Okay, so I was wrong on a few things - T. Rex was not 11,000 to 15,000 pounds(5.5-7.5 tons). He was actually around 14,000 pounds to 20,000(7-10 tons). - Feathers do not overheat animals. They actually can regulate temperatures. That’s it though, thank you for correcting in the comments.
Yup, I agree that we see a common thing where larger dinosaurs have less and less feathers, but I find it upsetting that because of this a lot of people have a misconception that feathers only heat animals up rather than also cooling them off. I'm sure they lost their feathers for a reason, but "It's too warm" definitely isn't it.
Also it should be kept in mind the difference between the Yixian formation and Hell Creek temperatures, since Yixian was much more seasonal, with well defined seasons through the year. So Yutyrannus having the amount of feathers it had makes sense, since it helps keep it's temperature regulate. While Tyrannosaurus lived in Hell Creek, a much more Tropical region, so having small fuzz on it's back shows how, in comparison to it's older relatives, feathers were getting less present, basically being something reminiscent of their younger stage. The video was really well made and it's good explained, I'm just stating this here since it wasn't that brought up in the comments. Keep doing a great job.
I wish someone could invent a device that lets us view any previously existing creature, in a sort of advanced video form that lets us see the animals natural behavior and soft tissue aspects we miss out on in the fossil record. It's crazy how much life that doesn't fossilize that we will never know about it... It's not fair. (P.S. you know how Lyrebirds have the ability to make amazing sound effects? What if some dinosaurs had the ability to make facinating sound effects? Since they are distantly related? Idk...)
Yes, I think about this obsessively. Ironically, I found that once the recreations get good enough (we're almost there but not quite), I feel happy to have seen something that approximates what they really looked like in a plain form, and it actually satisfies me even if it's not exact. There's a recreation of a T-Rex eating a Triceratops where the Triceratops looks quite dirty and like a real bit of roadkill, it made me feel content for awhile, haha.
Ah, I'm happy that this feathered t.rex trope thing is done and over with. Yeah I love feathered dinosaurs, but I really hate it whenever people have to think that if one dinosaur has feathers, then the other one has to have some as well. I'm also happy that the lip debate was over. The only thing left what people need to stop saying is that it evolved into a chicken because chickens and other avians evolved from smaller maniraptorans (such as troodontids).
Very well done video, phylogenetic bracketing does seem to indicate feathering on T-Rex , I think some people get confused, and think that it could not have both, even a modern chicken has scales on its feet.
Wrong. The 'scales' on the feet of birds are nothing of the sort. They're feathers kept in the earliest stages of growth, called reticula. Feathers and scales cannot co-exist on the same animal.
This assumes that feathers were only for keeping warm. But we know from birds that feathers are also used in courtship. In some species of birds, the plumage is so different between males and females that sometimes it took science a while to realize that they were the same species.
I make these observations. One thing that distinguishes many animals having feathers, ie birds, is that hey have the capability of grooming themselves. A giant T-Rex with a feathered head clotted in corpse blood might not have the same grooming capabilities as very bird-like raptors with more lithe and flexible physiologies. Another idea might be that the animal didn't have head feathers (but feathers in other areas) that would interfere with eating hadrosaur intestines, ie much like modern condors or vultures having bald heads to more efficiently attack innards and keep their heads free of gore.
@@Jurassicstudios This is an interesting topic:) Another idea has to do with facial decoration of land predators of all varieties. They keep it neat and trim on the front and don't wear untidy especially feathers on their face when eating field spare ribs. Polar bears, wolves, wild dogs, thylacines, foxes; all keep it trim and tidy. Even those sunbather crocodilians, close bird allies. Beaks more specifically on birds. Birds wear their cutlery on their face. Perhaps more specifically focusing on terror birds, T-Rex cousins and a likely occupant of formerly T-rex niche, terror birds had huge slicing and killing beaks up to three feet long were used instead of dirty teeth and spoiled feathers/jaws as the business end. Terror birds were a top land predator who likely occupied a similar niche to T-rex (and which was one of the most successful and long lived land clades ever (!) (Circa 60 million years BP to 2 million BP!! We should all sport beaks and do what they did!) These birds did not have feathers on those beaks - probably. Reproductions of the appearance of raptors show bare faces; very very close allies of T-rex. So I would expect - until when it is proven likely:) - that T-rex didn' t have feathers on his face. Perhaps on his back or tail; areas that didn't interfere with his messy feeding.
