Spinosaurus new look!

[Gwangi]

Keep in mind that in addition to fish scales there were Iguanodon bones preserved in the gut of Baryonyx and there is evidence of spinosaur predation on a pterosaur from South America. It sounds like spinosaurs in general were eating whatever they could get.

[Balaur]

Keep in mind that in addition to fish scales there were Iguanodon bones preserved in the gut of Baryonyx and there is evidence of spinosaur predation on a pterosaur from South America. It sounds like spinosaurs in general were eating whatever they could get.

Yeah, but I'm thinking that depending on where they lived, they ate mainly fish, but in harsh times, or even in less harsh tines might go after other animals. Which would be good when rivers dry up and fish are gone, so you move to land. I'm thinking that Spinosaurus, because it lives in the mangroves, probably was specialized to the water, and did not have to deal with a drying river, at most some tidal changes from the ocean.

[leidy]

I just remembered what the sail was for, amplifying ring tones

those thermo-regulation and sexual selection theories never quite made sense, but now it all clicks, which should open up whole new areas of research.  JP3 counts as peer-reviewed, right?

Keep in mind that in addition to fish scales there were Iguanodon bones preserved in the gut of Baryonyx and there is evidence of spinosaur predation on a pterosaur from South America. It sounds like spinosaurs in general were eating whatever they could get.

yeah, and don't forget it also pwned a T.rex once.

[tyrantqueen]

There is concrete evidence that Spinosaurus favoured aquatic environments in the amount of oxygen isotope content in its teeth. I read this in Dinosaurs of the British Isles.

[Newt]

Do you have a reference?  I'd like to read that paper.

As far as "living in the mangroves", I doubt it. Think of any large terrestrial or semi-aquatic carnivore today. Not one of them is a habitat specialist. They can't afford to be- a big carnivore needs a lot of room, and will move through any number of habitats. There can't have been enough "mangrove" habitat in Cretaceous Africa to support a viable population of Spinosaurus. No doubt they used all or nearly all the habitats accessible to them.

[stargatedalek]

from everything I've read coastlines weren't exactly a rare commodity at the time, no reason to assume the mangroves themselves were crucial to spinosaurus (but they probably were more densely populated with prey than open beach)

[tyrantqueen]

Do you have a reference?  I'd like to read that paper.

As far as "living in the mangroves", I doubt it. Think of any large terrestrial or semi-aquatic carnivore today. Not one of them is a habitat specialist. They can't afford to be- a big carnivore needs a lot of room, and will move through any number of habitats. There can't have been enough "mangrove" habitat in Cretaceous Africa to support a viable population of Spinosaurus. No doubt they used all or nearly all the habitats accessible to them.

The book does not provide a citation. However, I believe this is the paper they are referring to: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/38/2/139.abstract
Unfortunately, you need to pay to be able to read it

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Do you have a reference?  I'd like to read that paper.

As far as "living in the mangroves", I doubt it. Think of any large terrestrial or semi-aquatic carnivore today. Not one of them is a habitat specialist. They can't afford to be- a big carnivore needs a lot of room, and will move through any number of habitats. There can't have been enough "mangrove" habitat in Cretaceous Africa to support a viable population of Spinosaurus. No doubt they used all or nearly all the habitats accessible to them.

Just a few things here to make note of...I too remember reading something about a study being done that determined that indeed Spinosaurus teeth indicated an aquatic lifestyle, from testing. I do not have the paper, but TQ is correct in stating the study was done and did state that. I am sure if you googled it you could locate the exact paper fairly simply.
As for the mangrove discussion, alot of that comes from reading the book, "The lost Dinosaurs of Egypt" in which a team retraces Stromer's steps back to where he found Spinosaurus and does their own excavation. While doing so they determine the fossil horizon is that of a mangrove environment and then provide the relevent proof for this determination. They did not suggest that Spinosaurus only inhabited mangroves, only that the holotype had originally been removed from that type of fossil evironment.

[Newt]

Thanks, TyrantQueen!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Thanks, TyrantQueen!

errr...your welcome

[Newt]

Just a few things here to make note of...I too remember reading something about a study being done that determined that indeed Spinosaurus teeth indicated an aquatic lifestyle, from testing. I do not have the paper, but TQ is correct in stating the study was done and did state that. I am sure if you googled it you could locate the exact paper fairly simply.
As for the mangrove discussion, alot of that comes from reading the book, "The lost Dinosaurs of Egypt" in which a team retraces Stromer's steps back to where he found Spinosaurus and does their own excavation. While doing so they determine the fossil horizon is that of a mangrove environment and then provide the relevent proof for this determination. They did not suggest that Spinosaurus only inhabited mangroves, only that the holotype had originally been removed from that type of fossil evironment.

