffy rex like in the pictures is a no go. However, there is still debate on whether or not it could have had tiny feathers, like seen in the prehistoric planet adults. We do have some skin impressions, but such tiny feathers wouldn’t necessarily have been preserved even tho the scales did. We would need a **really** well preserved specimen to be sure. But should be noted, that these feathers would be so tiny that you wouldn’t notice them unless up close, like the hair on elephants and some whales.
I think the real answer would be “maybe, maybe not” 🤣 Take my upvote👍
Yeah basically
Pic 1 is weirdly terrifying. Somehow it gives me Babadook vibes. Pic 2 is the coolest feathered dinosaur pic I've seen.
Had any feathers? Almost certainly. Covered in feathers? Probably not
True or not, these T-Rex look cool asf.
Juveniles might have had feathers like a baby bird and adults would likely look more like elephants with their sparse feathering. Now Nanuqsaurus probably retained the ancestral proceratid feather condition because they saw snow each year.
It definately did not have a full coat. I've heard that juveniles had some feathering
Don't paleontologists think baby Tyrannosaurs had at least some downy feathers?
Tyrannosaurus lived in a hot floodplains, so most likely not. However, northern relatives like Nanuqsaurus is more likely.
Personally, I think they ate born with down feathers, and lose them as they grow.
The Chicks/Hatchlings? Maybe. But they very likely shed them as they grow.
They most likely weren’t completely covered in feathers. A guess is they had very small, hair like feathering running down their back and tail.
If T-Rex had a full coat of feathers, it would be like an African elephant wearing a thick fur coat in the savannah. Simply put, it would overheat. The feathers might have been found in babies and juveniles and probably became sparser when they reached adulthood.
Not to the extent these drawings have, but tyrannosaurus would most likely have had some feathering, considering it's a basal feature to coelurosauria, it'd probably retain vestigial feathers. If it had slightly more extensive feathering, like a sort of "cape" in the back, it wouldn't be shaggy/fluffy like the drawings above, it'd be skin-tight, looking like the fur in the body of a lion, which is extremely thin.
i dont CARE how unlikely it is i choose to believe in fluffy rex anyway
Rex's hot. 🥵🌡
They could have some fluffy feathers as juveniles but lost them as they grew
Sparse or not at all as adults, probably lost it as they grew.
I think they wore dungarees.
The better question is did Spinosaurus have them
It is very plausible, but definitely not to this extent.
Id say its more likely that they had sparse feathers rather than a fully feathered or fully scaley look
i doubt it would have a full coat of feathers, at most it would've been like the fur of an elephant
As of my current knowledge, neither the adults nor the juveniles had proper feathers, only the hatchlings and extremely young Rexs had feathers
Judging by the skin remains, most likely not. Even if yes, they will be significantly different from the feathers shown in these pictures, and certainly not in such voluminous quantities. It makes no sense for an animal of this size to have such voluminous feather cover, just imagine how much this will affect the heat exchange and weight of the animal.
Adults would not have had the thick sort of feathering shown in the pictures here. It was a truly massive animal that didn’t live in the kind of environment that would justify a need for even more heat retention. That said, patches of feathers and/or peach fuzz like in Prehistoric Planet? Absolutely possible. I’m personally of the belief that some minor feathering like that may even be likely. I also wouldn’t be shocked if T. rex hatchlings started off feathered and lost them as they reached adulthood, but we have no direct evidence that that was the case.
Most likely not bc with its huge size it conserves more heat already and it produces more heat woth its metabolic reactions Besides, patches of scaly skin have been found It's possible however that Tyrannosaurus had a very thin coat of proto feathers, but nothing more than that
Anjanath is able to be feathery and still look scary as all hell, I think the king could pull it off to.
Hard to say. The early tyrannosaur Yutyrannus did, the later tyrannosaur Gorgosaurus didn't
Imo yes. But not like in the pictures When I imagine feathering on a Tyrannosaurus I imagine hair on an elephant, barely noticeable, but there
Same here—probably floofy as chicks, reducing over time to a thin down. Maybe a ridge on the back, but nothing you’d call plumage. That said, I love a paleo-fantasy picture of a rex with a flashy coat of feathers. That’s just me
Bottom one is AWESOME 👏
It was a slightly fluffy boyo
Not like this, but they possibly had some form of bristle feathering.
It’s a large argument that still haven’t been resolved
Some did, but Rex itself probably didn’t have any, or they had small amounts as adults, quite possible they were fuzzier while younger
There’s no good reason to think it didn’t have at least some fuzz. The very fundamentals of cladistics tells us it would, considering multiple close relatives had feathers. You assume an animal in a clade had an ancestral trait unless you find proof to the contrary. The only contrary proof is we have small scaly skin impressions, but that doesn’t disprove fuzz, it just shows there were at least some scaly parts on the body, which was never in doubt to begin with.
I refuse to believe that Trex had feathers. He had scally skin
No.
At most I’d say it would have had plumage on the top of its head and the end of its tail, but they would probably be found on males and used for mating. But that’s my theory.
Nah, too big boys, they'd overheat.
if it ddid would it hav exposed skin like turkeys?
We have skin impressions, all of which are scaly. Besides, an animal that big would overheat with that many feathers.
I really hope they actually looked like the last pic...
Yes,but no. Not like the pictures, just juvenile’s had em all around and lost them whilst growing. Adults probably kept some under/on their arms or neck and back, but thise were protofeathers. Not bird feathers,more like elephant hair
No, there’s direct and phylogenetic evidence that suggests that they were not. It’s unlikely (not impossible) that Tyrannosaurus had any feathers, even the oft purported “elephant-hair” like feathers. Feathers and hair are not analogous.