Modern ratites all live in tropical climates, and all are heavily feathered. Even so, ostriches do have large areas of bare skin around the lower part of the body. In addition, feathers are INSULATORS which means they also protect against extreme heat, as ratites prove.
Ok... now that we know it had feathers, The next thing we should ask is... "What did it taste like, and the best method for preparing it for consumption would be?".
I enjoyed the video. I do have some observations on what was presented, of course. 1. The illustration showing the regions where scale impressions are present -- while being perhaps a bit less detailed and complete as some other charts I've seen -- is very helpful. It does indicate scale impressions from the top of the ilium. If we are to accept the presence of scales and the lack of feather impressions to be in any way definitive evidence of the character, this precludes the "fuzzy-back" model of filament/feather distribution. 2. The skin impressions only show where the Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers... well, yes, because anywhere that we've found impressions of Tyrannosaur integument, it's been scaly, sans feathers. Had we found feathered areas along the dorsal regions anywhere, we might be able to say that the scaly impressions are indicating a demarcation between scaly and feathered regions. However, we currently have no impressions indicating feathers anywhere. Back when the paleoart trend was to outright coat every theropod with a thick coat of feathers as a default condition, you had absolutely shaggy T. rex illustrations. As scale impressions kept turning up without evidence of feathers, the regions which artists chose to depict feathers kept shrinking, and the lack of feather impressions forced most artists to concede that if there was any such integument, it would have been minimal, sparse as well. I can almost imagine in the future that some artists, still clinging to the more heavily feathered model, are forced to depict tyrannosaurids with three or four patches of fuzz on random parts of the body where we just haven't yet found empirical evidence of scales. How long will they out for feathers because it's just the trendy, "edgy" thing to do? 3. The argument could be made that small filaments such as those seen on the PP rex would likely be very rarely preserved at all, given the type of deposits that the fossils are typically found in. This may be true. Two things I think may be worth noting here: feather impressions CAN and have been found for ornithomimids in sandstone, which is supposedly not conducive to preserving such impressions, so it's not impossible for feather impressions to be preserved in such rocks, if they really were there. The second thing is that while it's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it confirm that which is speculation flying in the face of what evidence we do have. I'll be more than happy to eat my words and start adding appropriate filaments, feathers, whatever... if evidence warrants it. But so far, feathers are striking out at the plate.
The way i see it. It may have feathers as a juvenile, and it most likely shed them off as it grew older. If you look at seals, they had fur as juveniles but later shed them off as an adult. I know that a seal is completely different animal to a trex, but it can apply.
Barely perceivable fuzz on the back of your neck isn't what anyone means or thinks about when they say T-Rex had feathers though. That's in the category of not having them.
It's still possible, the T-Rex skin fossil found with pebbly scales was very small and there is still a possibility that T-rex may have had feathers on other parts of its body.
the yixian formation wasn't cold, was temperate to subtropical. So yutyrannus feathers where not an adaptation of a cold climate. t rex couldn't overheat, the feathers are to isolate the temperature, both cold and warm. Also, the scales are easy to preserve, unlike the feathers which are not. so basing our perception of t rex feathers on scale impressions is possibly not accurate. Now, the babys. Feathers in babies are more accepted, since juveniles usually present basal traits, feathers being one of them, but without a feathered adult there is no baby with feathers. The presence of feathers in a young or juvenile should be in the same position as in adults but in greater quantity, this is due to the position of the feathers. It never changes, it only changes the size of the feathers, for example when you wear a vest that you had as a child, its shape will not change, only its size, the same thing happens with the feathers.
The Yixian formation was cool to temperate, with four seasons. Some of which got snow, something that really only happens around 40-ish degrees. You actually might be right on overheating. I’ll look into it a bit more, but at the most moment it seems like in up in the air for large animals. As for the coat of feathers, could you explain it a bit more or send be a source that would back this claim. Is this like, common knowledge? I’ve don’t think I have ever heard that before.
@@mamiquieremequetrefe The part where you state that the feathers should be in the same position because it never changes, it only changes the size of the feathers. You describe it as a vest that you outgrew. I might just be stupid, but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@Jurassicstudios When a baby grows, the feathers do not disappear, they only remain small in relation to the body, I say this because there are many representations of furry baby trexes that when they grow up are completely naked, or with small feathers on their heads, like in the prehistoric planet, which which would be wrong Like I said, it's like a vest that outgrows the dinosaur as it grows. sorry if you don't understand, English is not my language and it is difficult for me to write large texts that are legible.
