Spinosaurus new look!

[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!

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.

Wouldn't it be better to be celebrated with new,updated models? 

[Balaur]

I haven't read the paper yet. All the news sources say that it was about 15 metres long. Did the paper say anything about its size? If so, was it downscaled from its biggest size?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

So now some webbed feet, gills and a fluked tail and voila...sea serpent !!!

[Sim]

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

Thanks for this!  What Scott Hartman says makes sense, I think he's right.  His corrected version looks more natural, and it makes more sense.  The longer legs on his corrected version seem more plausible as they would allow Spinosaurus quicker land movement.  If it had the really short legs that were initially proposed, I think it would make it vulnerable to large predators like Carcharodontosaurus.

I think the second one, Scott Hartman's version, is the more likely appearance of Spinosaurus.

Wouldn't it be better to be celebrated with new,updated models? 

Maybe for Deinocheirus.  I don't think it's a good idea to immediately make a figure based on newly described information.  It seems that often, the first publications have mistakes, which get noticed by others looking at the material.  For example, newly discovered prehistoric animals often seem to be initially estimated to be bigger than they actually were.  Sciurumimus was originally said to be a megalosaur, then it was reclassified as a coelurosaur.  Concavenator was proposed to have quill knobs, despite the bumps on its arms not looking like them.  Now there's much doubt it had quill knobs.  Despite this, most figures and reconstructions of it show it with quills or feathers, usually on just it's arms which seems unlikely.  All because of that initial, dubious claim of quill knobs.  This is why I think it's best to give new discoveries that aren't 100% confirmed some time before using them as reference for a figure.

[Balaur]

Still looks very front heavy though.

[Sim]

I forgot to say this in my pevious post:  I haven't seen Spinosaurus being reported to have relatively flat toe claws prior to this new information.  It seems to support it being quite aquatic!

[amanda]

No, no new models yet, no petitions to collectA. This paper JUST came out and we want to change it all already? And, even the experts are not sure about it. Let it sit a while. Let it be poured over and talked about. Besides, I'd lay odds it'll be another 10 years before Carnegie updates it. We could have one as well preserved and known as Sue and not get an update.

I reserve opinion for now. I get why the shorter legs bother. But I find it odd that after such an exhaustive preparation, they "made a mistake" with proportions. Seems to me that would be one of the most important checks. Looking at the reconstruction's legs and thinking...."that can't be right" and then double checking it all?

Maybe this animal was relatively rare. Maybe the environments did not support multitudes of them. So, running the gauntlet from hatching to adulthood thinned them out naturally??

[tyrantqueen]

Let it sit a while. Let it be poured over and talked about.

I agree.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Still looks very front heavy though.

I think it's possible with Hartman's version it could carry itself similar to hadrosaurs ..walk on all fours when relaxed but capable of rearing up and maybe even running short distances.

[Balaur]

Still looks very front heavy though.

I think it's possible with Hartman's version it could carry itself similar to hadrosaurs ..walk on all fours when relaxed but capable of rearing up and maybe even running short distances.

I find that plausible.

[Roselaar]

Are those lousy old Schleich Spinosaurs a step closer to accuracy now? That would be the stuff of controversy indeed.

[Sim]

It's nice to get some new information on the function of Spinosaurus' spines!  According to the palaeontologists involved, it wasn't suitable for thermoregulation or a hump, and they think it was for display.  I imagine the shadow it would cast could also attract fish/other aquatic prey.

Still looks very front heavy though.

I think it's possible with Hartman's version it could carry itself similar to hadrosaurs ..walk on all fours when relaxed but capable of rearing up and maybe even running short distances.

I find that plausible.

As Scott Hartman pointed out, longer legs would push the centre of gravity back.  Scott's version looks like the long tail could balance out the front half, thus negating the need for quadrupedal land movement.

[stargatedalek]

not a shrink wrapped dimetrodon-esq sail however, but like a chameleon, which honestly I would call a ridge rather than a sail

what they mean by 'not a hump' is 'not a thickened mass of muscle like a bison or rhinoceros'

[laticauda]

Is it possible that it had long nerural spines just to help strengthen the vertebra over its long body? 

[Scipionyx]

Still looks very front heavy though.

I think it's possible with Hartman's version it could carry itself similar to hadrosaurs ..walk on all fours when relaxed but capable of rearing up and maybe even running short distances.

http://qilong.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-outlaw-spino-saurus/
It seems any kind of weight-bearing would be difficult or impossible:
"...the forelimbs, if they are anything like normal theropod forelimbs, are completely unsuited for weight-bearing. Rather than arranged vertically, the shoulder blades are aligned across the ribs in such a way that any quadrupedal stance would shove the shoulders deep into the neck and likely behead a Spinosaurus faster than Sean Bean in his next deat–film."

[Seijun]

I have a question about how spinos jaws fit together..
I was reading Nash's posts on the subject and admit that most of the terms were over my head and I skimmed a lot... Which style is he advocating for in this post?
http://qilong.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/the-good-the-bad-and-the-spinosaurus/

[SBell]

Are those lousy old Schleich Spinosaurs a step closer to accuracy now? That would be the stuff of controversy indeed.

They got the sail wrong though! So close Schleich, you almost had one...

Apparently there is some controversy over the scaling of the hind limbs; some researchers think that they should have been more massive and longer; that said, it doesn't substantially change the overall interpretation, just indicates that Spinosaurus may have had larger hind limbs for better terrestrial locomotion.

I am thinking that there is still a lot of work to come out about this.

[Gwangi]

Are those lousy old Schleich Spinosaurs a step closer to accuracy now? That would be the stuff of controversy indeed.

The old Wild Safari model too.

[DinoLord]

The old WS figure gets the sail shape right too!

[Sim]

Are those lousy old Schleich Spinosaurs a step closer to accuracy now? That would be the stuff of controversy indeed.

They got the sail wrong though! So close Schleich, you almost had one...

Apparently there is some controversy over the scaling of the hind limbs; some researchers think that they should have been more massive and longer; that said, it doesn't substantially change the overall interpretation, just indicates that Spinosaurus may have had larger hind limbs for better terrestrial locomotion.

I am thinking that there is still a lot of work to come out about this.

All the Schleich Spinosaurus have heads that are inaccurate, and arms that are waaay too long!  They also lack the big first finger claw, and have pronated hands.