"THE FLUFFENING" OF DINOSAURS

There is actually no evidence that T. rexhad feathers, though I follow what most paleontologist say when they say that T. rexprobably had quills on its back. I imagine T. rex to have feathers, but that's just me.

Perhaps one day we will know for sure.

I think this because of how much of a bird it was like. EVen when they found T. rex tissue that somehow survived for so long, it was descriibed to be similar to the tissue and blood vessels of an ostrich/emu, making me think T. rexhad feathers considering how bird-like it seems to me.

But that's my take of the cake, this will be interesting to read what others will say.

Also this I believe somewhat helps my statement:

It is from Wikipedia:

"The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator."

Well... in all honesty I don't find a Tyrannosaurus nearly as cool with feathers than without.

DINOBONEZ - Welcome to SCIFIED! It is always agreeable to see new faces! I very much enjoyed the way in which you presented this topic. There is a professional and legitimate quality to your assertions that I find to be quite compelling! My own views happen to lean in the same driection as yours with regards to this topic of discourse. Thank you ever so much for taking the time to create this topic and present it to us! :)

The T. rex was drawn by user DinoSteve93 right here on the forum, as a side note. And I don't think its terrible, there is after all a fair chance it looked something like that.

YOu probably look at it weirdly like I did, but I got used to it and actually found a bit cooler after thinking about it, just look at how some birds hunt today.

Now I look at scaly T. rexes and just laugh on how cliche they look as giant bumbling monsters.

FOr example, take the recent Spinosaurus reconstruction, at first many found it appaling to look at, then when it was updated and people threw away their biased portrayals of it, people like me thought of it as more majestic and cool!

Just a thought.

ALso I just wanted to say welcome to the forums, I am one of the moderators here on Scified, so if you ever need ANY help, go ahead an send me a PM and I will be ther to answer it ASAP! :)

@Raptor-401

Well, my apologies to the user who drew it, I actually meant that a Tyrannosaurus Rex itself would look terrible covered in feathers like that, not that the drawing was bad. I will actually go reword my last comment, because in truth the drawing looks very good in terms of detail. I probably should have been more clear on that, my bad.

I dunno... Maybe I will get used to it, but I think I like the more reptile version.

Yes, that is good that you clarified that. And sometimes it does take a while for the new image to settle.

Just imagine a bird of prey, when it hunt, how patient it is and how it will surprise atatck its prey while viciously mauling it apart...

T.rex certainly was nothing to mess with, non-reptile looking or not.

I'm aware of the Fluffening.

Now, my views on all things feathery!

I believe all dromaeosaurs were fully feathered, with wing-like things on their arms, a lot of feathers covering the tail, and a lot on the neck, but I also think they had a naked snout and had a slightly more down-like substance covering the rest of their body. Therizinosaurs were probably like this, but with mainly a down-like substance covering most of their body instead of full feathers.

Personally, I believe most ceratopsians had quills on their back and tails. A few tyrannosaurs were fully feathered in my opinion, with more on their arms, neck, and tails. The larger ones, like Daspletosaurus and Albertosaurus, had a little on their arms, necks, and tails, but the rest was covered in a light down. I believe Tyrannosaurus had down or some sort of proto-feathers running down their neck and back, with this material covering the end of the tail (This is for adult Tyrannosaurus, as juveniles were probably fully feathered).

Some creatures, such as Dryosaurus, probably had short quills running down their back, with light down running down their back on either side of the quills.

Most carnivores, like Allosaurus and Yangchuanosaurus, probably had some sort of down somewhere on their body, probably on their backs or arms.

Ornithomimids definately had a lot on their arms and tails in my opinion, with slightly less on their necks and backs.

However, creatures like Spinosaurus and Koreaceratops were probably naked.

Most hadrosaurs and all sauropods, ankylosaurs, and stegosaurs were probably like this.

My opinion is very similar as to what Sci-Fi King stated. I actually drew an image the other day of V. mongeleonisis (Excuse for my spelling) and I made sure to make it as bird-like as possible.

Creatures like Spinosaurus to me definitely probably did not have feathers, but in the Bigger than T. rex documentary they did breifly mention how "for all they know this thing could have had some proto-feathers". Of course they didn't mean it seriously but it goes to show how much we don't know... And may have wrong...

Oh my gosh, this type of topic again.

Look, just because a dinosaur is feathered DOES NOT MEAN it doesn't have the potential to be scary.

In fact, I'd say feathered dinosaurs are much more intimidating than scaley ones.

