The Lack of Spinosaurus Remains?

[Ankylosaurus54]

Why aren't we finding more remains of Spinosaurus? I know the most complete specimen was destroyed in the bombings but not much has been found since those remains were unearthed. Was Spinosaurus rare?

[SBell]

Why aren't we finding more remains of Spinosaurus? I know the most complete specimen was destroyed in the bombings but not much has been found since those remains were unearthed. Was Spinosaurus rare?

Larger predators tend to be the rarest.

[Ankylosaurus54]

Why aren't we finding more remains of Spinosaurus? I know the most complete specimen was destroyed in the bombings but not much has been found since those remains were unearthed. Was Spinosaurus rare?

Larger predators tend to be the rarest.

Interesting, can you enlighten me on why that is?

[SBell]

Why aren't we finding more remains of Spinosaurus? I know the most complete specimen was destroyed in the bombings but not much has been found since those remains were unearthed. Was Spinosaurus rare?

Larger predators tend to be the rarest.

Interesting, can you enlighten me on why that is?

Big predators need the most food. More food requires larger territories and/or higher prey densities, and low predator densities.  For a stable population of giant predators, in a limited area/environment, facing competition from several other large predator species, you would not expect the population to be very large overall. Now factor in the rarity of fossilization under even excellent circumstances, and then the chances of finding those fossils, and the relatively low amount of fossil hunting done in the general Spinosaurus region (compared to, say, China, western North America and some parts of South America and Europe) and we are in many ways lucky to have even one good recorded specimen (and some lesser specimens as well).

[suspsy]

The lack of fossils is indeed frustrating. JP3 sparked the entire idiotic debate about whether Spinosaurus or T. Rex would dominate in a fight (obviously T. Rex, unless your name is Jack Horner), but the truth of the matter is that we still know virtually nothing about the proportions of the former. Spinosaurids have a very different body structure from carnosaurs or tyrannosaurs, so we can only guess at their mass. We also don't know just how long they could grow. You hear the 50-60 foot length tossed around quite a bit, but without a complete skeleton, it's just as possible that Spinosaurus only grew as long as 40 feet.

[Ankylosaurus54]

Thank you guys very much. It all makes sense now that you've mentioned it. Yeah we can really only form a guess on how big Spinosaurus was. It seems they've found a close relative with a much smaller sail and just scalled it up to get an appropriate size. I don't think that could be very accurate at all.

[Seijun]

Im going to guess it is somewhat accurate. But remember that animals (birds and reptiles especially), can vary greatly in size, so even if we had a correct, known size for spino, there would likely have been spinos much bigger and much smaller than that size.

[IHogaRok]

Large predators are rarer, but It cant be that hard to find just one skeleton.

[Gryphoceratops]

Large predators are rarer, but It cant be that hard to find just one skeleton.

It can and it is.  Remember fossilization of anything let alone a dinosaur skeleton is rare. 

[suspsy]

Large predators are rarer, but It cant be that hard to find just one skeleton.

This is the same argument creationists use to try and disprove evolution (not that I am accusing you of doing so). The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of animals do not become fossils. Here is a simple explanation why:

http://www.untamedscience.com/biology/evolution/how-become-fossil

It is for this same reason that Jack Horner's theory about Triceratops and Torosaurus being the same animal is fatally flawed. He claims that no juvenile specimens of the latter have ever been found, hence Torosaurus must be a mature Triceratops. One can just as easily argue that it's because we simply haven't been lucky enough to uncover a fossilised baby Torosaurus.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

