[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


From: "Michael Lovejoy" <michael@palaeoproductions.fsnet.co.uk>

I have heard of three cases of tyrannosaur skin. None of these involve >more than a small portion of skin AFAIK. Therefore they do not rule >out the possibility of at least partial feathering. All extant birds >have scales and/or naked skin on some parts.

I never said that tyrannosaurids couldn't have had feathers. I was simply responding to Tom Holtz's sarcastic remark about shaggy tyrannosaurids. The skin impressions show that they were not mammoth-like in appearance, so I was trying to simply rule that possibility out by saying they weren't "covered" in feathers.

I've also read that the tyrannosaur skin is identical to hadrosaur >skin from the same deposits. I don't know what that was based on, as I >can find the ref.

Haven't heard this. From what I understand, the tyrannosaurid skin impressions look somewhat "naked", in that the preserved scales are comparatively quite small.

Finally, why is it not possible for large ceolurosaurs to have >feathers?

I think it was Jaime Headden (and maybe a few others) who mentioned a while ago that it was inefficient for any animal over a tonne to support any sort of feathery or furry integument. Then there was Tom Holtz's remarks just yesterday...

Jordan Mallon


MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx