Re: Feathers for T-rex?

[DinoBoyGraphics@aol.com]

<However, there is reason to suspect this was not sustained at large size, 
which is coincident in extant environments temperature-biased.>...etc.

Jaimie et al, I am not claiming that it is implausible that large tyrannosaurs 
were nakeder (making up words, it must be late) than their ancestors, just that 
the only positive evidence (phylogenetic) suggests otherwise.  The sample is 
currently limitied to smallish coelurosaurs, hopefully more data will make its 
way into print soon(!)  In the mean time, it is speculation to assume T. rex 
was naked, even if it is well informed speculation.  As for the mentioned 
pebbled skin from a tyrannosaur tail in Canada, it will certainly qualify  as 
positive evidence when it is published, if it has been accurately 
characterized.  Until it gets into print though, it doesn't exist.
     Personally, I suspect that _T. rex_ was not as heavily feathered as 
_Sinosauropteryx_, but this is my speculaton (sheesh, get used to the word 
guys; a lot of speculation is necessary to restore extinct organisms).  On the 
other hand, ostriches would hardly be considered naked.  Also, it may be worth 
noting that moas were even more heavily feathered than ostriches.  Perhaps 
feathers are not as easy to lose developmentally as fur apparently is for large 
mammals.  In that case it might be quite likely that all theropods more dervied 
than basal feathered dinosaurs (where ever that shakes out to be) are covered 
in dino fuzz, with size having only a minor influence on plummage coverage.
     Either scenario is plausible, but until positive evidence (or a 
paleo-oriented magic 8 ball) becomes available, feathered tyrannosaurs are the 
phylogenetically conservative conclusion.  Artists are not a slave to 
phylogenetic inference, just be aware that you are adding an extra layer of 
interpretation, so try to justify it.  Who knows, you maybe right!

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now.

Scott