Thanks for the info, I'll try to find that book.

Unfortunately the abstract of the paper TQ linked to only says they looked at "spinosaurid" teeth; I shall have to find the paper to see which species they looked at.

(This is not directed at you, Amargasaurus, just a general observation): it is very important to remember that depositional environment and habitat of the living animal are not the same. Famously, ankylosaur remains have been recovered from marine sediments; this does not mean ankylosaurs were ocean-going. Taphonomy is important! Sample size is important! It's easy to try to extract more information than the fossils can actually give us.

*Edit* Sorry, we seem to be typing at the same time.

[tanystropheus]

...Spinosaurus is responsible for those Loch Ness sightings...

[HD-man]

I'm surprised no 1 else has mentioned Geomodel ( http://www.geomodel.it/en/paleontology/Spinosaurus-aegyptiacus/ ) ( https://www.facebook.com/andrealeanzaSFX/media_set?set=a.1475867695296.66770.1191816083&type=1&l=b23b7b4ad3 ). Also, I read Witton's "The accuracy of palaeoart and the 'new' Spinosaurus" & found the following quote to be particularly interesting: http://agathaumas.blogspot.com/2012/03/anniversario-dco-dinosaurs-in-flesh-and.html )

Quoting Witton ( http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-accuracy-of-palaeoart-and-new.html ):

Just a quick note on the Spinosaurus illustrations here and in the article: they are not based on the thumbnail image of a unusual Spinosaurus skeleton at the National Geographic website, despite this spawning much excitement, umpteen new spinosaur renditions and revisions to Spinosaurus illustrations all over the Web. As stressed at Palaeontology Online, palaeoart is a scientific process requiring verified and trustworthy data. We have no idea how reliable the radical National Geographic depiction of Spinosaurus is because no information about the mount has been made public, and the image itself is tiny: it's silly to think there's enough resolution there to understand its anatomy. Moreover, there's enough counter-intuitive and weird morphology in that tiny photo to justify waiting for the data behind the mount to be published so it's accuracy can be evaluated. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I am joining the chorus of bona fide theropod experts in suggesting restraint against adopting it as the 'definitive new look' for Spinosaurus until we know more about it. The reconstructions here and at Palaeontology Online are based on Scott Hartman's skeletal: the appearance of the juveniles is speculative.

[tyrantqueen]

That was interesting, thanks for posting HD-man.



The Geomodel Spino was gorgeous, but the legs always bugged me. They are placed so far down the body that it looks like the animal would have to use its front arms for support, otherwise it would fall on its face. But hey, that's just the impression I get, I'm not palaeontologist.

[HD-man]

That was interesting, thanks for posting HD-man.

Anytime.

[Alexxitator]

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.ca/2014/08/did-bakker-get-spinosaurus-right-after.html?spref=fb

Some more on the subject

[Newt]

Very good points from Witton on caution. That tiny jpeg with no further info is pretty meager evidence.

The Antediluvian Salad interpretation is interesting, but...how and why would Spinosaurus evolve into an ersatz mega-croc in a habitat already full of them? You don't just ram your way into a filled niche, and it could not have been as good at being a mud-sliding croc-style predator as a genuine croc.

I also think we should be cautious about taking info from one spinosaurid and apply it to the whole clade. Especially with something as incomplete and as weird as Spinosaurus. This is not just a scaled-up Baryonyx, anymore than a tiger is a scaled-up wildcat.

[Gwangi]

This is not just a scaled-up Baryonyx, anymore than a tiger is a scaled-up wildcat.

That might be a poor analogy, as that's basically what a tiger is.

[Newt]

That's my point- they have skeletal similarities, sure, but that doesn't mean they live in the same way. Maybe, "a polar bear is not just a scaled-up sloth bear" would have been better.

[Gwangi]

That's my point- they have skeletal similarities, sure, but that doesn't mean they live in the same way. Maybe, "a polar bear is not just a scaled-up sloth bear" would have been better.

That's a much better analogy. Or maybe a more specialized cat...like the cheetah. Really though, domestic cats and tigers do live a fairly similar lifestyle aside from the obvious size and environmental factors. That said, lions and tigers are very closely related and virtually identical on a skeletal level but live very different lives. Really put things into perspective when looking at extinct animals. Who knows how different Baryonyx and Spinosaurus or Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus really were from each other on a social/behavioral level.