Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

On the page about Tyrannosaurus, I would like to change an incorrect fact. Sue, the largest specimen of Tyrannosaurs, was actually 42 feet long and not 40. I would like it if you would please change that. NCharizard25 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The 40-foot length is backed up with a source. NCharizard25, you'll need an equivalent or better source that says it was 42 feet long to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia article Sue (dinosaur) does state that it was 42 feet long. Either the length in that page needs to be changed or the length in this page needs to be changed. The article Sue (dinosaur) doesn't seem to have sources as reliable as those cited here though. BigCat82 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

More than 30 specimens?

This article mentions only 30+ specimens, while according to the theropod database there are just over 50+, this needs to be edited.--Dinoexpert (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot more specimens that, "The Tyrant King" book lists all known specimens up to 2005, excluding "specimens consisting of only a braincase and/or a few skull bones, or only foot bones, or only caudal bones, as well as the countless specimens of T. rex teeth and isolated bones." and they list 45, then a recent paper by Jack Horner adds another 46 skeletons found during his 1999-2009 excavation project, some of them are also included in Larson's list but only about 3. The problem, I don't think there's a good source that lists an updated number of all known specimens, The theropod database is acceptable I think but it doesn't give a number explicitly right? it might looked as synthesis. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We actually need a better source, but if you count them there are at least 50 skeletons listed in the theropod database, why cannot we use that information to edit? even if it is not explicitly stated?, is it that much of a problem for Wikipedia?, or perhaps found the paper where the 100 specimens are cited.--Dinoexpert (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We can use that calculation to edit. Quoted from Wikipedia policy WP:NOR: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. See also Category:Conversion templates. BigCat82 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Any volunteers?

Looking at the page's edit history, there has been a lot of recent disagreement over what appears in the description for Matt's reconstruction. It's currently set to "Restoration of T. rex showing hypothetical feathery coating, as implied by phylogenetic bracketing." If this is what you want, I'm fine, that's all well and good.

The question is, if this is the way we are going, who is going to volunteer to go and add "showing hypothetical scaly coating" to every single reconstruction on the pages for carnosaurs, megalosauroids, coelophysoids, plateosaurids, pachycephalosaurids and every other clade that we don't have direct impressions from?

At least Tyrannosaurs is in a solid bracket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomopteryx (talk • contribs) 12:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting kind of ridiculous, really. A feather coat for T.rex is about as likely as a furry coat for Panthera leo atrox these days; I still don't see why it's "hypothetical" to add feathers but not so to add scales. Maybe a preservation bias? ;P Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's about as likely as a furry coat for an elephant or a rhino. Yes, bracketing implies that Rex had feathers, but plumaceous, not pennaceous as you have them, so the image is quite definitely OR, and based on current evidence is most likely wrong. And the fact that the lineage had feathers does not mean that every member was covered with them, especially the larger ones. They could have hatched as downy chicks, but lost them as they grew, or perhaps retained them in certain spots for display. But what you have looks like it's prowling the Arctic tundra. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"But what you have looks like it's prowling the Arctic tundra." It's actually based on the feathering of emu and cassowary, which prowl humid tropical forests and the Australian outback, respectively. But out are aware that Tyrannosaurus rex remains are also reported from the Cretaceous arctic, right? If I prowled the Outback in a cloak of emu feathers (a bird which weighs almost as much as I do), I would quickly die. Being a mammal, with a completely different system of respiration, ventilation, and integument, as are elephants and rhinos.

What is the precedent for any feathered animals losing feathers as they grow? This strikes me as baseless speculation. At what point in tyrannosaur growth do you suppose the feathers were lost? Why are they ok in chicks but not say, horse-sized or bison-sized individuals? (Because chicks are supposed to be "cute", maybe, and it is not ok for a predatory dinosaur to resemble something cute and funny instead of a sci-fi monster?) The feathers as depicted are intended to be plumulaceous, like those of basal tyrannosauroids, ratites, compsognathids, and ornithischains, not pennaceous. The depiction I uploaded is representative of one plausible extreme. If somebody would like to produce a scientifically plausible restoration closer to the other extreme, I'm all for it. But right now as far as I can see, mine is the only one within the plausible range.MMartyniuk (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The speculation I've seen is that the larger dinosaurs in warmer climates probably did not have insulating coats. There are also no extant birds anywhere near the mass of Rex. (Even Yutyrannus was only 20% the mass of T. rex, and AFAICT it lived in a colder climate.) Speculation by those in the field carries weight, since all reconstructions are speculative. They could very easily be wrong, and perhaps none have thought to consider the difference between mammals and birds, but we don't get to speculate on our own, not in the article.

No precedent, just speculation by paleontologists that just because an animal is too large to sport feathers as an adult doesn't mean they didn't have them when young. Anyway, that's irrelevant here as we're not depicting young.

Deinonychus may well have been fluffy. It's not a matter of cute, it's a matter of the ratio of surface area to volume and the resulting efficiency of heat loss or retention.

Ratites have pennaceous feathers (the defining feature being a central vane, not barbules), and what you have on Rex looks a lot like ostrich feathers. Those are not supported by evidence from tyrannosaurids or anything more basal than tyrannosaurids. They're also 5× as long as the 20 cm of the longest known feathers on Yutyrannus. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor point, but should be corrected. Pennaceous feathers are known as basally as Sinosauropteryx (see citations in the Wiki article) and soon to be published ornithischian. They appear to be basal to Dinosauria at most and Coelurosauria at least. Reports that these are plumulaceous seem to be based on taphonomic distortion. Usage of pennaceous/plumulaceous is applied inconsistently in literature, down feathers are often described as plumulaceous despite having a weak central rachis. Sinosauropteryx feathers are reportedly similar to modern down on close inspection. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The largest birds we know of (recently extinct elephant birds, moas, Haast's Eagle, etc.) definitely had dense feather coats. Not the size of Tyrannosaurus, obviously, but we have no evidence of any kind of large, naked bird. As for new restorations, I think the current one works, but discussion of feather type and extent is probably alright in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We have nothing to compare a tyrannosaur to, so anything we postulate is simply speculation. Many paleontologist have assumed that, like large mammals, they would have had sparse or localized feathering if they had any at all. They may well be wrong, of course; Yutyrannus was a surprise. But what little data we have suggests that T. rex was not feathered to the extent of Yutyrannus. That's the best info we have at present, and it flatly contradicts this image. Thus the image is unabashed OR, and as such has no place in an encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the life restorations we post contain speculation and are to varying degrees OR, they have to. That said, there are publications that mention that tyrannosaurs might have had a mix of feathers and scales. The best we can do is follow whatever evidence is available, skeletal proportions, skin impressions and phylogenetic bracketing. With Tyrannosaurus all we know is that some parts of it's body had small patches of ~2mm scales and it is nested within a group covered in feathers. At this point in time you can illustrate Tyrannosaurus mainly covered with feathers, mainly covered with scales, or anywhere in between and they can all be supported. No one mentioned anything when we posted pictures of feathered ornithomimosaurs which at the time didn't have clear skin impressions nor did anyone mention anything with depictions of feathered Therizinosaurus, why just Tyrannosaurus? An easy fix is to have a second restoration showing mainly scales and possibly naked skin with a caption along the lines of, 'a restoration of Tyrannosaurus showing scales as implied by skin impressions'. That would show to the casual viewer both extremes and that it's not certain what type of covering Tyrannosaurus had. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. About this specific image, though, it shows T. rex as being five times as fluffy as Yutyrannus, when the fossil evidence is that it was less. And do we have no artistic renditions done under the supervision of someone who works on these animals that we could use for guidance? — kwami (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that Late Maastrichian North America was likely quite like China; the receding sealines show that it was actually getting colder near the end of the Cretaceous (and thus the poles were likely forming), meaning China likely wasn't the only tundra-dominated area in the world. And I'm pretty sure ratite feathers aren't truly pennaceous, but some sort of basal form of pennaceous (they do lack the shaft of a cardinal-like feather, IIRC) which, considering ratites are among the more basal birds. (Anseriformes are the first branch of crown Aves to appear, considering Vegavis is from 65.5 mya, right about the end of the Cretaceous, though galliformes, penguins, charadriiformes, anseranatids, anhimids and dromornithids all also arose at that time, so crown Aves sort of exploded in diversity at the end of the Cretaceous) In any case, most of the T.rex range likely was tundra, so a extensive feather coat (aside from underbelly and possibly the legs) isn't far-fetched. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does the idea come from that Cretaceous China was a "tundra"? The fossil plant evidence is unequivocal that the Yixian Formation was temperate and dominated by dense ginkgo and conifer forests, and seasonally cool and arid (meaning it had an autumn cold and dry enough for some degree of snowfall). Theclimate would have been similar to the US mid-Atlantic. I've never heard Washington, D.C. described as a tundra... MMartyniuk (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that Yutyrannus lived in tundra, but rather that our rendition of T.rex makes it look like a wooly mammoth. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Elephants have peculiar precedents. There is in Rhinocerotidae a tendency to develop semi-aquatic forms such as Rhinoceros, Metamynodon or Teleoceras. Being ostensibly hairless isn't the end of the story: these animals still have to thermoregulate behaviorally, wallowing/bathing in water/mud/dust and being active in the most amenable parts of the day and seeking cover at other times. I'm not sure large mammals outside of those lineages would necessarily resort to these or other adaptations let alone dinosaurs. Birds have generally pretty thin skin under the feathers and at least Santanaraptor's preserved skin hints at a similar state of affairs for coelurosaurs.[1,2]

You must surely have sharper sight that any of us to be able to discern the texture of the feathers in MMartyniuk's rough digital paint over.

"the fact that the lineage had feathers does not mean that every member was covered with them, especially the larger ones."

I don't think you quite understand how scientific inference in general and phylogenetic bracketing in particular work. While what you said is a good caveat to have in mind, what the evidence we have says is that an extensive covering is more likely than limited tufts (which says nothing about their length). Then there is also the phylogenetic signal: we have several small mammals that manage being mostly naked (armadillos, warthogs) and no bird. Theropods at least were more like birds than mammals. Beyond that speculating without further testing is indeed baseless.

As for authoritative speculation here is...

• Xing Xu:[3]

"Based on the presence of feathers in some extinct coelurosaurs and all living birds, this approach suggests that all coelurosaurs, with the possible exception of gigantic species such as Tyrannosaurus rex, are feathered."