The case for fathers can be expanded if the feathers were used for display. A practice not unheard of in modern birds. What usefulness is there in a peacocks feathers? They slow flight but enhance mating potential.
I would not argue that ostriches are as heavily feathered as snowy owls. They have large areas on their bodies left bare or with very minimal feathering, such as the legs and neck. A snowy owl has feathers covering nearly its entire body.
Feathers on large dinosaurs are unnecessary. 1. They would overheat of the feathers, resulting that large dinosaurs may not have feathers. 2. Not a lot large dinosaurs have been found with feathers, Spinosaurus, giganotosaurus, Oxalaia, baryonyx, Acrocanthosaurus etc so why should trex have it? 3. Feathered babies can be necessary, since their little and won’t overheat so easily. But adults having feathers is unnecessary as they will overheat of their size and weight, though feathers on the arms or bits of the tail can be possible.
1. Yes, this true. 2. The other large animals you listed aren’t even coelurosaurian dinosaurs. They do not in any way help form a conclusion to if T.Rex had feathers. 3. Yeah. That about right.
Isn’t Oxalaila a dubious species?We barely have fossils from spinosaurus and giganotosaurus let alone skin impressions which are a rare discovery.There always is the possibility of a peach like fuzz at most feathers on the back
I just love your vedio. I am completely agreed with you. But my suggestion to you and all those fossile hunters to concentrate more on fossils found and probably the outer surface of the body skin. May be one day they will be able to find out the straces of the feather on the Tyrant Lizard King.
The proto terror birds before there were terror birds and tyrannosaurids were flightless for good reason. An apex predator doesn’t need to fly if the costs of flying can be avoided. Feathers existed well before theropod dinosaurs took to the air snd became birds.
Tea Rex would definitely not have feathers only because the environment was very hot back then since it was like Florida, so tyrannosaurus would not have feathers at all, or it would have a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny amount of them it’s like saying they could a woolly mammoth survive in the desert or whatever no it can’t
I'm thinking they did up until teen years. While most birds age fast, I don't think these animals grew that fast. Hence their feather coverings would probably gradually disappear. As with most animals today they go through changes. And since these big animals age slower than modern birds I do not think they would be gone in a few months.
@@dgray3771 I think they grew fast initially for 1 year or 1.5 but slowed down after so I think as they are young and growing they have feathers but as they grow the feathers fall off or something and also I think the thing that big animals grow slow I think mostly applies to large mammals but animals like crocodiles and large lizards star super small a den grow very fast for a little then slow down so I think dinosaurs are more similar to them
@@AbdullahArguer I actually believe they lived longer in younger stages. Actually, I believe so since we see fossils of juvenile dinos often. Suggesting that they might actually live longer in different stadia. But there is no telling for certain.
Why would they? "fuzz" is an evolutionary trait that is probably 1 of the more easiest to adapt for any species. Look at Penguins and flying birds they changed their "fuzz" but also humans compared to other primates. We have lost our "fuzz" in only a few thousand years. Though some men in particular still retain a lot. most humans only have hair in a few places. So I suspect since Trex didn't need it it lost most of the feathers. Probably having some left on the head/back and perhaps tail. That would be about it. It is also more efficient if it does not burn too much energy in keeping a big pack of feathers it didn't need.
The answer is a resounding no. The confirmation came in 2017 when Phil Bell and an international team of paleontologists showed conclusively that all tyrannosaurs, including T. rex, had scaly skin with no hint of feathers whatsoever.
I brought that up in my video (sort of). Just because we haven’t found feathers yet doesn’t mean they lacked them entirely. And besides, adult T. Rex probably had minimal feathers. Finding impressions would be difficult I’d assume. It’s not a resounding no.
