T-rex didn't have feathers new research says

[Wolf89]

http://westerndigs.org/t-rex-didnt-have-feathers-new-study-of-fossil-skin-finds/

[The Amateur Paleontologist]

That theory is somewhat debated.. There are some who argue that large theropods could have had both feathered and non-feathered areas on their body.

[Troodon]

A discussion we had on this subject.  Feathered Tyrannosaurids are out,  question is to the degree of fuzz they had.

 

[The Amateur Paleontologist]

@Troodon So it was basically part-fuzz and part-scales, right?

[Troodon]

 

8 minutes ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said:

@Troodon So it was basically part-fuzz and part-scales, right?

Yes that's where current research is point us 

[Miocene_Mason]

1 hour ago, Troodon said:

question is to the degree of fuzz they had.

One has to wonder why. Camouflage? Sexual selection? Vestigial? 

[The Amateur Paleontologist]

3 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

One has to wonder why. Camouflage? Sexual selection? Vestigial? 

Maybe a mix of all three, somehow?

[Troodon]

46 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

One has to wonder why. Camouflage? Sexual selection? Vestigial? 

 

42 minutes ago, The Amateur Paleontologist said:

Maybe a mix of all three, somehow?

Good question and yes possibly all three who knows

[Auspex]

Unfortunately, "feather" is far too specific a word to use when discussing dinosaurian dermal integuments.
There is no functional reason for an earth-bound creature to incur the metabolic cost of growing (and maintaining) vaned feathers (of the sort that the word brings to mind).
Keratinous dermal integuments of both fibrous and of downy nature would be the most I would expect to find, as they could conceivably serve a survival or reproductive purpose, and would thus have had evolutionary pressure shaping their development.

[Wolf89]

28 minutes ago, Auspex said:

Unfortunately, "feather" is far too specific a word to use when discussing dinosaurian dermal integuments.
There is no functional reason for an earth-bound creature to incur the metabolic cost of growing (and maintaining) vaned feathers (of the sort that the word brings to mind).
Keratinous dermal integuments of both fibrous and of downy nature would be the most I would expect to find, as they could conceivably serve a survival or reproductive purpose, and would thus have had evolutionary pressure shaping their development.

Though it makes sense, why would flightless birds like ostriches, kiwis, chickens, penguins cassowaries and emus grow them?

[Auspex]

1 hour ago, Wolf52893 said:

Though it makes sense, why would flightless birds like ostriches, kiwis, chickens, penguins cassowaries and emus grow them?

They don't. Their 'feathers' they have are not vaned, but are structured in ways that are beneficial to their habitat and lifestyle. This is a good proof to my point, as they are descended from flighted birds, and adapted the structures that had no use into something that did.