Personal pet peeve when articles about archaeology, paleontology, or other very physical sciences don’t show an image of a very visual thing they are describing, even if it’s just an artist’s imagining of the thing. Seems like it happens all the time. Thanks to Shuck who posted an image above here in the comments.
It’s probably due to copyright and BB not wanting to get lawsuit threats…
His name is Phteven.
I’ll skip checking what’s trending on PornHub.
The T-Rex also had feathers…
Two birds of a feather, then?
I just hope they aren’t like me and occasionally bite the shit out of their cheek/lip. With teeth like that…
So I guess this is up for discussion. Tyrannosaurids definitely had feathers…but they have found scale impressions from most parts of Tyrannosaurus rex itself without any sign of them. Some have argued they simply aren’t being preserved properly, others that maybe the larger types had at most severely reduced feather coverage. I’m looking forward to what they can work out.
What I’ve seen is suggestions that T-Rex chicks had down that might have been lost in adulthood.
Speaking for archaeology only, it’s also that making reconstruction drawings takes money and time. Even a publication-quality photo of an artefact does. So, often they simply don’t exist.
I’m sure palaeontology faces similar constraints.
Feathers would have the same warmth problem as hair. With big animals, getting rid of heat is a major problem, especially if they chase down prey.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.