@@Jurassicstudios You cant defend your position = whereas you can defend teh position that T-REX didnt have feathers We cant change the rules how we work out the likely hood something is associated with something else = because you want feathers on a dinosaur. = because if we did that any incomplete dinosur/animal we have = could be anything we wanted it to be = and not what it was. Evidence for feathers = We want them Evidence against feathers = Every - t-rex fossil = big and small no evidence been found = on the skin on as an impression ^^^^^ Just that points everything to no feathers (Because the FACTS point to it,and we can only use the FACTS)
@@frankbevan413 Okay, but due to T. Rex’s relatives and ancestors having/probably feathers and it literally in the clade of coelurosauria, we can determine that T. Rex had at least least some feathers during its life. That is evidence. And it may just be me, but I think that’s better proof than: we found very small scale impressions were the feathers theoretically wouldn’t even be. Unless we find more scale impressions all around the body, like with Carnotaurus, we can not fully determine a conclusion. Likewise, without the direct evidence for feathers, we can not FULLY conclude that it had feathers. However, looking at the evidence, it having feathers seem more likely, at least at the moment. And I am not changing the rules on how we work out the likely hood something is associated with something else, or what not. I used scientific and reasonable methods to get a conclusion. Also, do you think the Utahraptor, Graciliraptor and Therozinosaurus had feathers? Random question, but I would like to know what your answer is.
@@Jurassicstudios Your doing it again = Emotion over Reason = then passive aggressive -- Did a 180 -- then asked me what i think ? It whats we know = and EVERYTHING points to no feathers on the Rex. Its not random people making up the FACTS = they are the people that said other dinos have Feathers,Feathers and scales/no feathers.
No, unfortunately. I misspelled it, and didn't notice until publishing it. lol. I mentioned that in the description. I'll try not to have it happen again.
If you mean Yutyrannus, I would really like where you got that information, because I haven’t found a single article or video on this. Not even unreliable sources. If you don’t mean Yutyrannus, then I have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@V1ncenz010 To be honest, I pretty much just randomly picked a Feathered Rex picture from google that I though looked good. The T. Rex is way feathered in the full image. The thumbnail was just to catch a persons attention.
@@quinnnewman2618 🤓 well acktually they found lots of skin impressions, judging by their size they’d probably lose the feathers to regulate temperature, also that there are no quill knobs on t Rex’s arms 🤓
Okay, so I was wrong on a few things
- T. Rex was not 11,000 to 15,000 pounds(5.5-7.5 tons). He was actually around 14,000 pounds to 20,000(7-10 tons).
- Feathers do not overheat animals. They actually can regulate temperatures.
That’s it though, thank you for correcting in the comments.
¹
That is correct 9 to 10 tons is the correct specimen for Scotty and Sue was just 8 to perhaps Nine tons
Yup, I agree that we see a common thing where larger dinosaurs have less and less feathers, but I find it upsetting that because of this a lot of people have a misconception that feathers only heat animals up rather than also cooling them off. I'm sure they lost their feathers for a reason, but "It's too warm" definitely isn't it.
@@catpoke9557 But animals like sauropods and ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurus and the ankylosaurs did not had feathers at all
@@tyrannotherium7873 Indeed. Not all dinosaurs had feathers. Especially large ones. Small ones usually did, large ones usually had little or none.
Also it should be kept in mind the difference between the Yixian formation and Hell Creek temperatures, since Yixian was much more seasonal, with well defined seasons through the year. So Yutyrannus having the amount of feathers it had makes sense, since it helps keep it's temperature regulate. While Tyrannosaurus lived in Hell Creek, a much more Tropical region, so having small fuzz on it's back shows how, in comparison to it's older relatives, feathers were getting less present, basically being something reminiscent of their younger stage. The video was really well made and it's good explained, I'm just stating this here since it wasn't that brought up in the comments. Keep doing a great job.
I wish someone could invent a device that lets us view any previously existing creature, in a sort of advanced video form that lets us see the animals natural behavior and soft tissue aspects we miss out on in the fossil record. It's crazy how much life that doesn't fossilize that we will never know about it... It's not fair. (P.S. you know how Lyrebirds have the ability to make amazing sound effects? What if some dinosaurs had the ability to make facinating sound effects? Since they are distantly related? Idk...)
Yes, I think about this obsessively. Ironically, I found that once the recreations get good enough (we're almost there but not quite), I feel happy to have seen something that approximates what they really looked like in a plain form, and it actually satisfies me even if it's not exact. There's a recreation of a T-Rex eating a Triceratops where the Triceratops looks quite dirty and like a real bit of roadkill, it made me feel content for awhile, haha.
Why not just a device that can see any time in the past?
@@spirallingtoaster9565 because batteries and there would be no connection 66 million years ago
Rule Number 1 for T. rex: No lips, no feathers.
thanks for the video interesting to think about.
