Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
My issues with the T rex skin study; WARNING: you have entered rant zone
Topic Started: Oct 30 2017, 07:44 AM (1,654 Views)
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *


WARNING: you have reached a RANT zone, where I give my opinion about a controversial topic


T'was June 2017. I was on my birthday vacation in Pittsburgh. While I was at the hotel, I decided to open up my chromebook... and saw something surprising. There was a new study about T rex's skin impressions, and everyone was talking about it. To this day, however, it still manages to be controversial.

Honestly, It really doesn't make sense for T Rex to grow scales. I mean, it probably did, but you have to realize that it should've been an oddity to others. It's like finding a lion fossil with Glyptodont armor. That would be a breakthrough, and I don't see why a lot of people seemed that a scaly rex was normal. It's in the realm of one of the weirdest animals to ever walk the earth, pretty much without people even realizing that.

And with that, I got skeptical. I searched through online, and apparently many other people seem to have the same opinion on the matter, that the scales, might not even be scales in the first place. My issue is that yes, it probably did evolve scales, but think about how likely that is. Evolution doesn't play Rule of Cool, well, sometimes, but why would an animal like that evolve full on scales instead of, I don't know, Hardened Skin, or just keep its feathers?

that's where it gets too confusing. it just weird to see that such an animal would evolve such an advanced thing. It's that everyone thinks these are the norm: but they aren't. This can go two ways.

1. T rex and company evolved highly derived scales meant for defense purposes

2. It's not even scales at all, but maybe just hard skin.

Welp, you read the second piece, and your probably going to write a reply telling me that i'm wrong, but there's some evidence for this claim. If you look at the scales on T rex, it seems they somewhat resemble the skin of Rhinos. and the supposed scales on T rex look somewhat diffirent to typical hadrosaur or sauropod scales.

Posted Image
Posted Image

and here's some rhino skin:

Posted Image



So it's unknown wether these scales are true or not. both sides seem to have their evidences, but scales do not always mean an absense of feathers. hell, they might've had a fluffy coat over the feathers.


As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tartarus
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Mao
Oct 30 2017, 07:44 AM
Honestly, It really doesn't make sense for T Rex to grow scales.
Why wouldn't a scaly T-rex make sense? We already know from fossil evidence that many dinosaurs had scales. You yourself seem to acknowledge scales on hadrosaurs and sauropods, and scales have also been found on things like ceratopsians and theropods (the group T-rex resides in). So scaly dinosaurs are hardly out of the ordinary.

As for the comparison photos, I don't really find the rhino skin all that similar in appearance to the T-rex skin to be honest.

Finally, while you are right that scales need not mean an absence of feathers this was not really what was being claimed. Of course a scaly T-rex could still have some feathers on it, its just that with scales on so many parts of the body this means that feathering can not have been too extensive (as feathers and scales cannot occupy the same spots).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peashyjah
Member Avatar
Bydo
 *  *  *  *  *  *
For a long time, most dinosaurs are always seen with scaly skin but that was before something like this showed up.
It doesn't make any sense at all for dinosaurs to have completely naked skin.
Discontinued projects:
The New Ostracoderms (i might continue with this project again someday)
The Americas (where in 58 million years from now in the future North and South America has both become isolated island continents)



All Expansions (my attempt at expanding the universe of All Tomorrows by Nemo Ramjet aka C.M. Kosemen, started June 6, 2018)
Anthropozoic (my attempt at expanding the universe of Man After Man and also a re-imagining of it, coming 2019 or 2020)
New Cenozoica (my attempt at expanding the universe of The New Dinosaurs and also a re-imagining of it, also coming 2019 or 2020)
All Alternatives or All Changes (a re-telling of All Tomorrows but with some minor and major "changes", coming June 10, 2018)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
Tartarus
Oct 30 2017, 06:02 PM
Mao
Oct 30 2017, 07:44 AM
Honestly, It really doesn't make sense for T Rex to grow scales.
Why wouldn't a scaly T-rex make sense? We already know from fossil evidence that many dinosaurs had scales. You yourself seem to acknowledge scales on hadrosaurs and sauropods, and scales have also been found on things like ceratopsians and theropods (the group T-rex resides in). So scaly dinosaurs are hardly out of the ordinary.

As for the comparison photos, I don't really find the rhino skin all that similar in appearance to the T-rex skin to be honest.

