Spinosaurus new look!

[gfxtwin]

Looks like its time to stop picturing spinosaurus as this:




Because it would seem it this is a more accurate depiction:




link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/science/a-nomads-find-helps-solve-the-mystery-of-the-spinosaurus.html?_r=0

[tyrantqueen]

We already have a thread, right here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=2505.msg70798;topicseen#new

[DinoLord]

The more I look at this new reconstruction the weirder it gets. I wonder what kind of implications this has for other spinosaurids...

[Seijun]

I love the new spinosaurus! I would like to see exactly what bones were discovered though (the new ones). The bbc article has a neat little pic of the skeleton, color-coded, and I assume the dif colors correspond to different specimens, but there is no key provided. Does anyone have a color key for that image? Also, if that image is accurate, I would assume that size differences have been taken into account. The new specimen was not an adult, so it would not make sense to fill in the gaps with adult bones without scaling them down first.

EDIT: Nevermind, my questions were answered in the PHYS article.

[Gwangi]

I love the new spinosaurus! I would like to see exactly what bones were discovered though (the new ones). The bbc article has a neat little pic of the skeleton, color-coded, and I assume the dif colors correspond to different specimens, but there is no key provided. Does anyone have a color key for that image? Also, if that image is accurate, I would assume that size differences have been taken into account. The new specimen was not an adult, so it would not make sense to fill in the gaps with adult bones without scaling them down first.

The only place I've seen what bones they found was on the IFLScience article.

"Paleontologists working on desert cliffs called the Kem Kem beds in eastern Morocco recently unearthed a more complete set of fossils -- including portions of a skull, axial column, pelvic girdle, and limbs -- that suggests the dinosaur was semi-aquatic."
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/first-ever-swimming-dinosaur-ate-sharks

Naturally, not everyone is convinced.

"John Hutchinson, a palaeontologist at the Royal Veterinary College of the University of London, is less convinced. He worries about the reliability of cobbling together different specimens to create a single picture of an animal. "We have to be careful about creating a chimera," he says. "It's really exciting speculation, but I'd like to see more-conclusive evidence."
http://www.nature.com/news/swimming-dinosaur-found-in-morocco-1.15901

Personally, I'm all for the new look. Anything that makes this animal weirder than it already was is alright by me. The same applies to any dinosaur really. I love it when our perception of these creatures is completely turned on its head. Of course, I still don't have the Carnegie Spinosaurus and now I'm not so sure I should even bother with it! No, I'll still get it.

[Patrx]

Personally, I'm all for the new look. Anything that makes this animal weirder than it already was is alright by me. The same applies to any dinosaur really. I love it when our perception of these creatures is completely turned on its head. Of course, I still don't have the Carnegie Spinosaurus and now I'm not so sure I should even bother with it! No, I'll still get it.

Well said! I wish this attitude were more common among dinosaur enthusiasts; I've seen a lot of complaining over the new look.

[EmperorDinobot]

So...is there a paper out there? I don't really trust Nat Geo with Paleontology, and tbh, I'm not really a fan of Sereno either.


Let's...not forget "Archaeoraptor lianoningensis".


I'm not saying this is not impossible, I'm not saying this is too odd to be true either, it's just I haven't seen the paper yet, and both Sereno and Nat Geo can be really dodgy.

[Balaur]

Personally, I'm all for the new look. Anything that makes this animal weirder than it already was is alright by me. The same applies to any dinosaur really. I love it when our perception of these creatures is completely turned on its head. Of course, I still don't have the Carnegie Spinosaurus and now I'm not so sure I should even bother with it! No, I'll still get it.

Well said! I wish this attitude were more common among dinosaur enthusiasts; I've seen a lot of complaining over the new look.

I second this. I read comments on some articles, and I heard stuff like "I hate the new look! Science ruined dinosaurs!" and other nonsensical arguments. I love the new look. I am so much closer to Spinosaurus than I ever was before.