• Thomas Holtz, Jr:[4]

"The evidence has been mounting that the big tyrant dinosaurs were descendants of fuzzy dinosaurs, and quite possibly fuzzy themselves"

• Paul Sereno:[4]

"In my lab, I have a T. rex fossil that shows the beast did not have scales,”(...). “But it’s only in China that we have the opportunity to see evidence of what replaced scales – feathers! The report is a red flag to Hollywood and some scientists who get wobbly legs thinking something as ferocious as T. rex might have been packaged with a soft downy overcoat. You’ll now be able to date any Hollywood film that does not give these brutes their feathery due!"

• Lindsay Zanno:[4]

"[Yutyrannus] doesn’t put the nail in the coffin on the debate over the body covering of T.rex, but it definitely weakens the argument that the tyrant-king couldn’t have had feathers,"

I get this impression you didn't read the papers I posted at the top of the talk page. Here is the pertinent bit:

"Saurischians and especially theropods have an extensive air sac system that would help thermoregulate.^[1,2,3] Birds today raise their feathers and and even shake their body at the same time to replace the air trapped by them.^[4] Feathers and fur aren't only heat traps as a steep temperature gradient works both ways.^{[5, 6]}"

The point with the mention of the air sac system is that it obviates the square/cube rule by providing extensive internal evaporative surfaces which the 3rd ref shows are more efficient at dissipating heat than the skin itself when the ambient temperature is the same as the internal one.

Also I think you're assuming by a peculiar default that the average temp estimated for that time would be a constant measurement. I live in a subtropical climate (Southern Portugal): winter is definitely cold, especially the nights.

Dracontes (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The point about air sacs is an important one. However, your ref notes that the idea that large dinosaurs might have lost their feathers is a common one among paleontologists. It also does not give much support for our rendition. Xu says Yu's feathers may have been a winter coat, not shared with more familiar tyrannosaurs. Witmer calls Yu a "woolly tyrannosaur" and says there has been some "rather sketchy" evidence that Rex was not feathered. Sereno says that Rex might have been covered with a "soft downy overcoat". But that's not what we show. The article says in both the lead and body that the feathers were simple filaments. Our pic looks like they're intended to be vaned, pennaceous feathers like an ostrich has.

The small hairless mammals you note are burrowers. Birds may take advantage of existing burrows, but they don't burrow themselves. That's a likely explanation for the difference.

You don't need sharp eyes. Just measure the length of the feathers in silhouette, and compare to the length of the animal. The result is one tenth; for a 9m adult, that's 5× the 20cm max of Yutyrannus. If our image had showed T.rex with 20cm feathers, I would never have objected to it. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Maloney and Dawson state that longer feathers, especially those that those that fade to a white colouration proximally, are actually better at keeping an animal cool than shorter feathers, so arguments on them being too long are pretty unfounded. Ref: Shane K. Maloney, Terence J. Dawson (1995) "The heat load from solar radiation on a large, diurnally active bird, the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae)" Journal of Thermal Biology Volume 20, Issue 5, October 1995, Pages 381–387.

Irrelevant now anyway as MMartyniuk has put up an excellent new reconstruction. User:Tomopteryx

"Might" is the operative word.

If you look closely at what I wrote you'll see I said "texture". What I saw on the earlier version was brushwork with little detail. If those were pennaceous or plumulaceous feathers was rather left to one's imagination. But now as Tomopteryx said it's moot. Though perhaps the lead needs to be updated according to Foth 2012¹ since he makes a cogent argument preserved feathers found so far in non-avian coelurosaurs are rather difficult to characterize regarding their structural details: crushed feathers look filamentous even if they are indeed pennaceous.

"Birds may take advantage of existing burrows, but they don't burrow themselves."

Birds do burrow to construct nests (see puffins, bee-eaters, etc). Conversely not all mammalian tropical burrowers are without pelage (marsupial mole, golden mole just to exemplify the obligate ones).

From what literature I've read recently, it's not nearly as simple a story as people would make it just based on physical principles. Here are a few enlightening papers on the thermoregulatory importance of integument: [2] [3]. Dracontes (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, there are tonnes of restorations of fully feathered Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus, which are as large as T rex, but no one seems to bring forth the "too large for feathers" argument there, probably because they are so bird like already. By the way, couldn't some kind of compromise be agreed upon for this image? I guess if the longest feathers were shaved a bit here and there that there would be less scepticism? FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've said several times I would be fine with an image closer to the other reasonable extreme. I just don't have time to work on it at the moment. The current image is CC-By--have at it! MMartyniuk (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's up to the dissenters to give a clear idea of what their vision is then! FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's too much, the point is just to show feathers, the extend isn't really that important. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• On a related note, just found this photo on Flickr of a full size feathered Tyrannosaurus model! FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hah, pretty neat that this was put up on my birthday and I didn't even realize it. But still, it looks great. Maybe we could put it into the article somewhere? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Heheh, I put it under the skin and feather section that same day... FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

There was a T. rex that was 14.5-15 meters long (UCMP 137538) NCharizard25 (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

interpenetrated or interpreted?

