NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/99/feather/

Tyrannosaurus rex was probably a cute big chicken.

It's just an evolutionist hoax intended to make people lose their faith in the god of creation and turn gay.

I'll take this of confirmation that the only genus of animals left on earth that are related to dinosaurs are the birds. This has been a theory for some time, expecially after the discovery of archeopterix, a feathered form of pteranadon. Interesting...

I'll take this of confirmation that the only genus of animals left on earth that are related to dinosaurs are the birds. This has been a theory for some time, expecially after the discovery of archeopterix, a feathered form od pteranadon. Interesting...
Archaeopteryx was not a "pteranodon". Pteranodon was a pterosaur, the sister group to the Dinosauria.
Besides, we've known that dinosaurs had feathers since 1996.

It's just an evolutionist hoax intended to make people lose their faith in the god of creation and turn gay.

No, it isn't. It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster testing our faith! His noodly appendage is the only thing that can bless straight people with the gift of homosexuality.

i've also heard that T-Rex wasn't much of a hunter... due to the high ratio of thigh-length to shin-length.

(had T-Rex broken out in a sprint, he'd have toppled over head-first)

T-Rex was probably a scavenger.

T-Rex was gay. The feathers... a fashion accessory.

Besides, we've known that dinosaurs had feathers since 1996.
Really? And what about the T-Rex? Was it known already?
When did they record the movie 'Jurrasic Park'? Did they lie or didn't they know?
I'm very confused about that. I've been brain-washed since my birth. Godzilla with feathers! Now that's not scary anymore, that's cute! I would bet they were pink.

i've also heard that T-Rex wasn't much of a hunter... due to the high ratio of thigh-length to shin-length.

(had T-Rex broken out in a sprint, he'd have toppled over head-first)

T-Rex was probably a scavenger.
Yes that's what I've heard as well recently.
It's strange how something we don't know must be horrible and scary, until we discover it's a colorful and graceful bird.

i've also heard that T-Rex wasn't much of a hunter... due to the high ratio of thigh-length to shin-length.

(had T-Rex broken out in a sprint, he'd have toppled over head-first)

T-Rex was probably a scavenger.
T. rex could trot (not run) at about 20 mph, faster than its prey. It would've scavenged when it could, but terrestrial endotherms cannot be exclusive scavengers, as they would expend more energy locating food than they would get from the food.

*Dons tinfoil hat, grabs ten-foot-poll, and a fire extingusher*

T-rex didn't really exist, it is a bunch of fake bones planted by aliens while they built the pyrmids so as to further the confusion of the human race and prevent us from figuring out that we were gods senior thesis (on his first try).

Really? And what about the T-Rex? Was it known already?
When did they record the movie 'Jurrasic Park'? Did they lie or didn't they know?
I'm very confused about that. I've been brain-washed since my birth. Godzilla with feathers! Now that's not scary anymore, that's cute! I would bet they were pink.
Feathers have been speculated on T. rex for as long as twenty years. After the discovery of the basal feathered coelurosaur Sinosauropteryx, it was known that T. rex either had feathers or lost them at some point. It was generally thought that the infants had feathers, but lost them as the grew older. Some speculated that even adult T. rex has display feathers on their forearms. The recent discovery of the feathered tyrannosaurian Dilong has only reinforced the notion that, at least in some part of its life cycle, T. rex was feathered.

Jurassic Park is notable for having an awful portrayal of dinosaurs, and tends to make massive anatomical errors.

If archaeopteryx was a feathered form of pteranodon, there had happened something wrong^^
in fact, the theory is that archaeopteryx was a feathered relative of carnivor saurs like velociraptor, oviraptor or compsognathus... still a theory, but based on quite a few relicts...

*Dons tinfoil hat, grabs ten-foot-poll, and a fire extingusher*

T-rex didn't really exist, it is a bunch of fake bones planted by aliens while they built the pyrmids so as to further the confusion of the human race and prevent us from figuring out that we were gods senior thesis (on his first try).


I have a better answer. He did exist, in some shape or form, but the paleontologists are all full of crap. Sure, there are some good fossils out there, but for the most part they are WILD ASS GUESSING on things like whether it was a good hunter, etc... Furthermore, they won't tell you that they have no problem creating a whole skeleton from a femur or jawbone.

You go to the museum, and it looks like a whole skeleton, but it is the paleontologist's fantasy with a real bone hidden somewhere inside.

It would be better if they made it clear that they don't know a lot of what they mislead us to believe that they do know. And it would be better if they wouldn't take such huge leaps of faith and deal in science.

That's not true! When i took my time machine back and greased one of the big fuckers, it had no feathers! (I used a .700 continental elephant gun, if you're interested, it took nine shots, but my porters cycled through my three guns so fast that it was almost like firing a semi-automatic, it was a close one though.)

Goddamn! I thought this thread had something to do with Marc Bolan...

Hawkintom']I have a better answer. He did exist, in some shape or form, but the paleontologists are all full of crap. Sure, there are some good fossils out there, but for the most part they are WILD ASS GUESSING on things like whether it was a good hunter, etc... Furthermore, they won't tell you that they have no problem creating a whole skeleton from a femur or jawbone.

You go to the museum, and it looks like a whole skeleton, but it is the paleontologist's fantasy with a real bone hidden somewhere inside.

It would be better if they made it clear that they don't know a lot of what they mislead us to believe that they do know. And it would be better if they wouldn't take such huge leaps of faith and deal in science.
Here comes the whacko conspiracy theories. Of all the fossils you could have picked, you had to pick T. rex, which is known from several complete skeletons, one of the most famous being Sue.

Incidentally, by your standards, if I found a canid's maxilla, I shouldn't ever say that the animal had a spine. After all, I don't have the spine. It doesn't matter that all other canids have spines. It doesn't matter that the spine is almost identical to that of Canis latrans. I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass if I say that it had a spine.

T-Rex was probably a scavenger.

yeah this has become quite popular now, and id say i would agree with it...

Jurassic Park is a poor measure of accuracy when you're talking about what dinosaurs looked like. The first thing that comes to my mind, is the fact that Spielberg made the Velociraptor almost as tall as humans, when in reality they were quite small, maybe 2-3 feet.

yeah this has become quite popular now, and id say i would agree with it...
Did you ignore the post where I refuted that idea? It's physically impossible for a terrestrial endotherm to be an exclusive scavenger. They can scavenge, but they also have to hunt. Also, scavengers generally don't need jaws that exert a force of 3,011 pounds. On a feeding bite.

Did you ignore the post where I refuted that idea? It's physically impossible for a terrestrial endotherm to be an exclusive scavenger. They can scavenge, but they also have to hunt. Also, scavengers generally don't need jaws that exert a force of 3,011 pounds. On a feeding bite.

sorry to say you didnt refute it, you did give evidence to support your opinion though, which wasnt much. what about the olfactory lobes? they are very large which would make finding caracasses not very difficult. also its legs were ideal for walking long distances. no evidence has been given that suggests tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs. and yes, it would be perfect for the t-rex to have jaws that powerful. they are perfect for crunching bones. thier teeth were the right size and shape to crack bone, which means marrow. they are also beleived to be homeothermic(but noone really knows)...

They'd need those 3,011 pounds to eat rocks when they couldn't scavenge enough actual food.

Why does T-Rex need to be either a scavanger or a hunter? Don't most carnivores do both? Hyenas are commonly thought to scavange, but they hunt down as much of their food as lions do. Hyena teeth are great for cracking bones for the marrow inside, but they also work to tear flesh and bring down prey.