Finally, while you are right that scales need not mean an absence of feathers this was not really what was being claimed. Of course a scaly T-rex could still have some feathers on it, its just that with scales on so many parts of the body this means that feathering can not have been too extensive (as feathers and scales cannot occupy the same spots).
Yes they can. Have you seen a barn owl's feet? or Psittacosaurus' bristles?
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
Tartarus
Oct 30 2017, 06:02 PM
Mao
Oct 30 2017, 07:44 AM
Honestly, It really doesn't make sense for T Rex to grow scales.
Why wouldn't a scaly T-rex make sense? We already know from fossil evidence that many dinosaurs had scales. You yourself seem to acknowledge scales on hadrosaurs and sauropods, and scales have also been found on things like ceratopsians and theropods (the group T-rex resides in). So scaly dinosaurs are hardly out of the ordinary.

As for the comparison photos, I don't really find the rhino skin all that similar in appearance to the T-rex skin to be honest.

Finally, while you are right that scales need not mean an absence of feathers this was not really what was being claimed. Of course a scaly T-rex could still have some feathers on it, its just that with scales on so many parts of the body this means that feathering can not have been too extensive (as feathers and scales cannot occupy the same spots).
It's because scales are an oddity (ish) in dinosaurs. it makes sense for an herbivore that needs scales to defend itself, but a carnivore? Hell, we should have scaly Phorusrachids if nature really did work by that logic.

Why would an animal like T rex lose its feathers, vital thermoregulatory organs, for some armor? it really does make T rex more strange. I should also point out that scaly dinosaurs could've had feathers. since feathers can grow in between scales, from what psittacosaurus shows us, it might be more, not accurate, but it is about as plausible as a scaly one for now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Stegoceras_validum.jpg
https://plastospleen.deviantart.com/art/Eastern-Dawn-Trachodon-602765726
https://plastospleen.deviantart.com/art/Agathaumas-sylvestris-606131253
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GlarnBoudin
Member Avatar
Disgusting Skin Fetishist
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Mao
Oct 31 2017, 05:27 AM
Why would an animal like T rex lose its feathers, vital thermoregulatory organs, for some armor? it really does make T rex more strange. I should also point out that scaly dinosaurs could've had feathers. since feathers can grow in between scales, from what psittacosaurus shows us, it might be more, not accurate, but it is about as plausible as a scaly one for now.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because it was an animal that weighed more than an elephant that lived in a hot, humid environment?

Feathers aren't a magic wand to fix all thermoregulatory issues - they can only do so much. At a certain point, animals just get too big for integument to still be useful. Also, abelisaurs and carnosaurs beg to disagree with the 'no carnivorous dinosaur had scales' argument.


Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't feathernazis rail and scream at the idea of scales and feathers together? I might be wrong, though - it's been a while since those arguments started.
Quotes
Spoiler: click to toggle


Co-creator/corporate minion for the Pop Culture Monster Apocalypse!

My Projects
Spoiler: click to toggle

Coming Soon
Spoiler: click to toggle


My dA page.
My Fanfiction.net page.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
GlarnSkeleDin
Oct 31 2017, 08:58 AM
Mao
Oct 31 2017, 05:27 AM
Why would an animal like T rex lose its feathers, vital thermoregulatory organs, for some armor? it really does make T rex more strange. I should also point out that scaly dinosaurs could've had feathers. since feathers can grow in between scales, from what psittacosaurus shows us, it might be more, not accurate, but it is about as plausible as a scaly one for now.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because it was an animal that weighed more than an elephant that lived in a hot, humid environment?

Feathers aren't a magic wand to fix all thermoregulatory issues - they can only do so much. At a certain point, animals just get too big for integument to still be useful. Also, abelisaurs and carnosaurs beg to disagree with the 'no carnivorous dinosaur had scales' argument.


Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't feathernazis rail and scream at the idea of scales and feathers together? I might be wrong, though - it's been a while since those arguments started.
that doesen't answer my question. it's why it evolved scales instead of skin, and bald skin would've been easier to evolve.

and also, mammals are a very bad comparision. Yutyrannus lived in a similar environment, but yet had feathers, but it was smaller than t rex. and "hot and humid" is not a good comparision while talking about a climate of 11-12 degrees celcius
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dragonthunders
Member Avatar
The ethereal archosaur in blue

Quote:
 
Yes they can. Have you seen a barn owl's feet? or Psittacosaurus' bristles?

You're comparing a Tyrannosaur which is a large theropod of the size of an elephant with a Barn owl which are pretty much small.
Psittacosaurus just have that, and nothing more, the rest of its skin is covered by scales at most.

Quote:
 
It's because scales are an oddity (ish) in dinosaurs.

I want a source for that claim.

Quote:
 
it makes sense for an herbivore that needs scales to defend itself, but a carnivore? Hell, we should have scaly Phorusrachids if nature really did work by that logic.

Tell that to crocodiles too.
We are also talking about a type of bird that did not grow beyond the limits that birds have reached, which in comparison to their extinct non-avian theropod cousins is quite small, is really a bad equivalency, in the case of large theropod there plays many probable issues that would make them lost their feathers.
IDK either what do you mean with defense, like defense in the sense of protect the skin of any minor damage or something like protect from big or dangerous threats like an predator, because for the first is a more common use.

Quote:
 
Why would an animal like T rex lose its feathers, vital thermoregulatory organs, for some armor?

I must say that feathers aren't totally vital if the animal if is endoterm as the metabolism can deal with regulate an mantain their own temperature, for other thing, I think that the same thing has already been said and the same argument has been repeated over and over again, which is the most plausible, climate and size played an important role in the loss of the "feathers" since being able to regulate its temperature, being huge animal of 7 tons and live in a predominantly warm environment there are enough pressures to simplify the integument of filaments to flat scales.

Quote:
 
That doesen't answer my question. it's why it evolved scales instead of skin, and bald skin would've been easier to evolve.

I really do not see how it is easier, even though, I don't see any disadvantage in the change of the complex tegument like feathers convert into flat scales, has happened in many clades for reasons of environment, temperature or niche, is the expression or the response of the flexible tegument of the archosaurs to such pressures.
Projects

"Active" projects

The Future is Far
Welcome to the next chapters of the evolution of life on earth, travel the across the earth on a journey that goes beyond the limits, a billion years of future history in the making.

The SE giants project
Wonder what is the big of the big on speculative evolution? no problem, here is the answer

Coming one day
Age of Mankind
Humanity fate and its possible finals.

The Long Cosmic Journey
The history outside our world.

The alternative paths
The multiverse, the final frontier...

Holocene park: Welcome to the biggest adventure of the last 215 million years, where the age of mammals comes to life again!
Cambrian mars: An interesting experiment on an unprecedented scale, the life of a particular and important period in the history of our planet, the cambric life, has been transported to a terraformed and habitable mars in an alternative past.
Two different paths, two different worlds, but same life and same weirdness.




My deviantart


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
Dragonthunders
Oct 31 2017, 10:51 AM
I want a source for that claim.

because tell me how many feathered animals today you know with extensive feather coverage beyond the feet and legs.

Also, why not tell sheather or any person who makes gigantic birds to completely cover them in scales because that's plausible.
Edited by Mao, Oct 31 2017, 11:03 AM.
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dragonthunders
Member Avatar
The ethereal archosaur in blue

Quote:
 
because tell me how many feathered animals today you know with extensive feather coverage beyond the feet and legs.

I guess is because they are a very specialized branch, as well they are fine as they are, they have not had any pressure that oblige them to lose their plumage, that applies with why they dont redevelop teeth and tail as well.

Also what you're implying with it, that birds are the only dinosaurs?
They are the only surviving clade alive today of course, but they are just a frame of the great diversity they had.

Quote:
 
Also, why not tell sheather or any person who makes gigantic birds to completely cover them in scales because that's plausible.

Sheather already did some scaled forms but not for giant forms, but I did some too
Spoiler: click to toggle


Projects

"Active" projects

The Future is Far
Welcome to the next chapters of the evolution of life on earth, travel the across the earth on a journey that goes beyond the limits, a billion years of future history in the making.

The SE giants project
Wonder what is the big of the big on speculative evolution? no problem, here is the answer

Coming one day
Age of Mankind
Humanity fate and its possible finals.

The Long Cosmic Journey
The history outside our world.

The alternative paths
The multiverse, the final frontier...

Holocene park: Welcome to the biggest adventure of the last 215 million years, where the age of mammals comes to life again!
Cambrian mars: An interesting experiment on an unprecedented scale, the life of a particular and important period in the history of our planet, the cambric life, has been transported to a terraformed and habitable mars in an alternative past.
Two different paths, two different worlds, but same life and same weirdness.