In Paleoecology section, I found these sentences a bit odd: "This has been interpenetrated as a bayou environment..." "The region is interpenetrated to be semi-arid inland plains..." Both sentences are talking about paleoenvironmental "interpretation" of the fossil sites. The word "interpenetrated" in this context doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe typos? Any comments? --JikhanJung (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Up to 6.8 metric tons

What makes the 6.8 tonnes estimate for Tyrannosaurus rex more plausible or relevant than the more recent 8-9 tonnes estimates? as far as I know, they are not based on some Bone circumference or bone strength or some ecuations made, instead they are based on some of the most modern scanning technics known, and are based on the actual skeletons and their volumes rather than separate bones or comparisons with elephants.--Dinoexpert (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not call this figure specifically more plausible, actually I cannot find it in the paper cited as a source, which estimates the largest specimen at less than 6t based on femoral dimensions, but you may find some of the comments (specifically those by Greg Paul and Christopher Brochu) on the PLOS-study interesting in terms of the accuracy of the higher estimates: comments on Hutchinson et al. 2011 --Ornitholestes (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Femur dimensions estimates, when it comes to extrapolating to phylogenetically and morphologically disparate organisms are inherently inferior to volumetric ones, of course, a volumetric estimate is only as good as the model used and Greg Paul's are inaccurate, this are his skeletals of Stan and Sue, compare them to the ortographic images of the scanned skeletons from Hutchinson et al. study available here and Scott Hartman's skeletals. You find considerable scaling mistakes and conscious choices at articulated the bones that betray Paul's biases to making them as skinny as possible, like the scapular blade being too high in the torso or the concave gastralia that Hutchinson et al. already mentioned as inaccurate in their comments. Using a more accurate reconstruction and following a similar method to Greg Paul, Scott Hartman has estimated the mass of Sue at 8.4 metric tonnes. Now, for the article, since there's no paper that explicitly calls out the 6 tonne estimates as improbably light for the largest individuals I don't feel like we can outright replace it, maybe put up a range? Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

More subsections under Feeding strategies

The section "Feeding strategies" has been greatly expanded, but it is one huge chunk of continuous text, and it would help the reader if it was broken up into subsections. I can't even keep track on it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. DinopediaR (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, remember italics for binomials and genus names! Good work, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my best. DinopediaR (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is getting very long, perhaps it should be a spin off article? "Tyrannosaurus feeding behaviour" or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is getting incredibly long and might be hampering page load time. I could always make a Feeding behaviour in Tyrannosaurus article and then put the info there, with a link to it under that section here, so as to speed up load times and make it more convinient. Would that be a good move for all of us? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, and it seems the page loads a lot quicker with the split. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)-

Yeah, this article should still summarise that info here, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have hesitated in splitting the article, since I think it is stronger as a whole than in separate parts. Readers could better relate and find connections between the different points/parts of the article. But I guess page load time and system performance is also important for usability. I think the summary for the feeding strategies could use a bit more work though, since it just seems to be a copy of an older version of the subsection and does not include some key points that were later added the longer version.DinopediaR (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There are article size issues to consider though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline Even after the split, it exceeds the 100 kb recommendation.FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What kind of fresh water fish fossils were found in areas where the T rex fossils were found? I hypothesize that they camped the watering hole. 2601:7:1A00:6EF:A1F1:B3FB:655A:C5EB (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

It shows that sue (tyrannosaurus rex) weighs 9 tons and she is the most complete t-rex ever found so it doesn't make sense that in this article it describes that a t-rex can weight up to 7.5 short tons. The links should be below which confirms this information I gave.

76.84.233.215 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/tyrannosaurus-rex-weighed-tons-estimate/story?id=14738660

http://www.livescience.com/16524-rex-dinosaur-weighed.html

Not done: It appears to me that 9 tons is the estimate for Sue's weight when alive, whereas 7.5 short tons is the weight of the fossil, so there is no inconsistency. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Mr. Granger- Actually there is an inconsistency since it says sue weighs UP to 7.5 short tons which she doesn't, she weighs UP to 9 short tons and maybe more not less. When we say what an average human weighs we wouldn't weigh their skeleton and say that's how much they weigh because it's obviously not true. The description also needs to change because this article contradicts itself when it's says that the largest t-rex specimen (sue) weighs 7.5 short tons which in the description it says that the largest t-rex specimen (sue) is approaching 9 short tons. First of all sues skeleton obviously doesn't weigh 7.5 short tons when they have estimations of her weight that are far lower than that and she is the most complete t-rex which would be the specimen they study off of. When they weighed her at an estimated 7.5 short tons they included flesh not just her skeleton. Also if sue's skeleton somehow weighed 7.5 short tons why have in the article that they have estimates of t-rex's weighing 6 tons, makes no sense at all. 76.84.233.215 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Done: Every animal has a range it weighs. If you pick up and measure every single 30 year old human, you'll find that very few of them weigh the same. This is much different from extinct animals, which is why they are so much more variable. Do you known exactly how much flesh, fat, muscle, tendons, ligaments, organs, and other soft tissue to put on the skeleton of a dinosaur, absolutely not!!!! This is why when different people estimate the same dinosaur of even specimen using the same or different methods their totals can be off by so much. IJReid (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