Instead of thinking of dinosaurs with modern, uniform feathers, you have to think of them as they were: protofeathers. Mangy, disoriented, spilt-ended protofeathers. Now add blood stains from previous kills, and you got yourself a terrifying animal.

A T-rex is no different to this equation.

But seriously, imagine if THIS came running at you full speed:

Or THIS:

Are these honestly any less scary than the naked counterpart?

Being totally honest, there's something about that T-Rex that just doesn't look as intimidating as other artwork I've seen of unfeathered versions.

And with the exception of that raptor image, I find giant reptiles (being as smaller ones like snakes and alligators are scary as well), a lot scarier than oversized birds.

It's like comparing an ostrich with sharp teeth to an alligator for me. I'm sorry, but it's just the way I feel about it.

OH BOY. FETHURZ. YAS. GUD. NEED MOAR.

Anyway, I'll input my thoughts here, because why not? Everyonw else seems to have done such already.

Anyway, as some of the older forum members may recall, I am a very big fan of feathered dinosaurs. Now, that said, I do acknowledge that they should be used in limited numbers. So, let's go through the main groupd of dinosaurs that everyone seems to have set.

1. Dromaeosaurs/Raptors: Cover them from head to toe, but leave the feet and head barren, except in the case of long-nosed dromaeosaurs namely Buitreraptor, who may have had more feathers along their head and less on their legs so as to support a more piscivorous lifestyle.

2. Tyrannosaurs:Certainly large coverings on some of the smaller ones, as well as any from the asian continent. As for the large, North-American Tyrannosaurs, I think a mane, back, and arm coverings are most likely, however they may have had a thin covering over the rest of their body as well, that may have grown thicker in the colder months. But that's just speculation.

3. Allosaurs: Possibly a small covering, maybe a back covering of quills and protofeathers in later species. There is not a lot of evidence however.

4. Abelisaurids: Possibly more covering here, though little, if any, evidence exists to support this.

5. Oviraptors: Similar to dromaeosaurs, I think oviraptors would've also had a large covering of feathers, however I see them as having mor on the head and less on the legs, similar to an emu.

6. Ornithimimids: See: Oviraptors.

7. Therizinosaurs: Although the larger species may have had a slightly thinner covering, I see these as covered in feathers.

8. Early theropods: protofeathers or quills, if anything.

9. Other theropods: On large ones, protofeather coverings and maybe more feathers or quills on their back and arms, or just scales. On smaller ones, more feathered coverings throughout their bodies, especially on later species.

10. Ceratopsians: Quills on their back, possibly on the back of smaller species frills that they could fan out like a peacock to scare of predators and/or attract mates.

11. Hadrosaurs: There is evidence that these were scaly, but some species may have had protofeathers.

12. Ornithopods: Possible feathered coverings, however there is no evidence to support this.

13. Other herbivores: Little amounts of protofeathers, if anything.

Interesting debate, I'll post a topic with my thoughts on the matter :)

I don't understand why people don't do their research before posting on topics like this. And by research, I don't mean watching some 30 min. BBC mockumentary about dinosaurs.

There is very little evidence for dinosaurs with feathers. There is very little evidence for dinosaurs with quils. There is nothing but poor assumptions made by scientists desperate to stay relevant and capture people's interest (and thusly, their money).

The handful of small species found with feathers are also calculated to have been much further along in evolution, and following different paths.

REPEAT: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT TRICERATOPS OR TYRANNOSAURUS HAD FEATHERS. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.

The best the feather-camp can muster is "Plausible Genetic Predisposition". With plausible being their own adjective to further bolster their already empty claim. What that means is, they may have been genetically similar enough to feathered species to have contained the genetic code necessary for sprouting feathers or quils, even if these genes were entirely recessive.

So again, despite what airs on BBC or Animal Planet for entertainment value...it is no more accurate than the visuals in Jurassic Park...as hardly anything is knowable and almost all of it is speculation based on glorified guess work.

Intersting topic I must say. 

At this point, everyone should just believe what they think...for now. 

@NATEZILLA10000

I already said in the second paragraph that I don't have a problem with feathered dinosaurs. I'm not sure who that comment was directed towards, but if it WAS for me, I suggest you go back and re-read the second paragraph.

Well as many men did say, absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence. I personally imagine T. rex to have had some quills AT LEAST on its back, maybe some proto-fetahers here and there.

^ Hehe, yeah what he said. Cx

@ALAN!-401

Yup, that's much more probable than..."turkey rex" up there. The second picture I find much more accurate, and it sort of matches your description!

BTW: Nice name!