Why does T-Rex need to be either a scavanger or a hunter? Don't most carnivores do both? Hyenas are commonly thought to scavange, but they hunt down as much of their food as lions do. Hyena teeth are great for cracking bones for the marrow inside, but they also work to tear flesh and bring down prey.

yeah, they could be both. its a possibility. also some think they could go alone the lines of komodo dragons, attacking prey once and watching them struggle around then coming back to attack again...its all speculation though...

sorry to say you didnt refute it, you did give evidence to support your opinion though, which wasnt much. what about the olfactory lobes? they are very large which would make finding caracasses not very difficult. also its legs were ideal for walking long distances. no evidence has been given that suggests tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs. and yes, it would be perfect for the t-rex to have jaws that powerful. they are perfect for crunching bones. thier teeth were the right size and shape to crack bone, which means marrow. they are also beleived to be homeothermic...
The teeth of T. rex were not suited for crushing bone. Take a look at a real bone-crushers teeth, such as a hyena, and then take a look at the teeth of a T. rex. Here's a hint. Teeth that are used for crushing bones are flattened on the top, and are very wide.

T. rex did not have walker's legs. It had an arctometatarsalian pes, which is a 'pinching' of the middle metatarsal. This acted as a shock absorber, meaning that T. rex was built for short bursts of speed. The muscle scars support this.

There is evidence suggesting that tyrannosaurs killed other animals. Puncture marks matching the teeth of a T. rex have been found on the hip bone of a Triceratops. Only a bite on a live animal would put a puncture mark in the bone. One a dead one, the flesh is simply stripped off.
A specimen of the ankylosaurian Tarchia (IIRC) was found with partially healed puncture wounds in its skull. The holes matched the teeth of the tyrannosaurine Tarbosaurus bataar.

BTW, endotherms are homeotherms. Also, skeletal microstructure has been recently discovered in T. rex. It had the skeletal microstructure of an endotherm.

yeah, they could be both. its a possibility. also some think they could go alone the lines of komodo dragons, attacking prey once and watching them struggle around then coming back to attack again...its all speculation though...
I'm arguing for T. rex being both.

I think [NS]Hawkintom raises a good point.
I believe scientifics are motly honest, but they have interests as well.
Museum's business is to raise interest in their field. Big and Angry T-Rex is more spectacular than chicken flapping their arms.
I believe a lot of exageration is going aroung. The same goes for other fields of science BTW. The nasa has more interest in making people believe there is water on Mars than not, or that aliens exist and are intelligent.
I'm not saying they lie openly, just that they have an interest in mediatising the most spectacular speculations than what is sometimes more reasonable.

Really? And what about the T-Rex? Was it known already?
When did they record the movie 'Jurrasic Park'? Did they lie or didn't they know?
I'm very confused about that. I've been brain-washed since my birth. Godzilla with feathers! Now that's not scary anymore, that's cute! I would bet they were pink.

Godzilla is a dragon that lives on Monster Island, I don't know if he's a dinosaur.

Alright. this is such old news. look at the article

...will be published in the November 1999 issue of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine.

jeez

Alright. this is such old news. look at the article



jeezActually, what's new is that they found what they name a Dilong in China. Just days ago.
I saw that article in a news paper in french and I searched google in order to find something in english for you, but it looks like I directed you to old stuff.
Sorry about that. I'll do more research to find something that talks about what I wanted to talk about.

The teeth of T. rex were not suited for crushing bone. Take a look at a real bone-crushers teeth, such as a hyena, and then take a look at the teeth of a T. rex. Here's a hint. Teeth that are used for crushing bones are flattened on the top, and are very wide.

T. rex did not have walker's legs. It had an arctometatarsalian pes, which is a 'pinching' of the middle metatarsal. This acted as a shock absorber, meaning that T. rex was built for short bursts of speed. The muscle scars support this.

There is evidence suggesting that tyrannosaurs killed other animals. Puncture marks matching the teeth of a T. rex have been found on the hip bone of a Triceratops. Only a bite on a live animal would put a puncture mark in the bone. One a dead one, the flesh is simply stripped off.
A specimen of the ankylosaurian Tarchia (IIRC) was found with partially healed puncture wounds in its skull. The holes matched the teeth of the tyrannosaurine Tarbosaurus bataar.