Ah, I'm happy that this feathered t.rex trope thing is done and over with. Yeah I love feathered dinosaurs, but I really hate it whenever people have to think that if one dinosaur has feathers, then the other one has to have some as well. I'm also happy that the lip debate was over. The only thing left what people need to stop saying is that it evolved into a chicken because chickens and other avians evolved from smaller maniraptorans (such as troodontids).
Very well done video, phylogenetic bracketing does seem to indicate feathering on T-Rex , I think some people get confused, and think that it could not have both, even a modern chicken has scales on its feet.
Wrong. The 'scales' on the feet of birds are nothing of the sort. They're feathers kept in the earliest stages of growth, called reticula. Feathers and scales cannot co-exist on the same animal.
This assumes that feathers were only for keeping warm. But we know from birds that feathers are also used in courtship. In some species of birds, the plumage is so different between males and females that sometimes it took science a while to realize that they were the same species.
I make these observations. One thing that distinguishes many animals having feathers, ie birds, is that hey have the capability of grooming themselves. A giant T-Rex with a feathered head clotted in corpse blood might not have the same grooming capabilities as very bird-like raptors with more lithe and flexible physiologies. Another idea might be that the animal didn't have head feathers (but feathers in other areas) that would interfere with eating hadrosaur intestines, ie much like modern condors or vultures having bald heads to more efficiently attack innards and keep their heads free of gore.
This would imply that T. Rex had a lot of feathers though.
@@Jurassicstudios Yes, perhaps! Why not?
@@Jurassicstudios This is an interesting topic:) Another idea has to do with facial decoration of land predators of all varieties. They keep it neat and trim on the front and don't wear untidy especially feathers on their face when eating field spare ribs. Polar bears, wolves, wild dogs, thylacines, foxes; all keep it trim and tidy. Even those sunbather crocodilians, close bird allies. Beaks more specifically on birds. Birds wear their cutlery on their face. Perhaps more specifically focusing on terror birds, T-Rex cousins and a likely occupant of formerly T-rex niche, terror birds had huge slicing and killing beaks up to three feet long were used instead of dirty teeth and spoiled feathers/jaws as the business end. Terror birds were a top land predator who likely occupied a similar niche to T-rex (and which was one of the most successful and long lived land clades ever (!) (Circa 60 million years BP to 2 million BP!! We should all sport beaks and do what they did!) These birds did not have feathers on those beaks - probably. Reproductions of the appearance of raptors show bare faces; very very close allies of T-rex. So I would expect - until when it is proven likely:) - that T-rex didn' t have feathers on his face. Perhaps on his back or tail; areas that didn't interfere with his messy feeding.
One more thing. Apparently T-rex chicks were covered in baby feathers which they then lost, like modern and probably ancient birds as well.
I don't think rex had feathers
Oh so I was sorta right 😎
Anyways Damn bro good job on the video I really enjoyed it 👌🏻
Thanks, and not going to lie, I may actually do your guess sometime soon-ish. I really like the idea!
Oh ok sounds good😎
Modern ratites all live in tropical climates, and all are heavily feathered. Even so, ostriches do have large areas of bare skin around the lower part of the body. In addition, feathers are INSULATORS which means they also protect against extreme heat, as ratites prove.
Yes, I was incorrect with saying that feathers overheat large animals. I have no idea why there is so much misinformation on the topic.
But then again t rex is huge so it's size would've already kept it warm
Ok... now that we know it had feathers, The next thing we should ask is... "What did it taste like, and the best method for preparing it for consumption would be?".
I enjoyed the video. I do have some observations on what was presented, of course.
1. The illustration showing the regions where scale impressions are present -- while being perhaps a bit less detailed and complete as some other charts I've seen -- is very helpful. It does indicate scale impressions from the top of the ilium. If we are to accept the presence of scales and the lack of feather impressions to be in any way definitive evidence of the character, this precludes the "fuzzy-back" model of filament/feather distribution.
2. The skin impressions only show where the Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers... well, yes, because anywhere that we've found impressions of Tyrannosaur integument, it's been scaly, sans feathers. Had we found feathered areas along the dorsal regions anywhere, we might be able to say that the scaly impressions are indicating a demarcation between scaly and feathered regions. However, we currently have no impressions indicating feathers anywhere. Back when the paleoart trend was to outright coat every theropod with a thick coat of feathers as a default condition, you had absolutely shaggy T. rex illustrations. As scale impressions kept turning up without evidence of feathers, the regions which artists chose to depict feathers kept shrinking, and the lack of feather impressions forced most artists to concede that if there was any such integument, it would have been minimal, sparse as well. I can almost imagine in the future that some artists, still clinging to the more heavily feathered model, are forced to depict tyrannosaurids with three or four patches of fuzz on random parts of the body where we just haven't yet found empirical evidence of scales. How long will they out for feathers because it's just the trendy, "edgy" thing to do?