My deviantart


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
well. at the end of the day. i'll still keep my beliefs, and you can keep yours. there's no point in this argument.
Edited by Mao, Oct 31 2017, 11:27 AM.
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nyarlathotep
Member Avatar
The Creeping Chaos
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I was going to say crocodiles, Abelisaurids, "carnosaurs", monitor lizards etc all contradict that idea but I've been ninja'd.

There's also the issue of cladistics, with phorosrachids being close to living birds with similar feathers-you can't say the same for non-avian theropods.

And I'm pretty sure it's universally agreed that Yutyrannus lived in a cooler, drier environment than T.rex did, even ignoring the size and cladistical discrepancy. Scales are armour in and of themselves-better than bare skin. These were mosaic scales as well, not like those of modern squamates. It's even more so for dinosaurs with osteoderms, such as Abelisaurs and many titanosaurs (even giant ones like Argentinosaurus and Alamosaurus), on top of the scales.

Because complex feathers are definitely basal to modern birds, and many extinct ones too. Feathers in non-avian dinosaurs are a more mixed bag, as generally speaking, the more divergent from birds, the more 'primitive' the feathers are, up to basal coelurosaurs like Scuriamimus, Yutyrannus and Ornitholestes (also I currently think that Megaraptorans had basal integument if they are basal coelurosaurs). It's not impossible for integument in more basal theropods, but it's impossible to say for certain right now as there's no evidence for it compared to scales. And the whole size issue is still a problem if you want to feather up the big theropods as opposed to little ones (polar ones though are certainly a probability I imagine).

I don't think you get the argument here. Tyrannosaur feathers are much more basic in design and probably functions than those of modern birds, so they're not exactly the best comparison to use. We've already stated that the argument is not that feathers completely run out at one point but are gradually phased out with increased size due to thermoregulation issues-thus most of us reckon that Rex would only have limited feathers either in sparse concentration it in mane patches, since they're not as efficient as modern bird feathers. Also, Sheather and others projects typically were made before these papers came out and were not as concerned about palaeontology as about storytelling.

Also, may I ask Glarn to stop referring to excessive feather supporters (by that I mean people who go for full feathers as default even with contrary evidence) as 'feathernazis"? It's very disrespectful both to the individual and invoking Godwin's Law, which typically is a sign of an argument which...isn't very strong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
Nyarlathotep
Oct 31 2017, 11:34 AM
I was going to say crocodiles, Abelisaurids, "carnosaurs", monitor lizards etc all contradict that idea but I've been ninja'd.

There's also the issue of cladistics, with phorosrachids being close to living birds with similar feathers-you can't say the same for non-avian theropods.

And I'm pretty sure it's universally agreed that Yutyrannus lived in a cooler, drier environment than T.rex did, even ignoring the size and cladistical discrepancy. Scales are armour in and of themselves-better than bare skin. These were mosaic scales as well, not like those of modern squamates. It's even more so for dinosaurs with osteoderms, such as Abelisaurs and many titanosaurs (even giant ones like Argentinosaurus and Alamosaurus), on top of the scales.

Because complex feathers are definitely basal to modern birds, and many extinct ones too. Feathers in non-avian dinosaurs are a more mixed bag, as generally speaking, the more divergent from birds, the more 'primitive' the feathers are, up to basal coelurosaurs like Scuriamimus, Yutyrannus and Ornitholestes (also I currently think that Megaraptorans had basal integument if they are basal coelurosaurs). It's not impossible for integument in more basal theropods, but it's impossible to say for certain right now as there's no evidence for it compared to scales. And the whole size issue is still a problem if you want to feather up the big theropods as opposed to little ones (polar ones though are certainly a probability I imagine).

I don't think you get the argument here. Tyrannosaur feathers are much more basic in design and probably functions than those of modern birds, so they're not exactly the best comparison to use. We've already stated that the argument is not that feathers completely run out at one point but are gradually phased out with increased size due to thermoregulation issues-thus most of us reckon that Rex would only have limited feathers either in sparse concentration it in mane patches, since they're not as efficient as modern bird feathers. Also, Sheather and others projects typically were made before these papers came out and were not as concerned about palaeontology as about storytelling.