IJReid- At least change in the second paragraph in the 5th sentence that the largest t-rex specimen (sue) weighs UP to 9 short tons and not UP to 7.5 short tons. This article said that sue weighed around 9 short tons in the description while then the article said that she weighs 7.5 short tons in the second paragraph. Now what i was explaining in the statement that you answered was that i was told by another user said that the t-rex (sue) weighed 7.5 short tons just with her fossil which her fossil alone obviously doesn't weigh 7.5 short tons or they wouldn't have lower estimates of her weight so it would make sense to change her weight in the second paragraph sentence 5 since some user did that in t-rex's classification. Please change this i don't want to respond again with something that is so obviously wrong. 76.84.233.215 (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Sue the most complete tyrannosaurus rex specimen is 42 feet long not 40. This source is the museum where sue is being held Theshanerocks (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC) https://www.fieldmuseum.org/happening/exhibits/sue-t-rex

Done —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Undone - the different information cannot be slotted into where there is an existing citation that says something else. J. Spencer (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Consistency With Other Pages

On the Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Carcharodontosaurus pages, they're all listed as being bigger than Tyrannosaurus, even though on the Tyrannosaurus page the highest weight estimate exceeds that of the highest weight estimates given for Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus while being comparable to that of the highest estimates given for Spinosaurus. This is more of a consistency issue than anything. I'd fix it myself except those pages are locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Fan 684 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the study that gave the 18.5t estimate was being grossly misrepresented on this page. The authors themselves steed in the paper that their upper and lower range models were extremely unrealistic (looking at the 18.5 model for Sue, that creature is basically Jabba the Hutt with legs and would not have been able to move). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Even still, it's listed and should be addressed as possible, however unrealistic. The Spinosaurus page for example gives estimates over 20 tonnes. Despite being very unlikely, the estimate is given(if that all makes sense).Rex Fan 684 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2014

I suggest changing

A second footprint that may have been made by a Tyrannosaurus was first reported in 2007 by British paleontologist Phil Manning, from the Hell Creek Formation of Montana. This second track measures 72 centimetres (28 in) long, shorter than the track described by Lockley and Hunt. Whether or not the track was made by Tyrannosaurus is unclear, though Tyrannosaurus and Nanotyrannus are the only large theropods known to have existed in the Hell Creek Formation. Further study of the track (a full description has not yet been published) will compare the Montana track with the one found in New Mexico.<ref name="rextrack2007">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/october/news_12515.html|title=A PROBABLE TYRANNOSAURID TRACK FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION(UPPER CRETACEOUS), MONTANA, UNITED STATES |year=2008}}</ref>''

to

A second footprint that may have been made by a Tyrannosaurus was first reported in 2007 by British paleontologist Phil Manning, from the Hell Creek Formation of Montana. This second track measures 72 centimetres (28 in) long, shorter than the track described by Lockley and Hunt. Whether or not the track was made by Tyrannosaurus is unclear, though Tyrannosaurus and Nanotyrannus are the only large theropods known to have existed in the Hell Creek Formation. <ref name=“manningetal2008”>{{Cite journal|last1=Manning |first1=P. L.,|last2=Ott|first2=C. |last3=Falkingham |first3=P. L. |year=2009 |title=The first tyrannosaurid track from the Hell Creek Formation (Late Cretaceous), Montana, U.S.A. |journal=Palaios |volume=23 |pages=645-647 |doi=10.2110/palo.2008.p08-030r}}</ref> <ref name="rextrack2007">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/october/news_12515.html|title=A PROBABLE TYRANNOSAURID TRACK FROM THE HELL CREEK FORMATION(UPPER CRETACEOUS), MONTANA, UNITED STATES |year=2008}}</ref>''

because I couldn't find any reference in the source originally cited to plans to do a comparison between the Montana and New Mexico tracks, nor in what appears to be the published description - new citation to this description added.

Louise Dennis (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Done -Thanks for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Out of interest is there a reason the new citation wasn't included? (insufficiently high profile? behind a paywall?) It would be good to know for future reference. Louise Dennis (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Louise Dennis: - Ops! that was a mistake. I've just made another edit to include that source. Thanks again! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

About "Nanotyrannus"...

Should we lump "Nanotyrannus" as a genus into the Tyrannosaurus article? I recall that Thomas Carr and Thomas Holtz both consider "Nanotyrannus" to be a specimen of Tyrannosaurus, and they tend to be considered highly in tyrannosauroid studies.

I know there's still people who claim "Nanotyrannus" is a valid genus, but the amount of evidence pointing to it makes me skeptical that the "dwarf tyrant" isn't a juvenile Tyrannosaurus, personally. The overwhelming amount of physiological characters that are common in juveniles (and the fact that it fits well into Tyrannosaurus morphology) suggests that, at least personally, there was only one genus of tyrannosaurid in the Hell Creek Formation that may have had two species; T.rex (the type species) and T.lancensis (formerly lumped into Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, Aublysodon and Deinodon, given it's own genus as "Nanotyrannus" and then re-lumped into Tyrannosaurus.)

But discussion of the topic makes for more constructive articles, so I'll leave it open for debate here. ;)

(Note that I put "Nanotyrannus" in quotes because it's status as a genus is dubious at best, and as per the formatting I've seen most often for nomina dubia, that's how I tend to format it.) Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there are some studies in the works that will shed further light on this. We shouldn't really do anything drastic until those are published. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

running or hopping?

Looking at the T.Rex skeleton (large tail, small arms, big legs) i am curious whether there has ever been any conclusive research as to its posture when speeding along: was it running like a bird or hopping like a kangaroo? Selena81 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In modern birds, there seems to be a strong correlation between small size and hopping, which may be due to economy of movement: an animal with smaller legs expends less energy hopping, while birds with longer strides are better off moving each leg independently. Arboreal birds are also much more likely to be hoppers, while more terrestrial ones tend to be walkers. Kangaroos are highly specialized jumpers and probably aren't good analogues to large theropods, but given the fact that no very large modern bird hops when it can walk, I'd say T. rex was definitely a walker. An animal that size would probably require some pretty bizarre hip/leg biomechanics to hop effectively. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Like Emily said, kangaroo hindlegs are only superficially similar to theropod legs; the foot of a kangaroo is far larger than that of a theropod of the same size, and kangaroos are specially adapted to hopping. Tyrannosaurus lacked such adaptations, which probably excludes hopping from being primary locomotion. The long tail was a balancing measure for the large skull of tyrannosaurids, and the small forelimbs are also reduced for the balance of the animal; tyrannosaurs show a common trend for making the skull the primary weapon, which given the bite force T.rex had, was probably a wise choice. If a T.rex was to hop, it'd likely only be as a quite small juvenile, and certainly not like a kangaroo does it. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that kangaroos are plantigrade and their posture is tripodal, quite different from any theropods. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

picture

I have a question pertaining to the science of the article. Some images may be science but others may just be there for show. The image should have something to do with the article text. Is there actual evidence on hard drives or cell phones that T-Rex does sex like this? Crooked Q (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The section is about sexual characteristics. Therefore the image is relevant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014

146.7.31.201 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) nigga n8iggaa anajiaahzjkl;'

 Not done: no request made. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference 148

Please check this reference, oh wikipedia folks.

 Fixed template ref points to. Turgan ^Talk 21:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

I want to change the time dating of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Beauty94 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. What would you like see inserted into the article (eg "please change X to Y"). Please make sure to include a reliable source to support your changes. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Italian T-rex reconstruction

Could someone please comment on the anatomical accuracy of this reconstruction? Many thanks.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trexmilano.jpg

Mariomassone (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Several problems here. The spine appears bent upward in front of the hip similar to a therizinosaurid. The arms are in an incorrect pronated position and are too big. The chest is too shallow at the shoulders so it almost looks like the arms grow out of the neck. The lachrymal horns seem to have copied the incorrect ones from Jurassic Park. The lips are in an unlikely wavy position, I guess in an attempt to make it look like it's snarling. The eye position looks too low and too forward. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, it's in Italy, which does not have freedom of panorama[1], so the image has to be deleted in any case.. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Would the sculpture however fall under this category though? : Art. 5.3(h): “use of works, such as architecture or sculpture, made to be located in public places” is not mentioned;Mariomassone (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All similar Italian images I have nominated for deletion were deleted instantly, if there was a loophole, you can be sure the Commons people would had noticed it. Just point to that page when you nominate it. Can't see where your quote is from, though... FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's from the English translation provided here on the Italian "Freedom of Panorama" wikipage. I'll give a try, but I suspect that the Italian wiki has different tag formats. Thanks!Mariomassone (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Feathered "Tyrannosaurus"

Why are we combining features of different Coelurosauria and Tyrannosauroidea into the Tyrannosaurus rex article? The only reported Tyrannoraptora with feathers were the Dilong and the Yutyrannus, not the T-rex. If anything we should add notes regarding feathers to one of the Clade or Superfamily articles, and remove it entirely from this article. If some apples are red, that does not mean that all apples are red simply because they are apples. -Rob^talk 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You just answered your own question. The only tyrannosauroids with extensive integuments preserved are Dilong and Yutyrannus, and they show plentiful feathers. Yes, small patches of naked Tyrannosaurus skin impressions are known, but this doesn't indicate anything about entire body covering, as we know some feathered dinosaurs did have scaly parts on the legs and tails. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So why is this information listed on this article and not where it belongs? 98.193.124.175 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What information? FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem as this information is properly sourced. Lots of information and knowledge in paleontology are inferred from indirect evidences. You don't need to find a T. rex mummy to prove the T. rex once had skin and muscles covering their skeletons. Big Cats - talk 20:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Normally i'd agree, writing here that t. rex had feathers would be like noting that it had skin or breathed air, a bit redundant for such a specific article. but this is THE most high profile dinosaur and the fact that it belonged to a broadly feathered clade is not common knowledge, which is why it's noted here, along with other facts that equally apply to all tyrannosaurids, like carnivory. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you gentlemen are missing the point of my original statement. While the Tyrannosaurus Rex was never found to have feathers, there is no denying that some of its relatives did indeed have feathers. That is not disputed. What I am saying is that simply because the Tyrannosaurus Rex species is a Tyrannosaur, does not imply it had feathers. There were only two species of Tyrannosaur that were ever found to have feathers and the Tyrannosaurus Rex was definitely not one of them. The information about feathers should be clearly represented in the article about the superfamily of Tyrannosauroidea, and at very most this article about the Tyrannosaurus Rex should have a mention that, while feathers were never found on a rex, other members of the same family were found to have feathers.-Rob^talk 04:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Phylogenetic bracketing would like to have a talk, Robert (Tyrannosaurus' feathered relatives include the dromaeosaur Velociraptor, the tyrannoraptoran Juravenator, the tyrannosauroids Yutyrannus and Dilong, the ornithomimosaur Ornithomimus, the oviraptorosaur Citipati and many others; pretty much all coelurosaur branches have some evidence of feathers). And actually, didn't Sereno say that he had a T.rex specimen that had naked skin like a plucked bird on parts of it's body? Naked skin like that should indicate feathers, not to mention the average temperature in Hell Creek was a paltry 7-11 degrees Celsius, which is barely any better or even worse than the Yixian's 10 degrees Celsius when Yutyrannus was around; so using Yutyrannus as a integumentary layout for Tyrannosaurus is not only a phylogenetically sound option, but an ecologically sound one, too. And nobody's disputing that Gigantoraptor, Deinonychus, Deinocheirus or Dromaeosaurus have feathers, and none of those genera (to my knowledge) have definite proof of feathers. The evidence of the Hell Creek climate we have points to it being a temperate climate similar to what Yutyrannus resided in; so if anything, using Yutyrannus as a base for Tyrannosaurus integument is logical and supported by evidence, while a naked or scaly Tyrannosaurus is hampered by it's habitat; we don't see naked deer, bears or cougars running around wild, do we? A feathery reconstruction is supported by the evidence now, not a naked or scaly one. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)-