3. The argument could be made that small filaments such as those seen on the PP rex would likely be very rarely preserved at all, given the type of deposits that the fossils are typically found in. This may be true. Two things I think may be worth noting here: feather impressions CAN and have been found for ornithomimids in sandstone, which is supposedly not conducive to preserving such impressions, so it's not impossible for feather impressions to be preserved in such rocks, if they really were there. The second thing is that while it's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it confirm that which is speculation flying in the face of what evidence we do have. I'll be more than happy to eat my words and start adding appropriate filaments, feathers, whatever... if evidence warrants it. But so far, feathers are striking out at the plate.
Feathers would have been minimal and sparse on adults, feathers probably wouldn’t preserve as well. Feathers are still likely and possible.
The way i see it. It may have feathers as a juvenile, and it most likely shed them off as it grew older.
If you look at seals, they had fur as juveniles but later shed them off as an adult. I know that a seal is completely different animal to a trex, but it can apply.
Barely perceivable fuzz on the back of your neck isn't what anyone means or thinks about when they say T-Rex had feathers though. That's in the category of not having them.
I suppose so, but it still technically counts as having feathers.
@@Jurassicstudios I would say that the small fuzz that they may have had could be called quills instead of feathers.
Y'all are gonna bowl over when it's found that T Rex had a full blown mohawk
Rumor going around they may of had dreadlocks
It's still possible, the T-Rex skin fossil found with pebbly scales was very small and there is still a possibility that T-rex may have had feathers on other parts of its body.
the yixian formation wasn't cold, was temperate to subtropical. So yutyrannus feathers where not an adaptation of a cold climate.
t rex couldn't overheat, the feathers are to isolate the temperature, both cold and warm.
Also, the scales are easy to preserve, unlike the feathers which are not.
so basing our perception of t rex feathers on scale impressions is possibly not accurate.
Now, the babys. Feathers in babies are more accepted, since juveniles usually present basal traits, feathers being one of them, but without a feathered adult there is no baby with feathers. The presence of feathers in a young or juvenile should be in the same position as in adults but in greater quantity, this is due to the position of the feathers. It never changes, it only changes the size of the feathers, for example when you wear a vest that you had as a child, its shape will not change, only its size, the same thing happens with the feathers.
The Yixian formation was cool to temperate, with four seasons. Some of which got snow, something that really only happens around 40-ish degrees.
You actually might be right on overheating. I’ll look into it a bit more, but at the most moment it seems like in up in the air for large animals.
As for the coat of feathers, could you explain it a bit more or send be a source that would back this claim. Is this like, common knowledge? I’ve don’t think I have ever heard that before.
@@Jurassicstudios What do you mean by the coat of feathers thing?
@@mamiquieremequetrefe The part where you state that the feathers should be in the same position because it never changes, it only changes the size of the feathers. You describe it as a vest that you outgrew. I might just be stupid, but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@Jurassicstudios When a baby grows, the feathers do not disappear, they only remain small in relation to the body, I say this because there are many representations of furry baby trexes that when they grow up are completely naked, or with small feathers on their heads, like in the prehistoric planet, which which would be wrong
Like I said, it's like a vest that outgrows the dinosaur as it grows.
sorry if you don't understand,
English is not my language and it is difficult for me to write large texts that are legible.
@@mamiquieremequetrefe I’m not sure how correct that is. I have never heard anyone bring that up. And losing feathers as one grows is plausible.
The case for fathers can be expanded if the feathers were used for display. A practice not unheard of in modern birds. What usefulness is there in a peacocks feathers? They slow flight but enhance mating potential.
Ostriches live in desert environments, but they are as heavily feathered as snow owls. Just thought I'd share.
Yeah, I was wrong. Feathers don’t overheat animals.
😁
I would not argue that ostriches are as heavily feathered as snowy owls. They have large areas on their bodies left bare or with very minimal feathering, such as the legs and neck. A snowy owl has feathers covering nearly its entire body.
Feathers on large dinosaurs are unnecessary.