BTW, endotherms are homeotherms. Also, skeletal microstructure has been recently discovered in T. rex. It had the skeletal microstructure of an endotherm.
I'm arguing for T. rex being both.

the healed skeletons are good evidence to support the predator theory. But Homer has a lot of support that T-rex was a walker. they also could be stalkers or ambush predators, which would also make sense. the tibia and metatarsals do show that it could get some speed, the difficult part at determining how much speed it was capable of, is knowing how much it weighed. that in itself is a large debate. 4-8 tons is a large scale. scavengers, hunters, or both, any is a possibility. evidence is on both sides, so its open for interpretation. i will argue over the teeth though, they seem to be perfectly qualified to be used to crunch bone. most specimens found were rounded or broken off which suggests heavy use. they also regrow teeth, so they were constantly replaced...

edit: ever heard of the phrase "All endotherms are homeotherms, but not all homeotherms are endotherms"?

Actually, what's new is that they found what they name a Dilong in China. Just days ago.
I saw that article in a news paper in french and I searched google in order to find something in english for you, but it looks like I directed you to old stuff.
Sorry about that. I'll do more research to find something that talks about what I wanted to talk about.
Dilong was named in September or October of '04.

This article was written in '99. I really have nothing more to say.

It's just an evolutionist hoax intended to make people lose their faith in the god of creation and turn gay.

Is it what turned you? ;)

the healed skeletons are good evidence to support the predator theory. But Homer has a lot of support that T-rex was a walker. they also could be stalkers or ambush predators, which would also make sense. the tibia and metatarsals do show that it could get some speed, the difficult part at determining how much speed it was capable of, is knowing how much it weighed. that in itself is a large debate. 4-8 tons is a large scale. scavengers, hunters, or both, any is a possibility. evidence is on both sides, so its open for interpretation. i will argue over the teeth though, they seem to be perfectly qualified to be used to crunch bone. most specimens found were rounded or broken off which suggests heavy use. they also regrow teeth, so they were constantly replaced...
Bone-crushing teeth are flattened and wide. Not thin and pointy. T. rex had robust teeth for a theropod, but that's still not much. By the standards of the Carnivora, T. rex had weak teeth.
Even if T. rex was slower than 20 mph (A virtual impossibility - 20 mph would be a walking pace.) it was still far faster than the animals it would've preyed on.
Incidentally, Horner is a hadrosaur specialist. He does not study theropods. No dinosaur paleontologist agrees with his assertion that T. rex was a scavenger, seeing as how it's an impossibility. Carcasses are rare. Endotherms that cannot fly simply expend too much energy on finding a carcass to survive. If you can point me to a non-volant endothermic scavenger, I will retract this point.

This article was written in '99. I really have nothing more to say.

What? That you can subtract?

edit: ever heard of the phrase "All endotherms are homeotherms, but not all homeotherms are endotherms"?

just to add, http://dml.cmnh.org/1998Feb/msg00422.html a quick google search...

Feathers have been speculated on T. rex for as long as twenty years. After the discovery of the basal feathered coelurosaur Sinosauropteryx, it was known that T. rex either had feathers or lost them at some point. It was generally thought that the infants had feathers, but lost them as the grew older. Some speculated that even adult T. rex has display feathers on their forearms. The recent discovery of the feathered tyrannosaurian Dilong has only reinforced the notion that, at least in some part of its life cycle, T. rex was feathered.

Jurassic Park is notable for having an awful portrayal of dinosaurs, and tends to make massive anatomical errors.

...or at least since Jurassic Park. hehe

edit: ever heard of the phrase "All endotherms are homeotherms, but not all homeotherms are endotherms"?
Yes. However, T. rex is an endotherm. The bone microstructure shows that. The air sacs inside its bones show that. Its ancestors were endotherms, and since endotherms cannot evolve into ectotherms, it has to be an endotherm.

