Found in China – 30 feet long and weighed 1.5 tines:
Apparently an ancestor of T. Rex, although the article screws up and calls it a “descdencant” of T. Rex.
I read that in the New York Times, and my brother read it in the Wall Street Journal. What’s weird is that the Time article mentions in an aside that T. rex didn’t have feathers. The Journal mentioned in an aside that T. rex did have feathers. Which just confirms my brother’s contention that the Time and the Journal are reporting from separate universes.
Soon to be seen the in the next Angry Birds game: Angry Birds: Jurassic Pork.
T. Rex was fuzzy?!!
You know they’re going to do it.
Aww … who’s da fuzzy wuzzy widdle T Rex? You’re da fuzzy wuzzy T Wex!
Must have been pretty skinny. I have a fork with 4 tines.
<pedant>Well, no. A smaller, but still pretty damn big, critter related to T. Rex was fuzzy. Fossil hide impressions indicate that T. Rex was not feathered, or at least not fully feathered. It was a bigger animal and lived in a warmer climate, so the extra insulation from down feathers probably would not have been a beneficial trait.</pedant>
Still, yes, there was a huge, bloodthirsty, fast-running carnivore that was fuzzy, like a downy little baby duckling. A duckling that would eat you.
If I remember right, the controversy is whether birds descended from dinosaurs or if both birds and reptiles descended from a common ancestor. I’m not sure which side this discovery supports, especially since the news accounts mix up the details.
Depends on how big the fork was doesn’t it?
T. Rex was bald?!!
I am going to have very odd dreams tonight. Thanks. 
Try this: imagine the giant duckling quacking “Ride of the Valkyries” as it pursues you. It makes things even better. I know. I’ve done experiments.
We have fossil hide impressions of T. Rex? Are you certain of that? Do you have a cite?
Source (ref. 71):
In addition to Musicat’s reference, I found a couple of quotes about an impression found in Edmonton back in 1995, but no copy of the article itself. Given how far back it is, it’s unlikely that it’s online, but the find is probably one of the ones referenced in the Wiki cite. This list post quotes it as saying:
“Currie says the specimen is far vetter [sic] than the two other previously discovered tyrannosaur skin impressions. It’s small, but it confirms what the other two suggested: that tyrannosaurs had a lightly pebbled skin, like an elephant’s hide.”
Note that this doesn’t preclude the presence of feathers. Given various conditions, it’s possible that a rotting carcass could fossilize after all of its plumage has fallen off (Montauk Monster style), thereby preserving only whatever was underneath the plumage (scales or feathers).
Note also that the impression in question is the size of a playing card and was found near the underside of the tail or leg and could well have come from the foot. http://web.me.com/dinoruss/jdp/trex/skin.htm
http://dml.cmnh.org/2003May/msg00166.html
Note also that as Currie said, “pebbly skin” doesn’t necessarily mean scales (and there’s no reason to think early feathered dinosaurs didn’t have scales under the feathers on at least parts of their bodies).
In another article on Yutyrannus, Paul Sereno said:
“In my lab, I have a T. rex fossil that shows the beast did not have scales,” he says. “But it’s only in China that we have the opportunity to see evidence of what replaced scales – feathers!"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/04/04/yutyrannus-a-giant-tyrannosaur-with-feathers/
So here’s the evidence as it stands:
Several very small patches of tyrannosaurid skin, some showing very small pebbly scales or skin, some showing smooth skin, and several more primitive tyrannosaurs with extensive feather coverings. It’s looking very likely that T. rex had feathers covering at least parts of their bodies.
I’ve been saying for over ten years that we’ll eventually discover that Tyrannosaurs were covered in yellow down like a baby duck, and this is just one more step in my never-ending quest to show those small-minded idiots back at the Academy. Fools! I’ll destroy them all!
Great, now I need to put feathers on the tyranno-bots. Hmmm, perhaps some sort of laser feathers…
T. Rex was a bot?!!
The point was that this new find doesn’t indicate that T. Rex was feathered. It was a different (though related), smaller dinosaur that lived in a different time and climate. It’s possible that T. Rex was partially, or even completely feathered, but the evidence we currently have does not demonstrate that, and the characteristics of its environment make it plausible that even if its ancestors were fully feathered, it might have only vestiges of that covering.
I’m secretly hoping for bare hide everywhere but the head, which will turn out to have sported a full war bonnet of feathers. Tyrannosaurus Rex is an original Native American, after all.