1. They would overheat of the feathers, resulting that large dinosaurs may not have feathers.
2. Not a lot large dinosaurs have been found with feathers, Spinosaurus, giganotosaurus, Oxalaia, baryonyx, Acrocanthosaurus etc so why should trex have it?
3. Feathered babies can be necessary, since their little and won’t overheat so easily. But adults having feathers is unnecessary as they will overheat of their size and weight, though feathers on the arms or bits of the tail can be possible.
1. Yes, this true.
2. The other large animals you listed aren’t even coelurosaurian dinosaurs. They do not in any way help form a conclusion to if T.Rex had feathers.
3. Yeah. That about right.
The feathers are to insulate the animal from the temperature, both cold and warm, not to heat the animal, so it is impossible for it to overheat.
@@mamiquieremequetrefe Hmm, I guess I stand corrected.
Isn’t Oxalaila a dubious species?We barely have fossils from spinosaurus and giganotosaurus let alone skin impressions which are a rare discovery.There always is the possibility of a peach like fuzz at most feathers on the back
Dinosaurs are the best, they are legendary
Very informative
Great job!
Parts of birds have scales too.
T-Rex had wings !
So basically T-Rex basically had the same amount of feathers as an Elephant’s hair?
Yeah, basically.
@@Jurassicstudios i’ll keep that in mind
I just love your vedio. I am completely agreed with you. But my suggestion to you and all those fossile hunters to concentrate more on fossils found and probably the outer surface of the body skin. May be one day they will be able to find out the straces of the feather on the Tyrant Lizard King.
The proto terror birds before there were terror birds and tyrannosaurids were flightless for good reason. An apex predator doesn’t need to fly if the costs of flying can be avoided. Feathers existed well before theropod dinosaurs took to the air snd became birds.
Tea Rex would definitely not have feathers only because the environment was very hot back then since it was like Florida, so tyrannosaurus would not have feathers at all, or it would have a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny amount of them it’s like saying they could a woolly mammoth survive in the desert or whatever no it can’t
That’s essentially what I said. T. Rex would have likely had small “elephantine-like” feathers likely around the top of the neck or back.
I highly doubt it had feathers after a few months or a year of life
I'm thinking they did up until teen years. While most birds age fast, I don't think these animals grew that fast. Hence their feather coverings would probably gradually disappear. As with most animals today they go through changes. And since these big animals age slower than modern birds I do not think they would be gone in a few months.
@@dgray3771 I think they grew fast initially for 1 year or 1.5 but slowed down after so I think as they are young and growing they have feathers but as they grow the feathers fall off or something and also I think the thing that big animals grow slow I think mostly applies to large mammals but animals like crocodiles and large lizards star super small a den grow very fast for a little then slow down so I think dinosaurs are more similar to them
@@AbdullahArguer I actually believe they lived longer in younger stages. Actually, I believe so since we see fossils of juvenile dinos often. Suggesting that they might actually live longer in different stadia. But there is no telling for certain.
Maybe, maybe not. Pretty simple.
Basically, but I’m siding with feathers because it makes the most sense.
@@Jurassicstudios I side with feathers because I think it looks cooler
baby t rex had a lot feathers and as they grew they lost them and when adult only a few arm hair like feathers stayed (most likely)
@@mr.hazamayukiterumi thats most likely what happened and is just a theory
t rex is not a elephant
Never said it was. It was an example to get the idea of how the feathers would have kind have looked on a Tyrannosaurus rex.
I thought it was pretty known that t-rex had slight fuzz on their backs or even their whole body.
Why would they? "fuzz" is an evolutionary trait that is probably 1 of the more easiest to adapt for any species. Look at Penguins and flying birds they changed their "fuzz" but also humans compared to other primates. We have lost our "fuzz" in only a few thousand years. Though some men in particular still retain a lot. most humans only have hair in a few places. So I suspect since Trex didn't need it it lost most of the feathers. Probably having some left on the head/back and perhaps tail. That would be about it. It is also more efficient if it does not burn too much energy in keeping a big pack of feathers it didn't need.
its was more then 7 tons it was 8 to 9 or at least ten tons
Yes, you're right. T. rex was on average 7-9 tons. 10 at the largest. Oversight on my part. I'll try not to have that happen again.
I know DRAGONS DONT
What?