Archaeopteryx was not a "pteranodon". Pteranodon was a pterosaur, the sister group to the Dinosauria.
Besides, we've known that dinosaurs had feathers since 1996.

Sorry...my mistake. I was an anthropology minor, not a Paleobiology minor. My apologies.

This article was written in '99. I really have nothing more to say.

It was already pointed out that the supporting article to this topic was written recently but was in French so the original poster chose a similar English article that happens to be older.

Yes that's what I've heard as well recently.
It's strange how something we don't know must be horrible and scary, until we discover it's a colorful and graceful bird.

While ignoring the bird part, I've always thought the same about sharks. They are deadly, no doubt, but they exude grace and beauty. Yet everyone thinks them horrible scary monsters.

Yes. However, T. rex is an endotherm. The bone microstructure shows that. The air sacs inside its bones show that. Its ancestors were endotherms, and since endotherms cannot evolve into ectotherms, it has to be an endotherm.

do you have any online sources i could look at? if not dont worry about it...

do you have any online sources i could look at? if not dont worry about it...
Give me a couple hours. The media sensationalized it as usual, claiming it was unfossilized blood vessels, so I have to find a scientific source, and those are few and far between.

Is it what turned you? ;)
No, that would be my love of Judy Garland and show tunes. Kidding, I'm straight.

It's just an evolutionist hoax intended to make people lose their faith in the god of creation and turn gay.
Obviously.

I think [NS]Hawkintom raises a good point.
I believe scientifics are motly honest, but they have interests as well.
Museum's business is to raise interest in their field. Big and Angry T-Rex is more spectacular than chicken flapping their arms.
I believe a lot of exageration is going aroung. The same goes for other fields of science BTW. The nasa has more interest in making people believe there is water on Mars than not, or that aliens exist and are intelligent.
I'm not saying they lie openly, just that they have an interest in mediatising the most spectacular speculations than what is sometimes more reasonable.
NASA does silly projects (such as the suggestion of putting people on Mars or going to the moon) because they have to run their ideas and get their funding from congress, a group of non-scientists. If they had a system like in Canada, and ran it past a panel of scientists who would understand the scientific merit of specific projects, then you would see more useful and scientifically valuable projects coming from NASA, for instance, the preservation of Hubble until a replacement can be built.

Awww I saw the thread title and thought it meant T-Rex the band....Ok I'm very tired and a smidgin retarded, I know :(

Give me a couple hours. The media sensationalized it as usual, claiming it was unfossilized blood vessels, so I have to find a scientific source, and those are few and far between.

yeah, ive many articles about that also. you dont have to spend time looking for that, unless you want to of course ;)

Godzilla is a dragon that lives on Monster Island, I don't know if he's a dinosaur.
Godzilla was a mutated form of a Gojirasaurus, a species that survived on islands in the pacific until the late 1940s. :D

You are quite correct, T. Rex did occaisonally have feathers.
I'm not sure why it took scientists so long to realize it, though... There are even multiple pictures of (http://www.angel.dk/bolan/BolanColStore/BolanLon_07.JPG) Marc Bolan with feathers (http://www.altamontrecords.com/shirtthumbs/trexboa1.jpg).
How come they denied the evidence for this long?

Actually, I've re-read the article in french and it appears that CthulhuFhtagn is correct. The disovery of the fossil Dilong in China happened in 2004 October.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3726370.stm

Why they talk about it now is because of a conference of British scientists :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1764136,00.html

Sorry about that, I'm no expert in jurrasic. But I'm delighted to see such brillant knowledge from NS guyz. I've learnt more in this thread than I could have dreamt of. The critic analisys I've found here is brillant as well. You guyz never cease to surprise me. Thanks a lot.

