Deviation Actions

WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar

Feathered Dinosaurs are not Big Chickens!!!

24 Favourites

          Take that you feather-haters!!! 

          Every time you call a rex a chicken, somewhere a wolf sheds a tear.  Don't make wolves cry!  If fluffy dinos are reconstructed correctly, they don't look like chickens, unless the dino itself is a chicken.  (I'm not saying chickens are bad, I like them (a lot!).  But seriously, a T. rex did not look like them just because it had feathers.) 

          As references: a 2011 skeletal of a rex from Hartman was used for the rex, a photo from a 2014 calendar, Farm Sanctuary: rescue and refuge, of a chicken named Stanley was used for the chicken, I used my own photos of wolves from Plumpton Park Zoo for my wolf, a photo of a New England cotton-tail from Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, & Maryland, for the bunny and a photo on page 84 of bears from, National Geographic Book of Mammals, for the bear. 

          Drawings done in Crayola's Colored Pencils and with a gel pen. 

          Well, I hope y'all like or learn from the poster!  Have a good, no, a great day everybody!  :D 

Image details
Image size
1277x1652px 355.11 KB
© 2014 - 2021 WhiskerfaceRumpel
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
12monkehs's avatar
DovahsaurPaleoKnight's avatar
The bigger the animal is, the more it's body absorbs heat. Animals can not live with too much heat on their bodies. That is why elephants have almost no fur, unlike smaller animals like lions and tigers. And t-rex was larger than an elephant and lived on an Era when it was so hot that the South Pole was a forest, so t-rex would not survive being covered in feathers. So t-rex was definitaly NOT covered in feathers, but it could have some feathers on it's back and/or on the back of it's neck... and maybe some feathers on it's tail and/or on it's arms. But we can not be sure about it, by the time being.
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
Thank you for being incredibly thorough and for setting up your statement in an understandable and logical fashion; it is very much appreciated.  You are a very informed person, I must say.  

    Anyways, much of what you said is completely correct.  But, there is one little situation.  It seems feathers are much better at repelling heat, thus keeping an animal cooler, than fur is.  So what if feathers could actually keep Tyrannosaurus in a cooler state than if he did not have a coat of feathers?  
    But then again, it is a tiny sparrow showing such a characteristic and not an elephant-sized bird.  Though, maybe the characteristic could be carried over to a much larger being.  Therefore, it seems things are quite a bit sketchy until the fossils tell us directly.  So, as you said, "...we cannot be sure about it, by the time being."  

    And please, by all means, have a good day.  
DovahsaurPaleoKnight's avatar
Well, feathers may not be like fur, but both are good at trapping heat IF THE ANIMAL HAS LOTS OF THEM. If you pay attention when it is too cold you may spot a little bird that is "fluffed up". They do it to trap a large amount of heat between their feathers and their skin. If t-rex had a large amount of feathers, it would overheat.
It is believed that t-rex had air sacks like modern birds, and these would help at eliminating heat. So t-rex probably did not strougle to keep cool as elephants do.
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
    I am sorry if I am interpreting this wrong, but, "If you pay attention when it is too cold you may spot a little bird that..." sounds a bit like an insult to me, if it is not, I am sorry for taking it that way.  I do know that insulation is especially good at trapping heat.  I do see little birds and other critters poof up to keep warm in times of cold, even our hairs will try and do the same!  Though, little birds will also sometimes poof up in hot conditions as well, but this is for tiny birds, not for elephant-sized beings, whom such fluffing may not help.  Yet, as you have said, possessing air-sacks could probably eliminate overheating problems for Tyrannosaurus, so honestly, here we are again, neither of us completely right or wrong.  It seems still, we will just have to wait for the fossils to show what the case is. 
    Though, I must say, for me, this discussion has been quite fun, for it is nice to exchange and challenge information.  So please, have a very nice day. 
DovahsaurPaleoKnight's avatar
I did not to insult you. Sorry if I did not write my nessage in the best way.
Well, tiny birds can have huge amounts of feathers in any habitat due to their small mass.

You are really a good person to talk with. Wanna talk about other T. rex characteristics?
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
(Sorry for replying so late; this got lost within a pile of unchecked messages.)  

Oh, my apologies.  I was the one who interpreted the statement that way; you are fine. 

That is very true. 

Really?  Why thank you kindly. 
Yes, I love the eyes.  Having a being so large and turning his head to stare at one with both of his penetrating eyes, I am sure that would be something powerful to experience. 
DovahsaurPaleoKnight's avatar
Well, by now I did not search how T. rex's eyes could or should be. The maximum I know is that, in T. rex Autopsy, T. rex was shown to be unable to move it's eyes due to those bones inside the eyes. That is all I know about the eyes.
View all replies
Invader-Tool's avatar
Rahula87's avatar
Rahula87's avatar
You are welcome^^
Tarturus's avatar
I've never understood why certain people always use the chicken comparison, as if chickens were the only feathered creature they could conceive of.
Also, mammals never seem to have a similar problem with their fur. No one says they can't see things like lions or grizzly bears as intimidating, or can't take them seriously, cause of all the fur. But apparently certain people must have something against feathers for some bizarre reason.

Personally I reckon feathers make things like raptors and tyrannosaurs even cooler. ^^
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
So odd, isn't it? 
I'd agree in saying the feathers would make them even cooler.  :D 
Thank you for the comment.  :) 
5aurophaganax's avatar
Yes,I agree.A Tyrannosaurusor a Carcharodontosaurus or whathever predator would be scary even feathered(I'm a feathered dino lover).However,you can't say dinosaurs like Archaeopteryx,Microraptor and their kin weren't such adorable animals.Definetely,they'd be :BEST.PETS.EVER.
P.S.So true about the comparision between wolves and bunnies :P
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
Sorry, you're right, those fellas and their relatives would look absolutely adorable, but that still does not mean that they looked like factory-bred chickens!  ;P 

Thanks so much for liking the wolf-bunny comparison!  :D 
Oaglor's avatar
I'm only sick of the chicken comparison because the argument seems to assume that chickens are completely harmless. They eat small snakes for pete's sake. If tyrannosaurs are indeed like giant chickens that should be even more reason to be afraid as that simply means a giant predator with the single-mindedness of a hungry chicken.
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
You're totally right! 
Ornitholestes1's avatar
Another thing that needs to be pointed out: "Cute" and "intimidating" are not mutually exclusive. Grizzly bears are adorable, but I wouldn't want to go hug one.
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
Yes, you're very right.  I thought about adding that to the poster, but there was not enough room.  And doing so would bring me to add probably ten more things.  Maybe later I could make a poster covering that.  :) 
Jeholbird's avatar
Great response to one of the most stupid anti-feathered-dinosaurs claims.
WhiskerfaceRumpel's avatar
:D  Thank you much! 
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In