The answer is a resounding no. The confirmation came in 2017 when Phil Bell and an international team of paleontologists showed conclusively that all tyrannosaurs, including T. rex, had scaly skin with no hint of feathers whatsoever.
I brought that up in my video (sort of). Just because we haven’t found feathers yet doesn’t mean they lacked them entirely. And besides, adult T. Rex probably had minimal feathers. Finding impressions would be difficult I’d assume. It’s not a resounding no.
@@Jurassicstudios You cant defend your position = whereas you can defend teh position that T-REX didnt have feathers
We cant change the rules how we work out the likely hood something is associated with something else = because you want feathers on a dinosaur. = because if we did that any incomplete dinosur/animal we have = could be anything we wanted it to be = and not what it was.
Evidence for feathers = We want them
Evidence against feathers = Every - t-rex fossil = big and small no evidence been found = on the skin on as an impression
^^^^^ Just that points everything to no feathers (Because the FACTS point to it,and we can only use the FACTS)
@@frankbevan413 Okay, but due to T. Rex’s relatives and ancestors having/probably feathers and it literally in the clade of coelurosauria, we can determine that T. Rex had at least least some feathers during its life. That is evidence.
And it may just be me, but I think that’s better proof than: we found very small scale impressions were the feathers theoretically wouldn’t even be.
Unless we find more scale impressions all around the body, like with Carnotaurus, we can not fully determine a conclusion. Likewise, without the direct evidence for feathers, we can not FULLY conclude that it had feathers. However, looking at the evidence, it having feathers seem more likely, at least at the moment.
And I am not changing the rules on how we work out the likely hood something is associated with something else, or what not. I used scientific and reasonable methods to get a conclusion.
Also, do you think the Utahraptor, Graciliraptor and Therozinosaurus had feathers? Random question, but I would like to know what your answer is.
@@Jurassicstudios Your doing it again = Emotion over Reason = then passive aggressive -- Did a 180 -- then asked me what i think ?
It whats we know = and EVERYTHING points to no feathers on the Rex.
Its not random people making up the FACTS = they are the people that said other dinos have Feathers,Feathers and scales/no feathers.
@@Jurassicstudios Bit social media is like this = people want to be right= even when all the FACTS point to them being wrong.
not all dinosaurs had feathers
Never said they all had feathers. Coelurosaurian dinosaurs did though. So did Tyrannosauroids. Which are Coelurosaurian dinosaurs.
No it did not
Nessasary? was that a joke?
No, unfortunately. I misspelled it, and didn't notice until publishing it. lol. I mentioned that in the description. I'll try not to have it happen again.
Utairanus is not a valid creature
If you mean Yutyrannus, I would really like where you got that information, because I haven’t found a single article or video on this. Not even unreliable sources. If you don’t mean Yutyrannus, then I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Have you heard of Dino Dana the movie it has Feathered Tyrannosaurus Rexes and a baby
I’ve heard of Dino Dana and was aware of the design. It’s pretty cool, bit inaccurate and maybe a little over feathered, but it’s not bad.
i mean they could have given it Clapping hands, lips and pure musle.
thanks for the heart
@@DinoManOldGodzilla No problem
@@Jurassicstudios Do you think Dino Dana deserves more viewers and it is my favorite show
Rex didn’t have feathers because people found rex skin and it was scaly
I brought that up in my video. The scales impressions don’t entirely rule out feathers.
Quick answer no they didnt have feathers.
It’s not that clear cut though.
I really don’t think they had feathers there’s no point in meeting something that’s not gonna help you ancestral trait then sure
It didn’t, that’s it. It lost it when maturing and also it didn’t have wings. It had some fluff in its body but it wasn’t much
Adults probably had minimal feathering like the prehistoric planet T.Rex also when did I say it had wings?
@@Jurassicstudios *T H U M B N A I L*
@@V1ncenz010 To be honest, I pretty much just randomly picked a Feathered Rex picture from google that I though looked good. The T. Rex is way feathered in the full image. The thumbnail was just to catch a persons attention.
You sound confident. Where did you get this info?
@@quinnnewman2618 🤓 well acktually they found lots of skin impressions, judging by their size they’d probably lose the feathers to regulate temperature, also that there are no quill knobs on t Rex’s arms 🤓
Are we listening to a female or younger male speak? Sorry I can't tell
Male
What a weird question that literally has nothing to do with this video. Why does it matter? Are you male or female? Sorry can't tell.
@@meganwood8788 why u mad
Megan wood
À