Comments: 68
Yutyrannus In reply to ??? [2017-12-24 07:50:00 +0000 UTC]
Possible, yes, though I wouldn't now say it is the most plausible. This represents the maximum possible extent for feathering in Tyrannosaurus based on the position of the known skin impressions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 00:35:08 +0000 UTC]
I know some who might not believe this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 01:30:09 +0000 UTC]
If you mean the feathering, that's hardly surprising. Everyone has their own ideas when it regards to tyrannosaur feathering and that's completely fine, because the evidence we have is inconclusive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 01:42:31 +0000 UTC]
Okay. What's your take on other large theropods having feathers like Carnosaurs and Megalosaurs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 01:47:30 +0000 UTC]
Personally I see no reason not to show them with feathers, but I've illustrated both and given having basically zero evidence other than phylogenetic bracketing I try to refrain from having much of an opinion on that. I also think it would probably vary depending on environment, size, ecology, etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 02:47:23 +0000 UTC]
Finally! Someone who agrees with me. What about feathers on Sauropodomorphs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 02:49:14 +0000 UTC]
Depends again on various factors, I'd say it's extremely likely you'd find at least somewhat extensive feathering in basal sauropodomorphs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 03:00:01 +0000 UTC]
Honestly I lump them into Sauropodomorpha
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 18:41:52 +0000 UTC]
What's your opinion about Nanotyrannus? I still think it could possibly be it's own genus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 18:48:32 +0000 UTC]
It's extremely unlikely that it represents a valid genus, and even if by some very slim chance it does, all that means is we have two taxa of giant tyrannosaurids in Hell Creek, one represented only by adolescent specimens, and the other by basically all stages of ontogeny except that one, which is almost ridiculously coincidental. Every bit of evidence we have strongly suggests that it is an adolescent Tyrannosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 19:01:11 +0000 UTC]
I know the role it could have played, though given to raptors, The Cheetah Of Hell Creek. The Biggest fast runner. I know because of this. huffingtonpost.com/entry/nanotyrannus-speed-study_us_56a79ccae4b0b87beec60425
The hope that it's own genus lays with the Bloody Mary Specimen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 19:04:53 +0000 UTC]
It did fill that niche, but only as an ontogomorph of Tyrannosaurus. Their ecology changes throughout ontogeny, which is something we see in all tyrannosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SauropodQueen In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 20:09:35 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, because a juvenile specimen that just happens to be differently proportioned from an adult must mean it's a distinct species.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 19:13:16 +0000 UTC]
The Bloody Mary specimen is in private hands and cannot be studied, until it can, and has been published, it should not even be considered.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 19:19:27 +0000 UTC]
The one difference I heard about it. It's arms are 3 feet long. Bigger than Sue's.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 19:22:28 +0000 UTC]
First off like I said, the specimen cannot be studied, so that cannot be reliably verified, and second that really isn't any indication of it being a separate genus even if true. Tyrannosaurus' arms, while not vestigial, are a part of their anatomy which was not being used much in life, and thus under less selective pressure than say the skull, which would logically lead to greater variation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Corallianassa In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-08-11 15:17:24 +0000 UTC]
While I do wholly agree that we should be cautious about using ''Bloody Mary'' to make conclusions, it isn't useless.
Because if Tigon's claim that the arms are 3 feet long (I'm not sure if that's true but I have seen a skeletal forelimb reconstruction of ''Mary'' to see that it did indeed have significantly bigger forelimbs. Probably a few factors larger than similarly sized Tyrannosauri such as ''Jane''.
I wouldn't split the two because of this one trait, but it does make me cautious about lumping Nanotyrannus into Tyrannosaurus. Who knows what other, more subtle, anatomical differences will (or will not) turn up if it ever gets described.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 19:35:10 +0000 UTC]
Yeah. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I have few paleoart ideas. Want to hear them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 19:52:10 +0000 UTC]
For one, I think Dilophosaurus's crests could have been as big in Jurassic Park. How? Keratin Sheathes. Like a Rhino's horns. What do you think? Of course they would be in the shape we now know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 20:28:07 +0000 UTC]
Seems reasonable. We know plenty of dinosaurs had bony crests which supported larger soft tissue structures in life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 20:59:57 +0000 UTC]
You think you would draw something like that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 21:29:40 +0000 UTC]
I could, though I have a lot of stuff I need to get through first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 21:48:56 +0000 UTC]
It's okay. I can wait. I guess you rarely color your stuff.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 23:15:04 +0000 UTC]
Yeah. What do you think of feathers on early dinosaurs like Dilophosaurus?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 23:31:46 +0000 UTC]
I'd say feathers until we have evidence to the contrary. Dilophosaurus is very basal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-15 23:36:13 +0000 UTC]
Some people believe it's true. Some even think it actually had a frill, but made with feathers. What do you think about that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 23:49:48 +0000 UTC]
Not impossible, but I doubt that. Dilophosaurus' feathers, if indeed it had them, would've been very primitive indeed, probably only stage I or II. They'd look almost more like fur than feathers to a layman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-16 01:10:57 +0000 UTC]
Uh...yeah, no. We know more than enough about ankylosaur integument to say that there's no way they could have been feathered like that.
Also this is getting *really* off the topic of this deviation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-16 01:23:08 +0000 UTC]
All I have to say, you never know. And it's not just Anyklosaurs, Stegosaurs and both group's ancestors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-16 01:38:17 +0000 UTC]
Feathers were very clearly and unquestionably lost in multiple lineages, and thyreophorans are definitely one of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-16 02:23:03 +0000 UTC]
Yeah. What's your opinion on Carnosaurs and Megalosaurs having feathers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tigon1Monster In reply to Yutyrannus [2017-07-16 02:50:36 +0000 UTC]
Sorry. I forgot. If you were to make a dinosaur hybrid, what dinosaurs would you use?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-16 03:47:01 +0000 UTC]
It really does not interest me. I'd rather see some proper spec evo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SauropodQueen In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 20:10:45 +0000 UTC]
That's actually very plausible. In fact, who says they have to even be the same shape as the bony part?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yutyrannus In reply to Tigon1Monster [2017-07-15 21:30:24 +0000 UTC]
Yep, like said it doesn't necessarily even need to be the shape of the bone. Soft tissue does weird shit, yo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>