[tanystropheus]

I just read the Beeb article on this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29143096



This image just looks so...bizarre. How come its front arms are bigger than its legs?

Maybe Spino was really just a giant crocodile with a sail on its back! ......(but it still doesn't explain why the arms are bigger, though....to be fair, in the actual fossil the arms look smaller than the legs)

[EmperorDinobot]

Scott Hartman is on the job: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/theres-something-fishy-about-spinosaurus9112014

Oh and I got my hands on the paper. That's...that's gonna be quite a read tonight.

http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/theres-something-fishy-about-spinosaurus9112014


Reminds me of the reconstruction I did a month before "the big reveal". Will have to update some things in it, like sail shape and so forth....

[tyrantqueen]

Hartman's corrected version looks better, more natural. The scale was messed up before.

[Scipionyx]

Oh! Oh! What did I say? I said it was the only true aquatic dinosaur. And it is! 

What's up with the small legs? The arms are bigger than its legs! How did it even walk on land?

Aren't you forgetting about penguins and hesperornis?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Hartman's corrected version looks better, more natural. The scale was messed up before.

My thoughts exactly.  We get an oddity like Deinocheirus dropped on us then all of a sudden that's the new bandwagon to jump on.  You have to also look toward makes the most sense..we know dinosaurs didn't have the palms down..why would animal with so much weight forward not evolve to turn the wrists as well..especially if it was becoming a quadruped.  Scott's version makes much more sense to me.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I Have said for years now that the version stromer reconstructed was badly flawed. Finally they are fixing it !!

[Everything_Dinosaur]

It's a fascinating paper, and the team behind this latest reconstruction are to be congratulated for their persistence and dedication, more detective story than palaeontology for us.  The new interpretation is certainly intriguing, the quadrupedal stance, a potential knuckle-walker, the forward centre of gravity, potential splayed feet, etc.  For us, this latest twist in the "Spino saga" as we call it, is another chapter in the story, it's not the end of the story.  What is required is a more complete specimen and until that day, there is a huge amount of scope available when it comes to interpreting the fossil evidence.

One point we made earlier, when we were told about the semi-aquatic life-style, we thought that this estuarine/river system was swarming with large crocodiles (Sarcosuchus et al), its all right for a sixteen  metre adult to go paddling about, but if you are a six foot juvenile, surface swimming and you are nowhere near as quick as other predators in the water, might you end up as somebody else's dinner!

Did juveniles have a more terrestrial existence?  We have seen different habitat preferences in Komodo dragons juveniles versus adults - what thoughts do you have?

We have a blog article to complete that tries to tie a few loose ends together.

[fabricious]

I agree, Scott Hartman's corrected version looks a lot more proportionally balanced and 'plausible', I am curious to see what kinds of turns this whole thing might take from now on. I expect that we'll see a lot more findings from Africa in the not too distant future and I am sure to be reading about them with great interest.

[Concavenator]

Good point-but there was danger on land as well.Carcharodontosaurus and Deltadromeus.My personal idea was that baby Spinosaurus were a little mire terrestrial than the adults-for escaping when a crocodile attacks (ornescaping from say,a Carcharodontosaurus.An adult Spinosaurus was surely pretty big,so its size was imponent,that'd avoid the need to fight with crocodiles.
Now,a question comes to mind...why has Spinosaurus the humbed claw,if it spent most of it time in the water?
For an aquatic (semi-aquatic,in thus case) animal,mouth adaptations for hunting fish is enough.Maybe when it was in land,it opted for a rearing stance for having a good visibility,useful when hunting fish.
I think this new discovery puts Spinosauridae very close to crocodiles,more so than I imagined.I thought the resembled bears,but nope.Some members of the crocodile family can hunt on land(they have the speed and longer lengs than its counterparts.While the big Nile crocodiles spent like 90% of its time in water-because in lands there were a variety of predators (Carcharodontosaurus,Deltadromeus and possibly the new noasaurid Sereno has just discovered).And we have spinosaurs that had a more terrestrial life,i.e.,Irritator,showing pterosaur fossils inside its skeleton.Same goes for Baryonyx,because there was discoveed one with an Iguanodon inside.
This new discovery is amazing and really exciting,and,for me,it looks like Spinosaurus is much more interesting than before.Don't know why some people is disliking this new discovery.
EDIT--right now comes to my mind how bad paleontology is in my country  How can they say Spinosaurus weighted 20 tons??!! Such an exaggeration!

