Debunking DaBrandonSphere's theories

Hello, nonexistent followers! I said I wouldn't be posting for a while, but this has been bothering me for so long that I had to make a post about it.

Okay, so there's a DA user named DaBrandonSphere, who just seems to not like feathered tyrannosaurs, despite all the evidence supporting it. The evidence is talked about in this informative (albeit long) video by Trey the Explainer.

Anyways, Brandon drew no less than three drawings based on his obviously biased and unsupported theories about how tyrannosaurs were featherless. I am going to be talking about each of these drawings and why his theories hold little to no water.

Keep in mind that this is not an attack against Brandon. He is a very good artist (his drawings look like something out of a comic book), and I'm sure he's a very nice person in real life. If any of my zero followers attacks him in the comments, I will be very angry. What I'm trying to do is explain why his theories just plain don't work.

Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, let's begin.

Scuted Tyrannosaurus rex

Source

First, we have this drawing of the famous tyrant lizard king with a coat of scutes on his head and neck instead of feathers. Why? Well, according to the artist...

I recall reading somewhere that scutes on crocodiles and bird feet may have actually evolved from primitive feathers as shown by developmental biology research. This makes me wonder if certain dinosaur lineages now commonly depicted as fuzzy, such as the tyrannosaurs, might have instead evolved scutes in place of the ancestral plumage. And you got to admit, the armor that scutes would provide for a T. rex would make more sense than the receding, vestigial coat of fuzz drawn all over the place these days.

That is a somewhat reasonable theory, hence why it's first on the list. Technically speaking, this user isn't "wrong". However, there is nothing to support this, and here's why.

As mentioned in Trey's video, we have preserved scales on the feet and tails of tyrannosaurs, but not on the areas that feathers would've covered in life. (Like the head and body.) You'd think if tyrannosaurs had scutes in those areas, which preserve better than feathers do, we'd get at least some impressions there.

Once again, not a completely terrible theory, but it's not supported by any evidence compared to the idea of them being feathered.

Yutyrannus's temporary winter coat

Source

Alright, so what does the user have to say about this one?

Yutyrannus is that big feathered tyrannosauroid that was all the rage a couple of years ago, but what if its plumage was only seasonal? It did live in a temperate climate similar to that of modern Ohio, which can get hot during summer.

To be fair, the artist admits that this is more of a "what if" than a serious hypothesis. But I still gotta call this one out.

Trey mentioned in the video that feathers are known to preserve heat better than fur does. So there's no reason for Yutyrannus to molt it's integument.

And the artist admits one more point that really debunks this idea.

To be sure, even if any dinosaur ever did molt its feathers seasonally, they wouldn't leave behind the usual scales. Scales are integument by themselves and so would take up space occupied by the feathers.

So, what would protect the dinosaur's sensitive skin on its back from the sun's harmful UV rays if there's no feathers to protect it?

Yeah...this one doesn't hold up. Next one.

And finally...Blubbery Nanuqsaurus

Source

Ho boy...here we go.

So, everyone agrees that, due to being an Alaskan dinosaur, Nanuqsaurus would've had some kind of shaggy feathery coat to protect it from the cold. Everyone except Brandon. According to him...

Conventional wisdom maintains that dinosaurs evolved feathers for insulation in cold weather. That would make sense except that there are animals out there whose insulation doesn't actually do much against cold weather. For instance, polar bears' fur actually provides little insulation and functions more like camouflage. It's their thick layers of fat that protect their bodies from the cold. For this reason I chose to give my Nanuq a lot of body fat instead of the feathers that have become fashionable even for derived tyrannosaurids.

Okay, where do I even begin?

Let's start with the fact that, despite Nanuqsaurus's name meaning "polar bear lizard", polar bears are a terrible comparison for any tyrannosaurid. Why? Because polar bears are semiaquatic. In fact, the only animals that lose their fur in favor of blubber for warmth are aquatic or semiaquatic creatures like cetaceans and pinnipeds.

Nanuqsaurus shows no signs of being semi-aquatic. No tyrannosaur does, so there's no reason to assume Nanuqsaurus was any different. The only large aquatic theropods out there are spinosaurids, which are as far removed from tyrannosaurs as you can get while still being tetanuran theropods.

In conclusion

Once again, this is not meant to be an attack against Brandon. This is just meant to point out how flawed his theories are. He is obviously biased and uses very little to back up his theories, and the few he does are obviously illogical and poorly-researched.

If any of you zero readers would like to post comments adding to this discussion, please do so. Thanks for reading!