You are quite correct, T. Rex did occaisonally have feathers.
I'm not sure why it took scientists so long to realize it, though... There are even multiple pictures of (http://www.angel.dk/bolan/BolanColStore/BolanLon_07.JPG) Marc Bolan with feathers (http://www.altamontrecords.com/shirtthumbs/trexboa1.jpg).
How come they denied the evidence for this long?
OMFG this guy is a genius. He wears feathers and call himself T-Rex. He got it long before Spielberg.

Tyrannosaurus Rex hated America because of your freedoms.

Tyrannosaurus Rex hated America because of your freedoms.
And he was killed in the "War on Terrible Lizards".

And he was killed in the "War on Terrible Lizards".

Of course! Tyrant-osaurus Rex was a terroarist!

And he was killed in the "War on Terrible Lizards".
Lol. That's why they told us they were lizards. If they had told us they were colorful birdies, nobody would have supported them.

It's just an evolutionist hoax intended to make people lose their faith in the god of creation and turn gay.
:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: Need I say more to you

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: Need I say more to you
http://uloc.nerdtank.org/screenshots/a/aabf18_sarcasm_detector.jpg

Hawkintom']I have a better answer. He did exist, in some shape or form, but the paleontologists are all full of crap. Sure, there are some good fossils out there, but for the most part they are WILD ASS GUESSING on things like whether it was a good hunter, etc... Furthermore, they won't tell you that they have no problem creating a whole skeleton from a femur or jawbone.

You go to the museum, and it looks like a whole skeleton, but it is the paleontologist's fantasy with a real bone hidden somewhere inside.

It would be better if they made it clear that they don't know a lot of what they mislead us to believe that they do know. And it would be better if they wouldn't take such huge leaps of faith and deal in science.
this is actualy quite true most of paliontology is guesswork

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: Need I say more to you
I don't get it. Are you gay (check a), a religious bigot (check b) or a T-Rex (check c) to be offended by this?

Tyrannosaurus rex was probably a cute big chicken.

Now hold on just a second!The Dinosaurs with feathers were the smaller therapods,like Velociraptor,the ancestors of birds.But the larger therapods - the "Carnosaurs" probably had very few if any at all.That includes T-Rex.So it wasn't a giant chicken!

Now hold on just a second!The Dinosaurs with feathers were the smaller therapods,like Velociraptor,the ancestors of birds.But the larger therapods - the "Carnosaurs" probably had very few if any at all.That includes T-Rex.So it wasn't a giant chicken!
T. rex is not a Carnosaur. It is a Coelurosaur. Carnosauria is defined as everything more closely related to Allosaurus than to Passer. Coelurosauria is defined as everything more closely related to Passer than to Allosaurus.

This article was written in '99. I really have nothing more to say.

Its not as though it was written a couple of thousand years ago. Just because something is 6 years old doesnt mean it isnt true. you see in science we change and update our theories over time to make them better. And the latest (nov 2004) article was about a big T-Rex type dinosaur with feathers, suggesting that they may also have had feathers.

I hope they looked like chocobo's.

T. rex is not a Carnosaur. It is a Coelurosaur. Carnosauria is defined as everything more closely related to Allosaurus than to Passer. Coelurosauria is defined as everything more closely related to Passer than to Allosaurus.
That makes sense!
Wait...When I come to think about it, I dind't get anything. Do you have a popular example of Passer and of Allosaurus please? I don't trust google anymore.

That makes sense!
Wait...When I come to think about it, I dind't get anything. Do you have a popular example of Passer and of Allosaurus please? I don't trust google anymore.
Passer is the sparrow. Allosaurus is a 10 meter long theropod. It's one of the more famous ones out there. Wikipedia on Allosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosaurus)

I always thought there was something strange about Marc Bolan. :)

Jurassic Park is a poor measure of accuracy when you're talking about what dinosaurs looked like. The first thing that comes to my mind, is the fact that Spielberg made the Velociraptor almost as tall as humans, when in reality they were quite small, maybe 2-3 feet.