There was another thread where this was covered in detail. Not to dig up sleeping dogs as they lie, but you are correct in your assertation, that for whatever cause, there does exist a paucity of fossil material for Spinosaurus, however many Spinosaurids have been found and named. In the discussion that was previously held, someone did bring to the table material for some of the newer specimens found.
   I think it is true the various sites where one might locate a Spinosaurus remain underworked, and that argument is well stated. I do not particularly accept the argument of predators versus prey ratio, as so many other larger predators are found at a rate far above that of Spinosaurus. (Tyrannosaurids, allosaurids, etc) While it is true larger predatory dinosaurs are not found as commonly as herbivores, most of the larger predators are known from far more fossil material.
    It was also well demonstrated by Gryph and Gwangi, I believe, if my memory serves, that there are many species of dinosaurs known from even less evidence or material. (I did not go back and read the thread, but I believe it was the two I stated, and apologies if incorrect) The thing that draws people to wonder about Spinosaurus is the only specimen ever found was subsequently blasted to rubble, leaving us nothing of this great animal to study

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

There have been other fossil remains of Spinosaurus found since though, some described, some not yet published I believe.  Then you also have other spinosaurs to work so so we are given a fairly good idea of what Spinosaurus looked like.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

There have been other fossil remains of Spinosaurus found since though, some described, some not yet published I believe.  Then you also have other spinosaurs to work so so we are given a fairly good idea of what Spinosaurus looked like.

The predominance of material recovered has been Spinosaurid, with very little found since for actual Spinosaurus. The snout piece, a few jaw fragments and odd and end verts are all that have been reliably placed within actual Spinosaur classification, and even those are not considered certain.
  The majority of material located since the holotype just does not classify favorably to Spinosaurus, generally due to the differences in teeth structure.(of course speaking only of what has been published or brought forward of course Blade. I have seen nothing unpublished myself to even suggest more is known or has been found)

[darylj]

i think the predator vs prey thing stands, simply because, lets say, with t-rex... less t-rex have existed than, i dunno, parasaurolophus. in the same way that there are more zebra than lions... more tapir than jaguar.

with regards to spinosaurus, like someone has said, we are lucky to have an evidence of this creature. would an aquatic lifestyle (or semi aquatic) result in a lesser chance of fozilisation taking place? if say all dead spino's ended up in the water???

one thing that does interest me tho... is the spinosaurus that was destroyed in WW2 the only recorded specimen with the large spines present? im aware that we have since found jaws, and maybe limbs? but have we found anymore spines?? it just seems that all other spinosaurids had much smaller sails, and - this is controversial and kinda questions our whole process of fossil discovery/understanding - but if all other remains / relatives / specimens have smaller sails... could the one destroyed in the bombing have been a, mutant? a freak? a one off???

[amargasaurus cazaui]

i think the predator vs prey thing stands, simply because, lets say, with t-rex... less t-rex have existed than, i dunno, parasaurolophus. in the same way that there are more zebra than lions... more tapir than jaguar.

with regards to spinosaurus, like someone has said, we are lucky to have an evidence of this creature. would an aquatic lifestyle (or semi aquatic) result in a lesser chance of fozilisation taking place? if say all dead spino's ended up in the water???

one thing that does interest me tho... is the spinosaurus that was destroyed in WW2 the only recorded specimen with the large spines present? im aware that we have since found jaws, and maybe limbs? but have we found anymore spines?? it just seems that all other spinosaurids had much smaller sails, and - this is controversial and kinda questions our whole process of fossil discovery/understanding - but if all other remains / relatives / specimens have smaller sails... could the one destroyed in the bombing have been a, mutant? a freak? a one off???