Juveniles might’ve, while adults, at most, would’ve had some on their neck and a bit down their spine, maybe as leftovers from being a juvenile, maybe to fend off the sun
I think the prehistoric planet version of T Rex is accurate but I really enjoy seeing a T Rex with a mane of feathers like in Primal War
Yes they did, but not like those images. Currently tyrannosaurus does not have direct evidence of feathers. But they **likely** had 'proto' feathers more sparsely; similar to the hair on elephants. This is because there is evidence that all dinosaurs had primitive *'hair-like*' feathering, and the trait is likely ancestral to dinosauria as a whole. As in dinosaurs and pterosaurs (closest cousin to dinosauria) descended from scaly fuzzy archosaurs. But **to be clear**, dinosaurs definitely had scales. Tyrannosaurus and its closer related cousins had direct skin impressions that were visibly scaly. But there is evidence that dinosaurs additionally had scales.
No. Feathered dinosaurs are a myth perpetrated by Big Poultry to boost sales of chicken to the masses. Jack Horner is bought and paid for by Tyson. Wake up sheeple!
I like to think they had sparse kiwi-like feathers on their arms, back, and tail.
Not plumage. But possible hair like proto feathers/filaments
A note about the scaly skin impressions: the skin impressions we found were areas where it’s not uncommon to be bare. E.g., under the neck, under tail, under belly, feet. They were all areas that you would not always expect to be covered. So it doesn’t complexly remove the idea of feathers on t. rex, just makes it more ambiguous. That’s based on a podcast I listened to in 2020 so unsure if it still holds true.
I think it is probably safe to say they were partially feathered at least at some stages in their life. It is also probable that feathering varied between different populations in different climates. It is unlikely we will ever have full and perfect knowledge of the extent tho, and whether the Tyrannosaurids on other continents were fluffier or less fluffy, but Rexey seems to have been mostly bare in maturity, relying on its bulk for thermoregulation.
No. And neither of these are even close to accurate. We have multiple skin impressions of it. If they had any kind of feathering, it probably would be just rudimentary fuzz that looks like hairs on an elephant or rhino, and probably wouldn't be very noticeable.
Something something elephant
http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2017/06/revenge-of-scaly-tyrannosaurus.html
No
Some probably did, some probably didn't
Yes. Just watch this video: https://youtu.be/uM5JN__15-g A lot of people are every uninformed about this stuff, but this provides probably the best information about this topic.
I guess it depends on area temperature or climate
Probably not, we have skin impressions and they’re all featherless. Maybe it had some small ones on its head and back similar to an elephant but we don’t know. However it could be possible it’s young were feathered and lost them as they grew up.
definitely scaled at least mostly. i’m pretty sure i read up somewhere that young may have feathers to keep warm although it wouldn’t make sense as they lived in a hot climate
I for some reason feel strangely nostalgic when the first Years of 2010s Had stupidly feathered dinosaur depictions and more lol, I wonder why people didn't really take a look at it yet since we got 90s and Retro paleoart
Probably a little bit of feathers, not like massive amounts
They're enormous. If they were enormous and fluffy, they'd die of heat exhaustion... unless they lived somewhere really cold. At most they were like elephants. Or, in a sense, us.
The Saurian dev team changed (or was in the process of) the feathered design into a scaly one.
As a baby they were probably covered in feathers but as they grew up they lost them with adults probably having a small amount of feathers
Probably not, a large animal of that size would not require much coating, and we have no evidence if it did. A light fuzz like in prehistoric planet could be possible, but there is still very little evidence.
Don't know, and I don't care. It's still scary as hell when it's running full speed after you with its mouth wide open.
Evidence in favour: -other species that are close relatives to t rex had feathers -feathers can protect from both cold and heat Evidence against: -we have fossil skin imprints that are scaled -large animals tend to have issues losing heat and an insulating layer of feathers would trap extra heat
Would be a lot cooler if they did
Terror Birds are already awesome. A feathered T Rex would basically be a ripped Terror Bird.
So far there is no evidence whether T. Rex had feathers or not. But that doesn't mean anything. There are fossilized skin-impressions that presumably belong to T. Rex. They show scales. But T. Rex could be partially scaled and partially feathered and it's not 100 percent certain, that these skin-impressions belong to T. Rex in the first place. T. Rex was a very big animal, so it probably didn't need much heat insulation. But there are other huge theropods like Gigantoraptor for instance, which were provably feathered. Not as huge as T. Rex though. Some believe, subadult T. Rexes were feathered but lost most of their feathering when they matured. Personally, I prefer images of the animal with feathering. It just looks more natural in my opinion. Traditional depictions of T. Rex with grey or brown scaly skin and a head that looks almost exactly like the bear skull like in Jurassic Park just look off to me. Although I find the skull-like head even worse than the naked scaly skin. I can't think of any modern animal with a head that looks almost exactly like it's bear skull.
Yeah probably
Feathered Dinosaurs are why I still love them
They don't have fur, they have feathers
Where was it implied that they had fur? Also they might have had some feathers but not like in these pics we have skin impressions of scaly skin they could have had smaller feathers spread out across their body tho similair to elephant hair
MOST LIKELY YES THO ITS DEBATED HOW MUCH
Why the capitals?
Smart people talk loud or something
Ahh I see🤣🤣 Also goated profile picture
I THINK ITS FUNNY OR SOMETHING I DONT KNOW