November 23, 2011
Was Tyrannosaurus a Big Turkey?
![]()

A reconstructed model of a young Tyrannosaurus at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Were these little tyrants covered in feathers? Photo by the author.
From museum displays to comic books and feature films, Tyrannosaurus rex has been celebrated as one of the biggest, meanest and ugliest predatory dinosaurs of all time. The image of this long-extinct carnivore as the apex of the apex predators has a nearly unstoppable amount of cultural inertia. Maybe that’s why people get upset when paleontologists and artists suggest that the tyrant dinosaur was at least partly covered in a coat of feathers. (Cracked.com even listed an illustration of a feathered Tyrannosaurus as one of “17 Images That Will Ruin Your Childhood.”) Such images make it seem as if the old “prize-fighter of antiquity” has gone soft—how could such an imposing predator go in for such a silly look? Tyrannosaurus was no turkey, right?
To date, no one has found the fossilized remnants of feathers with a Tyrannosaurus skeleton. A few patches of scaly skin are known from some big tyrannosaur specimens, and those scraps represent about all we know for sure about the body covering of the largest tyrants. So why is Tyrannosaurus so often depicted with a coat of dino-fuzz these days? That has everything to do with the evolutionary relationships of the great tyrannosaur lineage.
Until the early 1990s, paleontologists often placed tyrannosaurus with Allosaurus, Spinosaurus, Torvosaurus and others inside a group called the Carnosauria. These were the biggest of the carnivorous dinosaurs. But the group didn’t make evolutionary sense. As new discoveries were made and old finds were analyzed, paleontologists found that the dinosaurs within the Carnosauria actually belonged to several different and distinct lineages that had branched off from one another relatively early in dinosaur history. The tyrannosaurs were placed within the Coelurosauria, a large and varied group of theropod dinosaurs which includes dromaeosaurs, therizinosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, oviraptorosaurs and others. Almost every single coelurosaur lineage has been found to have feather-covered representatives, including the tyrannosaurs.
In 2004, paleontologist Xing Xu and colleagues described Dilong paradoxus, a small, roughly 130-million-year-old theropod which may be one of the earliest tyrannosauroid dinosaurs known. (The Tyrannosauroidea contains all the big, famous tyrannosaurids, such as Tyrannosaurus and Albertosaurus, as well as their closest relatives.) Small patches of filamentous protofeathers were found along the dinosaur’s neck and tail, indicating that—at least during their early evolutionary history—tyrannosaurs may have been covered in feathers, too. But the relevance of Dilong to the question of feathered tyrannosaurs partially rests on what Dilong turns out to be. The initial description cast the dinosaur as a tyrannosauroid, but subsequent analyses have differed as to whether Dilong is an early tyrannosauroid (as in Carr and Williamson, 2010) or belongs to some other coelurosaur group (as in Turner et al., 2011).
For the sake of argument, though, let’s say that Dilong was not a tyrannosauroid and actually belonged to a different coelurosaurian lineage. Would this mean that tyrannosaurs didn’t have feathers? Certainly not. Feathers were a widespread trait within the coelurosaurs, and simple, fuzzy protofeathers may go back to the last common ancestor of the group. Otherwise feathers would have to have evolved near the base of every lineage, and there is no indication that feathers evolved so many times. The spread of feathers among almost all coelurosaur groups hints at a shared origin.
Since so many other coelurosaurs had feathers, it is fair to infer that tyrannosaurs also did. This hypothesis is no more unreasonable than saying that close relatives of the earliest mammals such as Morganucodon were covered in fur on the basis of their evolutionary relationships. And, to pick another dinosaurian example, no one has yet described an ornithomimid dinosaur with evidence of feathers, yet we are comfortable attributing feathers to them because they are coelurosaurs. (Maybe their vaguely ostrich-like appearance helps a bit in this regard.) If feathers can reasonably be inferred for ornithomimosaurs on the basis of their family tree, then we can do so for tyrannosaurs.
So, within this evolutionary bracket, what kind of feathers might have clothed Tyrannosaurus and kin? The simple dino-fuzz of Dilong is a fair bet. Perhaps such a body covering would have served for insulation, but then again, the patchy distribution of filaments on Dilong and other coelurosaurs has raised the suggestion that some dinosaurs were only partly coated in feathers. Whatever their distribution on tyrannosaur bodies, though, the feathers probably didn’t look like those which allowed other coelurosaurs to eventually take to the air. After all, feathers were probably used for display and the regulation of body temperature first, and since no tyrannosauroid even came close to flying we should expect for them to have relatively simple feathers related to these functions.

