Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login


TheRollingWestern Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Very inspiring~
MisterBug Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2017  Hobbyist Artist

One of the greatest galleries ever!!!

DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Nov 10, 2016
Well, at this point you already know how I like your models, so everything I can about it is: continue with the great work!

Just a warning. Probably you should put more feathers on your T. rexes (make them look more like TSL's one). I think I have a good explanation here:…
Swordlord3d Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2016  Professional Filmographer
Oh, please don't start it again. We have what we have (I mean the information) and in current situation we can make different conclusions.

A good article:…
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2016
Such interesting points about Tyrannosaurids, but I believe they have some issues:

1- the fossilized scaly skin samples of "younger" tyrannosaurid specimens were tiny if compared to the overhaul body, so this barely gives a clue. See what happens with most modern birds: many tiny feathered coelurosaurs were fluffy from snout to toe, but even tough many birds always have scaly toes since they are babies. Also we should notice that while Yuty was fluffy from neck to toe, while sinosauropteryx (I know: not an actual tyrannosaurid. But it is kinda closely related to tyrannosaurids) had scally toes.

My main point about Yutyrannus is that it certainly at least peoves that baby T. rexes were fluffy, as modern baby birds show stage 2 feathers thanks to their non avian ancestors. And even if Yutyrannus and Dilong are not tyrannosaurids it would not change anything because more basal coelurosauruses surely had feathers, so the same tule applied to modern baby birds should be appiled to baby T. rexes.

2: Yutyrannus, at least, had the hip bones shape and tooth shape of a typical tyrannosaurid, and I doubt this is the only aspect that made scientists classificate it as a tyrannosaurid. If it belonged to another family, the scientists that examined it would know.

And I think you may have not understood what I said about the closest ancertors of T. rex.
Swordlord3d Featured By Owner Edited Nov 15, 2016  Professional Filmographer
What do you mean by "younger" Tyrannosaurid? We have several skin marks from several different dinosaurs including T.rex, Tarbosaurus, Gorgosaurus and probably Nanotyrannus (or juvenile rex from the Dueling dinos). In other words we have many scaly prints in Tyrannosaurids from different areas of the bodies (belly, throat, leg and tail) and no one feathered mark. I think this is the point that we simply can't ignore.

In any case, all speculations at the moment are just speculations and nothing more. We don't know exactly if Turannosaurids had feathers at all or not, so both variants of reconstruction (partially feathered or 100% scaly) are correct from the modern science's point of view. I just can't see any reason in arguing about the point where we simply don't have enough evidences. )
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2016
By "younger" I mean species that were closer to the K-T extinction. That is why I wrote it between quotation marks.

Well, I did not mean that T. rex should fe theraed from head to toes. I just meant that the fact that it's closest ancestors must have had feathers to maintain their body temperature, combined with the fact that earlier fluffy coelurosaurs (being these tyrannosaurids or not) already show that baby T. rexes surely had feathers (tough not necessarily on the same body parts as their ancestors, as it is evidenced by comparing many young modern birds to many fluffy adult non avian coelurosaurs).

Well, if you do not see any reason for it by now, that is okay. But why don't you make more feathered reconstructions of tyrannosaurids then? TSL's T. rex is the only noticebly fluffy T. rex I have seen on your gallery.
Swordlord3d Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2016  Professional Filmographer
>By "younger" I mean species that were closer to the K-T extinction.
Okay, I thought you meant some young specimen.

>the fact that it's closest ancestors must have had feathers
The problem is that they are not too close to the Tyrannosaurids as many people want to think (if related at all). All those feathered Tyrannosauroid dinos are relatively basal and primitive (head crests, 3 fingers etc.). The "youngest" of them (Yutyrannus) is 60 mln years older than T.rex which is an enormous amount of time. It's comparable with the period between the dinosaur extinction and nowadays. )
If you speak of Coelurosaurs in general, then it's pretty big group. For example we have all other Ceratopsians and we have Psittacosaurus with his quills (technically not feathers but some similar structures).

>must have had feathers to maintain their body temperature
We do not know if they (or at least all of them) needed feathers to maintain the body temperature. That's just an assumption. We have a lot of other dinosaurs (including the small ones) who perfectly lived without feathers which shows us that this thermoregulation role probably wasn't so important.

> show that baby T. rexes surely had feathers
That's an old hypothesis which still don't have any evidences. To prove it we need to find the covering marks from juveniles and from adult specimens to compare them. At least from some other Theropods. We can't extrapolate that on T.rexes just because "some modern birds do that" - that's funny. ) As a hypothesis that's fine of course but nothing more.

> But why don't you make more feathered reconstructions of tyrannosaurids then?
Because like I said both ways are correct at the moment until we know more. As any other artists I prefer to use the variant which suits my taste and intuition more. ) I'm fine with feathered Tyrannosaurids (partially feathered mostly) and I make them if the client wants but if I have a choice I'll choose the scaly one. )
DovahkiinHU3BR Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2016
Actually by "closest ancestors" I meant actual north american tyrannosaurines. I know that no fossilized feathers were found on these by now, but I am actually using that square cube law combined with the fact that lungs and air sacs eliminate proportionally more heat in smaller animals. Take a look:…… the beginning of the Campanian to the Maastrichtian there was a cooling of 7 degrees Celcius of the MAXIMUM temperature, wich means not only that the temperatures would be cooler most of the time, but that the cooling between Daspletosaurus and T. rex was lower, while T. rex had more than twice the mass of D. torosus (and this amount of cooling is not that much if we compare T. rex to even earlier, lighter tyrannosaurines like lythronax).

If there were small theropods that were proven to be scaly (could you give examples? I have never heard of this) may not be a signifficant clue as smaller animals can live with less integument in warmer areas. If all of these lived in warmer climates then it is not a great clue.

The comparation with birds is due to one of the basis of evolution: younger specimens show more similarities with the ancestors of the species. If modern coelurosaurs have the same feathers as some of their 120 million years old ancestors (and of even older ones), then it is at least far more likely for young T. rexes to have had feathers covering a great part of their bodies (regardless of the lenght of these).

The fact that you do not perfer any is clear for me. I just wanted to know if it would be difficult to make two versions of a model: one featuring scales and one featuring protofeathers.
Mikealosaurus Featured By Owner May 5, 2017
Well, smaller carnosaurs, megalosaurus and ceratosaus were probably scaly
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: