Spinosaurus new look!

[Newt]

Just a few things....dont look at the stylized art, look at the picture of the supposed new mount and how the legs are positioned and the bones aligned. The stature being given would make it far more of a capable mud wader than standing upright with fully extended legs. The legs are bent closer to the ground and paralel with rather than being standing columns to sink straight in.The dinosaur is more bowed forward as well.

I don't understand your reasoning. The posture of the legs makes no difference to how much the animals would sink in soft substrate, unless they are actually positioned so there is more surface area in contact with the ground- which they aren't.  It's all about units of mass per unit of surface area of the supporting structure- in this case, the foot. Unless Spinosaurus had snowshoe feet, or was insanely light, it would sink like a stone.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Why dose it have impossibly skinny legs?

[Patrx]

Why dose it have impossibly skinny legs?

Are you referring to the skeleton? 

[Ultimatedinoking]

Why dose it have impossibly skinny legs?

Are you referring to the skeleton? 

Yes, they look (what's that "a" word for a shrunken body part?).

As for the reconstructions of it, those are some meaty thighs. 

[tyrantqueen]

The word is "atrophied"

[Ultimatedinoking]

The word is "atrophied"

Hey 

...thanks...

[Patrx]

I see! Well, there are lots of hypothoses for why Spinosaurus' legs were relatively stout, many of which have been discussed earlier in this thread I doubt it's genuine atrophy, the animal was clearly using its legs for locomotion - but the shorter structure must have imparted some benefit.

[Ultimatedinoking]

I see! Well, there are lots of hypothoses for why Spinosaurus' legs were relatively stout, many of which have been discussed earlier in this thread I doubt it's genuine atrophy, the animal was clearly using its legs for locomotion - but the shorter structure must have imparted some benefit.

But in the skeleton with the humans in front , the legs look very tiny, like the museum had to use old dromeosaur legs as replacements.

[Newt]

We'll have to wait and see what new material is published; up until now, Spinosaurus was known only from some skull and vertebral pieces, and a whole lot of loose teeth; the appendicular skeleton in all reconstructions was based on other spinosaurids. So, it remains to be seen what evidence there is for those small hind limbs.

[Ultimatedinoking]

We'll have to wait and see what new material is published; up until now, Spinosaurus was known only from some skull and vertebral pieces, and a whole lot of loose teeth; the appendicular skeleton in all reconstructions was based on other spinosaurids. So, it remains to be seen what evidence there is for those small hind limbs.

I hope they don't exist.

[Patrx]

It's an exciting find, to be sure! Is there any way to estimate when Sereno's new material will be published?

I hope they don't exist.

Dare I ask why? Surely a more complete record of the animal can only be a good thing

[Ultimatedinoking]

It's an exciting find, to be sure! Is there any way to estimate when Sereno's new material will be published?

I hope they don't exist.

Dare I ask why? Surely a more complete record of the animal can only be a good thing

You dare. I would be a good thing, but not if it has to live out its existence like the tyrannosaurs do, with their "tiny" arms.

[DinoLord]

I'm sure tyrannosaurs got around just fine with their tiny arms (until the meteor at least...). 

In the history of the planet there's been an almost incomprehensibly vast amount of diversity among living organisms and their morphologies; it doesn't hurt to appreciate it a bit.

[Ultimatedinoking]

I'm sure tyrannosaurs got around just fine with their tiny arms (until the meteor at least...). 

I ment in modern times, that's all you hear, T. rex has become  = with "tiny arms" what's next, Spinosaurus = stumpy legs.

[Seijun]

Other people can think what they wish, but I don't care if spinosaurus had short hind legs or that tyrannosaurus had tiny arms. It's not the arms or legs that makes either of these animals impressive. If anything it only makes them more impressive, because they were perfectly capable thriving without the luxury of 4 long limbs. Does anyone care that terror birds had useless arms, or that alligators have short legs?

[stargatedalek]

that's all you hear, T. rex has become  = with "tiny arms" what's next, Spinosaurus = stumpy legs.

still better than the treatment of every other dinosaur which as far as media goes only exist to be either larger or smaller than tyrannosaurus

just as small arms were useful to tyrannosaurus small legs could have been useful to spinosaurus

[Newt]

I'm more curious about its forelimbs. What if it didn't have big old gaffhooks like its kin, but instead was secondarily quadrupedal, at least facultatively? It would help explain its curiously long torso, and resolve some of its locomotory difficulties.

[stargatedalek]

I could see it walking on its knuckles like an anteater

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Just a few things....dont look at the stylized art, look at the picture of the supposed new mount and how the legs are positioned and the bones aligned. The stature being given would make it far more of a capable mud wader than standing upright with fully extended legs. The legs are bent closer to the ground and paralel with rather than being standing columns to sink straight in.The dinosaur is more bowed forward as well.

I am guessing best thing would be watch for the paper when it is issued then. To My eyes a leaned forward, low center of gravity mount like this is far less dead weight in the mud than an entirely upright theropod, with its entire body mass and weight bearing down on two legs, rather than the skeletal as pictured.I do not find that to be anything hard to see , really. Spreading the downward thrust of the body out from entirely legs, to both legs and the arms at times to my eyes would lessen the weight at the legs.



I don't understand your reasoning. The posture of the legs makes no difference to how much the animals would sink in soft substrate, unless they are actually positioned so there is more surface area in contact with the ground- which they aren't.  It's all about units of mass per unit of surface area of the supporting structure- in this case, the foot. Unless Spinosaurus had snowshoe feet, or was insanely light, it would sink like a stone.

[Newt]

I am guessing best thing would be watch for the paper when it is issued then. To My eyes a leaned forward, low center of gravity mount like this is far less dead weight in the mud than an entirely upright theropod, with its entire body mass and weight bearing down on two legs, rather than the skeletal as pictured.I do not find that to be anything hard to see , really. Spreading the downward thrust of the body out from entirely legs, to both legs and the arms at times to my eyes would lessen the weight at the legs.

Ah, so you think the new mount is restoring it as a facultative quadruped. I would be interested to know if that is the case. It doesn't look that way to me, but that tiny photo isn't much to go on.