Also, may I ask Glarn to stop referring to excessive feather supporters (by that I mean people who go for full feathers as default even with contrary evidence) as 'feathernazis"? It's very disrespectful both to the individual and invoking Godwin's Law, which typically is a sign of an argument which...isn't very strong.
I find that people are somewhat leaning towards a dinosaur that does prove that non coelosaurians had feathers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulindadromeus

yeah, this thing, with advanced feathers (which it probably evolved independantly) and has scaly areas. this proves that pretty much most dinosaurs could've had feathers or fillaments. and even pterosaurs, like an undescribed tapejarid, seem to show branching filaments, along with sordes and aurognathus, which have normal looking pycnofibres.

this means it's probable that all ornithodirans were fluffy.


Link to tapejarid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFKlXviCEBo
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
Nyarlathotep
Oct 31 2017, 11:34 AM
I was going to say crocodiles, Abelisaurids, "carnosaurs", monitor lizards etc all contradict that idea but I've been ninja'd.

There's also the issue of cladistics, with phorosrachids being close to living birds with similar feathers-you can't say the same for non-avian theropods.

And I'm pretty sure it's universally agreed that Yutyrannus lived in a cooler, drier environment than T.rex did, even ignoring the size and cladistical discrepancy. Scales are armour in and of themselves-better than bare skin. These were mosaic scales as well, not like those of modern squamates. It's even more so for dinosaurs with osteoderms, such as Abelisaurs and many titanosaurs (even giant ones like Argentinosaurus and Alamosaurus), on top of the scales.

Because complex feathers are definitely basal to modern birds, and many extinct ones too. Feathers in non-avian dinosaurs are a more mixed bag, as generally speaking, the more divergent from birds, the more 'primitive' the feathers are, up to basal coelurosaurs like Scuriamimus, Yutyrannus and Ornitholestes (also I currently think that Megaraptorans had basal integument if they are basal coelurosaurs). It's not impossible for integument in more basal theropods, but it's impossible to say for certain right now as there's no evidence for it compared to scales. And the whole size issue is still a problem if you want to feather up the big theropods as opposed to little ones (polar ones though are certainly a probability I imagine).

I don't think you get the argument here. Tyrannosaur feathers are much more basic in design and probably functions than those of modern birds, so they're not exactly the best comparison to use. We've already stated that the argument is not that feathers completely run out at one point but are gradually phased out with increased size due to thermoregulation issues-thus most of us reckon that Rex would only have limited feathers either in sparse concentration it in mane patches, since they're not as efficient as modern bird feathers. Also, Sheather and others projects typically were made before these papers came out and were not as concerned about palaeontology as about storytelling.

Also, may I ask Glarn to stop referring to excessive feather supporters (by that I mean people who go for full feathers as default even with contrary evidence) as 'feathernazis"? It's very disrespectful both to the individual and invoking Godwin's Law, which typically is a sign of an argument which...isn't very strong.
also, i'm a "feathernazi" because I at default add feathers if there isn't any evidence? Of course, i'm not going to turn Carnotaurus into some giant fuzzball. i'll still use scales, and I still believe that t rex could've had scales, contrary to this post.

" is that yes, it probably did evolve scales" I also said that in the post. referring to the fact that T rex in my opinion did or did not have scales. research subsequent to this post showed me that these are true scales. I do believe that most dinosaurs had feathers, but i also adhere to the scientific evidence. I believe maybe abelisaurids had very few feathers, as in, probably being very thin, like what people have speculated with T rex. Problem is, is that T rex lived in a place as cold as Minneapolis, so of course, it's gonna keep some feathers maybe.




As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

Well, Kulinadadromeus doesn't really "prove" fluff was ancestral to Dinosauria, and the tapejarid would likely be independently derived complexity either way, but I do agree with Mao on fuzz likely being ancestral for Ornithodira. That said, like I said, the important thing in these integumentary discussions it to remember to never be to certain of things - particularly when early dinosaur phylogeny is a big mess at the moment.

DT
 
You're comparing a Tyrannosaur which is a large theropod of the size of an elephant with a Barn owl which are pretty much small.

I fail to see what exactly this has to do with the physiological capability of feathers to grow alongside scales?

Quote:
 
And I'm pretty sure it's universally agreed that Yutyrannus lived in a cooler, drier environment than T.rex did, even ignoring the size and cladistical discrepancy.

Cooler yes, but the Jehol ecosystem was based largely around lakes, was it not?
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science Central · Next Topic »
Add Reply