Will the debate be put to rest by this new "mummy" that Paul Sereno is preparing?
>It only took us going through 120 complete specimens until we found one with feathers>trust me bro
>>5162773I’m not placing any bets but I hope it’s true purely to see the resident schizo break down in tears
>>5162783That's literally how science works. You develop a model as close to the truth as possible until you find new information that conflicts with that model and you make a new one.
>Lawful Good: Peach fuzz like Prehistoric Planet's T.Rex>Lawful Neutral: Saurian T.Rex (pre-redesign) levels of feathering>Lawful Evil: Croc osteoderms like nearly every JW-era design not by Frontier
>>5162790So where have the feathers been this whole time? Hiding?>um, the science just evolvesThe past doesn't.
>>5162783>>5162795Calm down, there’s still a good chance that this amounts to nothing and the chinese jewish trannies don’t put feathers on T. rex
>>5162795They haven’t been fossilizing
>>5162773>did indeed possess integuments such as featherswhere was that made explicit? according to >>5162775 its all esoteric and up in the air currently, right?
>>5162773He's dangling the possibility before publication just like zanno dangled the possibility before publication and Larson dangled the possibility before publicationEvery single time they do this it turns out they found scales and no feathers
>>5162824>We found exciting new evidence regarding feathered integument in t. Rex that we're preparing to publish right nowT. Larson to an /an/ user named Daniel in 2017>This specimen is providing new insights into feathers in t. RecT. Zanno on her museum website in 2024In both cases the new information was that they didn't find feathers.
>>5162773Apparently he started talking about this fossil in 2012, a full 14 years ago. If it has feathers we would almost certainly have seen them by now. It doesn't take 14 years to prep and describe a fossil that groundbreaking, particularly since he described the skin 14 years ago.
>>5162773Crazy how many disney fags are stuck on featherless dinosaurs kek. Intellectuals recognize all dinosaurs were feathered. It is so obvious for people with high IQ.
My takeaway from this is that, as far as anyone knows, it could be a mosaic of skin, small scales, or even sparse feathers depending on the region of the body. Due to biomechanical/thermoregulatory needs I still think it's unlikely adults would've been extensively feathered.
>>5162879Extremely unlikely. Consider the fact that mesozoic earth was like 3-4 degrees celsius hotter than of today. An animal like a rex weighting over 5 tons and with a fast metabolism and almost surely endothermic would've had serious issues dissipating heat if it were covered in plumes. Feathers would've been absolutely useless for anything other than mating rituals. But I don't see why hatchlings couldn't have had them.
>>5162773>>5162775>no scales
>>5162933That means pigment cells might be preserved. We might find out what color T rex was.
>>5162935God i hope not because i just finished a clay T. rex i was working on for a month and gave it the WWD colors
>>5162879so are we just doing the meme where we are putting feathers in places where we know they dont have scales because we have skin impressions despite the fact that doesnt make any sense and seems more like a biological impossibility and are saying the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence again
>>5163039If there are no scales, there must have been feathers.Simple logic.
>>5163039No they're saying T. rex must have descended from feathered tyrannosauroids because THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY THEY COULD HAVE MISCLASSIFIED AN EXTINCT ANIMAL, THAT HAS NEVER EVER HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF PALEONTOLOGY. Despite the fact that classifications change every few months and the fact that T. rex doesn't have feathers is sufficient proof that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclassified
>>5163045In fact we've seen a number of supposed tyrannosauroids reclassified as something else latelyIndicating the reason T. rex doesn't have feathers is probably because Tyrannosauroidea may be a bullshit taxon
>>5163047It's far more likely that feathered tyrannosauroids are misclasified than that tyrannosauroids had feathers and then lost them.This is not a great answer to anyone who supports Tyrannosauroidea, but facts don't care about scientists' feelings
>>5163048Of course scientists know this even if most of them won't say it out loud.So they're under pressure to either find proof of T. rex feathers or get rid of Tyrannosauroidea.
