>>6945742>>6950120>>6950191both right, sorta. You see, there is currently no hard proof at all that Rex had feathers.
However there is evidence based on comparisons with closely related species that Rex easily COULD have had feathers. So far no proof it did, and while most skin impressions are of tiny areas, more and more of them are being found making it less likely Rex had feathers. Still POSSIBLE, but not proven.
It is pretty rare for a species to lack something that all of it's very close relatives also have. So it is not like scientists are pulling this completely out of their ass.
My personal opinion is that IF Rex had any feathers, they were partial coverage. But more likely that he may not have had them.
>>6945902>>6946552>>6946733>>6946911I hate the whole 'shrink wrapped dinosaurs' shit. I get an even bigger laugh whenever I see people do the same to birds like
>>6947270 and
>>6947261 points out. Why do I find this hilarious? Because birds actually do look like those 'shrink wrapped thus wrong' images in real life if you removed the feathers. Who do we think Dinosaurs are more closely related to? Oh that is right, birds. The shrink wrapping looks silly on mammals, but do it on birds and suddenly not quite as inaccurate looking.