Though interestingly enough, not long after Jurassic Park was released the 2 meter tall Utahraptor was discovered.

Though interestingly enough, not long after Jurassic Park was released the 2 meter tall Utahraptor was discovered.
2 at the hip. 2.5 at the head. The animals in JP were 1.8 meters at the head.

2 at the hip. 2.5 at the head. The animals in JP were 1.8 meters at the head.

I got my details off the first site I found when I searched Utahraptors, so if you're more accurate than I am, it's entirely understandable.

And I didn't really mean to say that Jurassic Park's giant raptor was the same as the Utahraptor (though I understand why I might have sounded that way since I used 'the'. A better phrasing would have been just 'a 2-meter raptor, called the Utahraptor'). It was more that I found it interesting that after Spielberg made up a giant raptor, they found a giant raptor.

European dinosaurs tended to be bigger than your puny American dinosaurs... bleh!

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/99/feather/

Tyrannosaurus rex was probably a cute big chicken.
I don't know how this is possible. I mean, feathers are needed to fly, and would probably appear on tarydactils first. But what do I know about biology?

European dinosaurs tended to be bigger than your puny American dinosaurs... bleh!

not really...

Supersaurus - colorado

Sauroposeidon - oklahoma

Seismosaurus - New Mexico

*Argentinosaurus - South America

I don't know how this is possible. I mean, feathers are needed to fly, and would probably appear on tarydactils first. But what do I know about biology?
Feathers are not needed for flight. Bats, insects, and pterosaurs all get along or got along fine without them. Feathers evolved as insulation first. Flight was a much later adaptation.

Feathers are not needed for flight. Bats, insects, and pterosaurs all get along or got along fine without them. Feathers evolved as insulation first. Flight was a much later adaptation.
Okaky. But why did a T-Rex need insulation? Wasn't the Cretaceous period warmer than today?

Okaky. But why did a T-Rex need insulation? Wasn't the Cretaceous period warmer than today?

It is possible that tyrannosaurs lost their feathers as they grew, similar to the hair density of an elephant as it grows, or were only feathered on parts of their bodies. In general, small animals need insulation more than large ones because of their proportionately larger surface areas. - from Wikipedia...

That's not true! When i took my time machine back and greased one of the big fuckers, it had no feathers! (I used a .700 continental elephant gun, if you're interested, it took nine shots, but my porters cycled through my three guns so fast that it was almost like firing a semi-automatic, it was a close one though.)

Did you step on any butterflies while you were...um...then?

Okaky. But why did a T-Rex need insulation? Wasn't the Cretaceous period warmer than today?
An adult T. rex would not need insulation. Any feathers would be used for display.

An adult T. rex would not need insulation. Any feathers would be used for display.

hey, about the endotherms and homeotherms discussion we had earlier, did you find any articles?

Wasn't the Cretaceous period warmer than today?

yea, the mesozoic age was warmer, which would give the idea that dinosaurs didnt need to be endotherms to keep a constant temperature...

hey, about the endotherms and homeotherms discussion we had earlier, did you find any articles?
Haven't had time to search.

yea, the mesozoic age was warmer, which would give the idea that dinosaurs didnt need to be endotherms to keep a constant temperature...
It wasn't much warmer. Also, if they were ectotherms, they would be outcompeted by the endothermic mammals.

Haven't had time to search.

ok


It wasn't much warmer. Also, if they were ectotherms, they would be outcompeted by the endothermic mammals.

not necessarily, many modern ectotherms are active and are not at a real disadvantage...

endothermy evolved from ectothermy, so its even possible that they were in the middle...

T. rex is not a Carnosaur. It is a Coelurosaur. Carnosauria is defined as everything more closely related to Allosaurus than to Passer. Coelurosauria is defined as everything more closely related to Passer than to Allosaurus.

someone who loves dinsoaurs even more than me.what are you some sort of dinosaur god