A fuzzy juvenile tyrannosaur puppet at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Photo by author.
Regarding Tyrannosaurus specifically, the tyrant king may have had feathers only during the early years of life. A fuzzy coat may have helped hatchling and juvenile Tyrannosaurus regulate their body temperature, but as the animals grew, the benefits provided by insulation may have disappeared. (Retaining heat is a problem often faced by small animals, while shedding excess heat is a problem faced by larger animals due to changes in surface-to-volume ratios as animals grow.) Maybe an adult Tyrannosaurus would have patches of protofeathers here and there, as in Peter Schouten’s illustration of the dinosaur, But given the evidence at hand, it is likely that baby Tyrannosaurus would have been fuzzier than their parents.
Frustratingly, though, we may never know for sure what sort of feathers Tyrannosaurus might have had, or during what part of life. Circumstances of fine preservation are required to detect feathers, and even then, sometimes only patches are preserved. The types of environments Tyrannosaurus lived in were not exactly amenable to the kind of rapid, fine-detail preservation required to detect feathers. Even in cases where skin patches are preserved, it is difficult to know whether there might have been protofeathers on other parts of the body, or whether some of those feathers fell off or otherwise eluded preservation. Delicate structures require delicate preservation to detect.
What we can say is that the idea of a feather-covered Tyrannosaurus is a reasonable hypothesis. We still know so little about the body covering of this dinosaur that artists can reasonably restore the dinosaur with scaly skin, a coat of feathers, or a patchwork of both (I would especially like to see more renditions of that third possibility). Perhaps future fossil discoveries will provide us with a clearer picture of what Tyrannosaurus looked like, but the current unknowns are fascinating. Asking what Tyrannosaurus looked like is not just a matter of speculation—obtaining an answer requires that we consider the patterns and processes of evolution, as well as the methods we use to restore creatures that have been dead for millions upon millions of years. Feather-covered or not, though, I wouldn’t want to call Tyrannosaurus a turkey to its face. If I did, I don’t think I could run away fast enough to avoid becoming the dinosaur’s Thanksgiving dinner.
From everyone here at Dinosaur Tracking, we hope that you enjoy your holiday dinosaur and have a warm Thanksgiving.
References:
Carr, T., & Williamson, T. (2010). Bistahieversor sealeyi, gen. et sp. nov., a new tyrannosauroid from New Mexico and the origin of deep snouts in Tyrannosauroidea
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 30 (1), 1-16 DOI: 10.1080/02724630903413032
Turner, A., Pol, D., & Norell, M. (2011). Anatomy of Mahakala omnogovae(Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae), Tögrögiin Shiree, Mongolia American Museum Novitates, 3722 (3722), 1-66 DOI: 10.1206/3722.2
Xu, X., Norell, M., Kuang, X., Wang, X., Zhao, Q., & Jia, C. (2004). Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids Nature, 431 (7009), 680-684 DOI: 10.1038/nature02855
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI






















Hi Brian,
I briefly covered this same topic in a short letter to American Biology Teacher a few years back: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1662/0002-7685%282008%2970%5B392b:NDEFFI%5D2.0.CO;2
Subsequent comment/reply here can be found here:
http://whyihatetheropods.blogspot.com/2008/09/did-tyrannosaurus-rex-have-feathers.html
Cheers,
Nick
Peter Schouten is an incredible artist, but his T. rex hurts my eyes. Not because of the feathers, but because of the giant arms and weird skull…
That doesn’t sound very scary. More like a 46 foot 9 ton turkey.
Good points, Brian, but when one considers that millions of square meters of dinosaur fossil-bearing rock have now been examined (from places like China and Bavaria where feathers are often preserved), yet these places have NEVER yielded a single proportianately ‘larger’ feather that would indicate any larger dinosaurs possessed them. The evidence to date seems to indicate that only small dinosaurs probably had feathers. And this does set well with the fact smaller creatures require more insulation than larger ones. Surely one larger, “feathered” dinosaur would have lost just one proportionately larger feather in all of the time and area represented by those fossil beds that have been so carefully scrutinized.
The lack of evidence suggests only very small dinosaurs that needed to insulate their bodies, had feathers to insulate their bodies. Adult Utahraptors, Tyrannosaurs, and other larger animals that unquestionably had smaller, feather-covered ancestors may be completely correct with scale covered, featherless bodies.
Whenever this subject comes up, it gives me an awful reminder of just how little most people understand feathers. And birds. And dinosaurs. (Ugh, that Cracked article. [Not to mention Cracked in general but that's not important right now.])
I’d love to live in a world where people are aware that the Wild Turkey and the headless, footless mutant thing sitting on the table with stuffing crammed up its wrong end are just a little tiny bit different from each-other. Alas…
I laughed out loud at that last comment (by Dan Peterson). What a horrible hypothesis. To address said post directly: the China and Bavaria sites were (in the Mesozoic) a deep forest and an island chain respectively. Not ideal places for a large theropod to live and the lack of large theropod fossils in general in these areas are so rare (non existent?). So why on earth would we have a large feather ever preserve in these places when even the bones don’t do so (or the large theropods weren’t ever there at all).
On a more general scale, Brian already explained it in the post: ” Circumstances of fine preservation are required to detect feathers, and even then, sometimes only patches are preserved. The types of environments Tyrannosaurus lived in were not exactly amenable to the kind of rapid, fine-detail preservation required to detect feathers. Even in cases where skin patches are preserved, it is difficult to know whether there might have been protofeathers on other parts of the body, or whether some of those feathers fell off or otherwise eluded preservation. Delicate structures require delicate preservation to detect.”
–
Excellent post Brian, anyhow. Sorry to sour things.
@ Dan Peterson:
That’s a logical fallacy, specifically argument from ignorance. Just because we have not found large feathers (ostrich sized? Emu sized?) in the fossil record does not mean large animals lacked feathers. Furthermore there is no reason to suspect that large animals necessarily had large feathers. Your argument also assumes incorrectly that feathers are for insulation, when they are as much or more so for display in many taxa. You also ignore the fact that insulation doesn’t mean staying warm, it means regulation of body temperature–feathers would have been just as useful for keeping a large animal cool in the direct heat of the sun as for helping it retain warmth in the cold. Recent studies indicating that tyrannosaurs were endothermic heterotherms would have made this strategy even more advantageous.
@Dan – That may be the case for Tyrannosaurus, but given that it was a dromaeosaur it seems far more likely that Utahraptor (which was also much smaller than Tyrannosaurus) did have feathers than didn’t.