Rob, you are also missing the point of my statements. While your statements are all scientifically correct, wikipedia doesn't work that way. If a very reliable source mentions the possibility of a feathered T. rex, the information can be put in the article as long as the information is accurately represented. If you want to mention feathers were never found on a rex, you must include a reliable source for the statement. Wikipedia is not a forum and is not a place for publishing original research, it just summarizes what existing reliable sources say. Big Cats - talk 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Raptormimus- To be fair, I don't believe phylogenetic bracketing really applies in species that are so distantly related. In the case of raptors as well as many other species you have named, you're essentially comparing animals not only of a different species but also of a different genus and family. They share an (sub)order, but I would have to parallel your comparisons to humans apes and monkeys. While they share the order of primates, humans and apes clearly lack a visible tail. The only difference here is the Dilong, which scientists are still having quite a bit of trouble placing. ...and the Yutyrannus, which clearly states that Tyrannosaurs have scales where the Yutrannus did not, suggesting it was merely due to its habitat.

" scaly skin impressions have been reported from various Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurids (such as Gorgosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus) on parts of the body where Yutyrannus was feathered." meaning they almost definitely did not have any feathers, and instead had scales.

That is how the information appears on the wiki, and after checking the source, the source reflects the information also:

As yet, no skin impressions have been found for T. rex, so researchers cannot say with certainty what kind of body covering it had. And some are not ready to abandon the more conventional view. Thomas Carr, a palaeontologist at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin, argues, for example, that unpublished fossils with skin impressions from close relatives of T. rex show scaly skin. These findings suggest that even though some earlier tyrannosauroids had feathers, the subgroup called tyrannosauridae (which includes T. rex), seems to have undergone an evolutionary reversal from fuzz to scales.

-Rob^talk 09:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

One serious problem with that is that formations that preserve scale impressions are not necessarily able to preserve feather impressions. As far as I know, the only dinosaur feather expressions known from all of North America are of a single specimen of Ornithomimus, and they are very faint. Furthermore, feathers can exist on the same patches of skin that are covered in scales, so scaly skin does not mean absence of feathers. See these owl feet, for example.[2] If those were fossilised in the way most North American dinosaurs were, we would only have evidence of the scales, not the feathers. Would that mean it did not have feathers alongside the scales? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding to the DRN post. While I sympathize with Rob's general point - we still have no feathered Tyrannosaurus fossil - the article actually seems quite good as it is. I note that the discussion on feathers does indeed rest on facts relating to the clade not the species, but I also note that reliable sources discuss feathers in Tyrannosaurus by reference to its relatives and it is therefore appropriate for us to do the same.

