|
This is generally considered the most up-to-date reconstruction of a T. Rex: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/7/30/21348242/sue-t-rex-field-museum-flesh-model No feathers as adults, we have scale impressions from various parts of the body that rule out a complete feather coat, and a partial covering seems unlikely based on size. Juveniles are considered likely to be feathered at hatching then lose the feathering before reaching their full size. Non-therapods didn't have advanced feathers, but are likely to have some kind of filament or bristle covering on parts or all of their bodies that evolved from the same source as feathers. This is the most accurate reconstruction of a Psittacosaurus from a very detailed fossil that preserved soft tissue impressions, color patterns, and tail bristles: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a22884/most-accurate-dinosaur-replica/ Again, larger non-therapods were unlikely to have had much in the way of complete coverings based on surviving skin impressions and biomechanics of heat loss (large animals would overheat if insulated), with the possible exception of dinosaurs that lived at high elevations or near the poles. This is the largest known feathered dinosaur, a therapod that lived in cold environments and was about twice the size of a polar bear: https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-unearth-largest-feathered-dinosaur So basically most big dinosaurs were probably scaly and looked fairly traditional, medium and small dinosaurs likely had some degree of covering. Check out Prehistoric Planet if you haven't, while the behaviors are mostly speculative the general looks are the most accurate Cretaceous animals ever CGI'd.
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
buglord posted:Seeing the natural history museum in los angeles last week filled me with a ton of nostalgia, partially because we also went there for an adult field trip as part of that class too. buglord posted:anyone have dinosaur podcast/channel reccs so i can remember all my dino facts that i lost? https://www.youtube.com/@GEOGIRL (A mix of geology and prehistoric life) https://www.youtube.com/@HenrythePaleoGuy https://www.youtube.com/@LindsayNikole* https://www.youtube.com/@mothlightmedia1936 https://www.youtube.com/@eons* https://www.youtube.com/@RaptorChatter* https://www.youtube.com/@TheBudgetMuseum Honorable mention to https://www.youtube.com/@EDGEscience, who has good information but I just can't stand the cadence he uses to narrate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 03:41
|
|
|
Elukka posted:From what I've skimmed sources I don't think any contrivances about atmospheric oxygen or whatnot are needed to make the math work on them flying. I know there have been some suggestions that they'd have been flightless, but I don't think that's the mainstream view, and for a terrestrial animal it just looks incredibly fragile and ungainly. Competent at moving on land, perhaps taking prey on land, sure, but this very lightweight and incredibly specialized form for a purely terrestrial animal? Anyway on the topic of flying check out this time some idiot thought Stegosaurus could glide. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-fantastic-gliding-stegosaurus-107838636/ 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2023 07:35
|
|
|
Yep, some of the most famous Victorian paleontologists were vehemently against the idea that birds could be dinosaurs for some reason and used their influence to successfully bury the idea until it was independently thought of in the 1970's. I think the prevailing line of thought at the time was birds and mammals were both warm-blooded and covered in something, so birds must be more closely related to mammals than reptiles, despite the bones of birds and dinosaurs having so many similarities.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2023 05:34
|
|