[fabricious]

I think the idea that was shown in the 'Planet Dinosaur' series about the claw being used to tear prey apart sounded very plausible. I never really imagined spinosaurids using their forearms to hunt fish like bears do, since so long a neck and snout, compared to such short arms, might have made it rather difficult making out prey and catching it with their arms.
Thinking of how baby crocodiles are pretty much at risk of getting eaten by almost anything (including other crocodiles), it might be possible that younger spinosaurids relied more on camouflage than the adult one, maybe hiding in mangrove root systems to avoid larger prey, as well as maybe even spending parts of their life outside the water. If Spinosaurus lay eggs (maybe they were viviparous?), then those must have been put on land anyway in order not to drown. Thus, there might either have been a bit of parenting involved (like in crocodilians) or the young might have been on their own, thus more likely getting dispersed soon after hatching. A very interesting thing to think about, ontogeny of dinosaurs definitely is an interesting topic.

[Manatee]

I personally love the new look and find it quite fascinating. This opens up a new realm of possibilities for future dinosaur discoveries.
Plus, like someone said above, I have been hoping someone would find new Spinosaurus and Deinocheirus remains for a long time. Luckily, both have happened, and they just so happened to be two of the weirdest dinosaurs of all!

[EmperorDinobot]

Good point-but there was danger on land as well.Carcharodontosaurus and Deltadromeus.My personal idea was that baby Spinosaurus were a little mire terrestrial than the adults-for escaping when a crocodile attacks (ornescaping from say,a Carcharodontosaurus.An adult Spinosaurus was surely pretty big,so its size was imponent,that'd avoid the need to fight with crocodiles.
Now,a question comes to mind...why has Spinosaurus the humbed claw,if it spent most of it time in the water?
For an aquatic (semi-aquatic,in thus case) animal,mouth adaptations for hunting fish is enough.Maybe when it was in land,it opted for a rearing stance for having a good visibility,useful when hunting fish.
I think this new discovery puts Spinosauridae very close to crocodiles,more so than I imagined.I thought the resembled bears,but nope.Some members of the crocodile family can hunt on land(they have the speed and longer lengs than its counterparts.While the big Nile crocodiles spent like 90% of its time in water-because in lands there were a variety of predators (Carcharodontosaurus,Deltadromeus and possibly the new noasaurid Sereno has just discovered).And we have spinosaurs that had a more terrestrial life,i.e.,Irritator,showing pterosaur fossils inside its skeleton.Same goes for Baryonyx,because there was discoveed one with an Iguanodon inside.
This new discovery is amazing and really exciting,and,for me,it looks like Spinosaurus is much more interesting than before.Don't know why some people is disliking this new discovery.
EDIT--right now comes to my mind how bad paleontology is in my country  How can they say Spinosaurus weighted 20 tons??!! Such an exaggeration!

What do you mean by placing spinosauridae next to crocodylomorpha (or bathyotica at all)? This is an example of convergent evolution, where to totally different organisms evolve in a similar fashion to exploit a similar environment. But yeah, Spinosaurus was quite mobile both in land and on the sea. To the extent to how it used both is unknown. The environment in the Kem Kem was pretty swampy and watery. Think of ducks! Or swans....giant...carnivorous swans. Eeesh.


Speaking of swans and ducks and waterfowl. Don't feed them bread. It's bad for them and bad for the environment. In fact, don't feed them anything.

And we are all happy all these mysterious dinosaurs are finally getting new fossils. We shall celebrate with cake.