Is is not so much a question of more predators than prey as this is already known. The question is why only one fossil Spinosaurus, versus many tyrannosaurs, or other larger predators that are seemingly more common. The most likely response would be the less researched and hunted areas this dinosaur might be found in, as stated earlier.
  Most water dwelling orgranisms tend to fossilize more commonly than terrestrial types if you consider the number of fishes and other types that are found, so if anything the bias towards preservation should work to the good making it more commonly found.
  The specimen of Spinosaurus destroyed during world war 2 was the only known solid specimen for Spinosaurus Egytpicus recovered. There have been other smaller fragments of the skull, and a larger piece of skull found as well tenatively identified as such, to date.
  Complicating the issue, within the material recovered and sorted for the holotype specimen, there were proposed pieces of a second species of spinosaurus, at least 4 seperate crocdilians, and another large predator never named or reconstructed. There were also pieces of a larger sauropod in the same material.
   The material was removed, shipped to Germany in large boxes and then sifted and studied resulting in the Spinosaurs identification.
   There have been other Spinosaurids found, in various countries, and they do seem to posses a higher back hump or sail, although nothing even marginally close to the six foot spines of the holotype has ever been suggested. No other known specimen has shared the same teeth characteristics either.The remains for other spinosaurs of the same species as the holotype are marginal if non -existent.

[darylj]

''  Most water dwelling orgranisms tend to fossilize more commonly than terrestrial types if you consider the number of fishes and other types that are found, so if anything the bias towards preservation should work to the good making it more commonly found ''

thanks for clearing that up

[IHogaRok]

I believe their have been bits and pieces found. But it has only been a few fossils, not a complete skeleton. Plus Spinosaurus had to live with another carnivore, Charcaradontosaurus. With another predator larger then T-Rex around, it would have had competition. This would have Spinosaurus harder to find since their were less of them.

And Spinosaurus was a big predator. The big Predators don't produce as much young as a smaller dinosaur.

Spinosaurus mainly lived around rivers because of their specialty for hunting fish. So if you were to find Spinosaurus fossils, it would most likely be in the areas were their were rivers at the time.

Many things add up making Spinosaurus rarer and rarer. *orthocone*

[IHogaRok]

Also I read from suspsy that Spinosaurus would not have really killed T-Rex. I just want to say you are very right. Although Spinosaurus was bigger, T-Rex had a much stronger bite. A Spinosaurus bite wasn't powerful because it was made for hunting fish at rivers. So when the T-Rex bit the Spinosaurus on the neck, it is very likely the Spinosaurus would have died. The bite would crush a Spinosaurus neck.

[wings]

...There have been other Spinosaurids found, in various countries, and they do seem to posses a higher back hump or sail, although nothing even marginally close to the six foot spines of the holotype has ever been suggested. No other known specimen has shared the same teeth characteristics either.The remains for other spinosaurs of the same species as the holotype are marginal if non -existent.

What is this based on? The last that I've read is that it is likely that there is only one species of Spinosaurus (see http://www.reocities.com/Athens/bridge/4602/spinoskull.pdf).

From the paper:

"... A second species of Spinosaurus, S. maroccanus, was erected by Russell. The holotype of S. maroccanus is based on inadequate material: a single cervical vertebra thought to be distinguishable from S. aegyptiacus by its "relatively greater central and neural arch length". Rauhut attributed this difference to the more rostral position of the vertebra in the cervical series. Similarly, in our opinion, the attribution of a snout from Algeria to S. maroccanus cannot be supported. For all these reasons we regard S. maroccanus as a nomen dubium...First-hand comparison of the craniodental material previously referred to Spinosaurus... do not reveal significant differences within this genus... At present there is no evidence for the occurring of more than one species of Spinosaurus in the Albian-Cenomanian of North Africa."

I don't think there is a paper refuting this finding since then. so I think it is a little too soon to say that "...The remains for other spinosaurs of the same species as the holotype are marginal if non -existent."

[amargasaurus cazaui]

If you review the original work done on the remains that were studied, the original scientist, Stromer, felt there were two seperate species of Spinosaur present within his material. He erected the first specimen, however the second was entirely destroyed prior to his completing the work. That in itself suggests there is a potential second species out there, if you accept his evidence for the first correct?
   Even allowing for a mistaken identification in his work, and the subsequent incorrect classification of the partial snout and single vert, if you remove the second species and shuffle those two finds back into the original species you gain..precisely a single vert and partial snout . That is as I stated marginal and if you accept the published findings the elements are a seperate species, then non existent, yes?