I would suggest making the first sentence of the section a little more neutral. Presently it is "While there is no direct evidence for Tyrannosaurus rex having had feathers, many scientists". I'd perhaps change it to something like "Fossilized skin of Tyrannosaurus shows scales and no feathers, but some scientists". I would also take out the deviantart picture of Tyrannosaurus with wings - love the picture and thanks to the artist, but the wings make it not quite suitable (suitably boring) for an encyclopedia. I'd leave the picture of the Polish theme park. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The scientific consensus has become that Tyrannosaurus had some kind of filamentous integument, which is supported by climatory evidence as well as phylogenetic evidence (and possibly fossil evidence, but that's unpublished ATM). The "wings" of Matt's image are more akin to those of ground birds than songbirds (basically, they're not pennaceous, but a middleground of plumaceous and pennaceous); plus the average temperature of Hell Creek (where Tyrannosaurus is found) was 10 degrees Celsius, not much different to the climate that Yutyrannus, a tyrannosauroid of similar size, was living in with a large covering of plumaceous feathers. Stating that T.rex was fully scaled is only using fossils, which are prone to preservation bias; after all, we didn't know Ornithomimus had pretty bird-like feathers until recently, despite having known about it for centuries at that point, and the material the fossils are preserved in and postmortem decomposition affect extraintegumentary preservation (Hell Creek or the Lance aren't lagerstattes, after all). But considering that Tyrannosauridae is bracketed by groups with known feather impressions (Compsognathidae, Ornithomimidae and most importantly Tyrannosauroidea) makes the assumption that T.rex and all other advanced tyrannosaurids sported some kind of filamentous integument logically sound. Everyone naturally assumes animals like Smilodon had fur despite having no fossil evidence of it at all due to phylogenetics, so saying that T.rex was likely feathered because many of it's relatives were is pretty much the same thing, really. Saying T.rex was exclusively scaled is ignoring the phylogenetic aspect of it's classification; plus the possible naked skin impressions that Sereno has in his lab awaiting description could be the nail in the coffin of a leather-hided T.rex. But again, this is a case of evidence being lacking and palaeontologists needing to make conclusions based on related species. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus would have no doubt held at least minimal feathering. Phylogenetic bracketing is a major way to determine the appearances of extinct species, and based on possible bracketing, all ornithodirans (pterosaurs and dinosaurs) would have been feathered. A reversal of this is extremely unlikely, as nowadays, are any birds unfeathered? NO! The most minimal feathering now is that of the ostrich and relatives, who live across Asia and Africa and survive in the heat of the savanna. Climate should have nothing to do with it, as extremely close relatives of Tyrannosaurus lived in Alaska, which at any time in the cretaceous was much colder than China. Nanuqsaurus lived in Alaska, and based on phylogenetics, it is the sister taxon of a group including Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Zhuchengtyrannus. It also lived 69 mya, where as Tyrannosaurus lived 67-66. A perfect example of a dinosaur possessing both feathers and scales is the recently described Kulindadromeus. It had very unique scales on its tail, and possessed complete feathering elsewhere. From what I recall, the Tyrannosaurus scales came from the legs, which actually are one of the regions of ostriches and relatives that lack feathers. This provides no evidence that Tyrannosaurus was not still feathered then. Feathers can also grow in the same regions of skin as scales, so this doesn't even provide evidence that Tyrannosaurus had unfeathered legs. Yutyrannus was completely feathered, so any scale impressions would come from parts that it was feathered. Based on all this evidence, Tyrannosaurus definitely had minimal feathering, probably even a more complete coat like Dinoguy2's original fully feathered artwork. IJReid (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Fossilized skin of Tyrannosaurus shows scales and no feathers," This is not true--no skin impressions of T. rex have been formally described. There are rumors of scaly skin (from Wyrex) and naked skin (from Sereno) but nothing has been described in any detail (and when photos of the supposed Wyrex skin showed up on Facebook recently, a few people noted that they appeared to be previously-described patches of Edmontosaurus skin!). Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Rather than indulge in OR arguments, I would then suggest changing "direct" to something like "definitive". I would still take out the deviantart picture of Tyrannosaurus with wings. At this point I'll take this page off my watchlist. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The prominent wings may be a bit "in your face", but it appears wings were developed for display, before being co-opted for flight. The older version of the image[[3]] had less "controversial" wings, perhaps they could be "transplanted" onto the new version... Note that people like Gregory S. Paul have actually illustrated tyrannosaurs with only wing feathers[4] for some years! FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, Richard, that "deviantArt picture" was made by Matthew Martyniuk, who does have legitimate publications under his belt. And like Funk said, people have been putting wings on tyrannosaurids for years...so why make such a deal about it now? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, Thomas Holtz (probably the top researcher on tyrannosaurids in the world) is a strong advocate of tyrannosaurids using their arms for display via the use of feathers. He has said as much on social media on many occations (as well as on the DML iirc). So far you haven't given any counter argument other than that you don't like it. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional point, I think the current caption (specifically "absolutely minimal feathers") for Matt's reconstruction is patronizing. I think something along the lines of "Reconstruction of a adult T. rex with a mixed covering of feathers and scales, as suggested by several lines of evidence." Tomopteryx (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed "absolutely minimal", we'll never know the extent of plumage coverage, so it's just silly to pretend any such precision is possible. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, here's a diagram that shows which body parts skin impressions of tyrannosaurs are known from: http://dino-sours.tumblr.com/post/92429345702/avisuchian-assuming-dinosaur-avisuchian FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Could we add a T-Rex in Pop Culture as the T-Rex in Jurassic Park? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) File:T-rex-jurassic-park.jpg

Labelling albertosaurinae in cladogram

Would it be possible to add the name "albertosaurinae" to the Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus clade? I think it warrants labelling. I'd do it myself, but every attempt has resulted in a mess. Thanks! Mariomassone (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

IJReid should be able to help you with that. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

Tyrannosaurus was an Archosaurian reptile and thus does NOT have "scales". ALL dinosaurs like crocodiles and alligators today have smooth, non-scaly skin! Only Lepidosaurian reptiles (snakes, lizards and tuatara in modern times) have scales. 66.102.16.20 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamietw (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Crocs have scales, birds have scaly feet. All kinds of scales may not be homologous, though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)