You can support the Dinosaur Toy Forum by making dino-purchases through these links to Ebay and Amazon. Disclaimer: these and other links to Ebay.com and Amazon.com on the Dinosaur Toy Forum are often affiliate links, so when you make purchases through them we may make a commission.

avatar_SpartanSquat

Spinosaurus new look!

Started by SpartanSquat, August 14, 2014, 06:27:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Yutyrannus

#380
Quote from: Simon on October 11, 2014, 01:30:56 AM
No, they have not found the arms of the new type specimen nor did Stromer find them for his specimen. The arms are based on SUchomimus/Baryonyx and other bits and pieces from "relatives" from what I read....look at this diagram - the legs from the juvi Ibrahim specimen are being scaled up to match Stromer's Spino and the mega-upper jaw found more recently (the 50+ footer).  If that doesn't give you some pause, I don't know what would.  Too many variables for me to be completely comfortable with it yet....
They did find the arms.

"The world's still the same. There's just less in it."


Yutyrannus

Quote from: Simon on October 11, 2014, 02:02:23 AM
I am unconvinced that the stomach could have been as shallow as their reconstructions show it as being...
That's because their reconstructions are shrink-wrapped.

"The world's still the same. There's just less in it."

Simon

#382
Yutyrannus:

Your diagram proves my point. "Isolated bones from multiple locations" by definition means that they did not find the arms with the new type specimen.  Nor did Stromer find them for his. Who knows how many different species variations of Spinosaurus or relatives inhabited North Africa during those 10-15 million years? Or about sexual dimorphism? Its still early in the "piece-the-Spino-together" puzzle game.  Once we get a half dozen or more fairly complete specimens, then we can start making some firmer conclusions.  These are all piece-meal from a map spread out over a thousand miles of the Sahara.

Its frustrating because of where the bones are (relatively inaccessible and fossil theft and resale are rampant), but it is what it is.

My point is that there is still very little data, and extrapolating scale from an incomplete juvi find to reconstruct other incomplete specimens of much, much larger adults collected a 1000 miles away leaves a rather large margin for error to say the least.

Simon

#383
Let me just add an important comment re: arms - the pieces of Spinosaurid arms/claws found in the region and used as the basis for the reconstruction are consistent with the type of arms that we see in Suchomimus/Baryonyx - ie they are clearly "hunting" arms, not "walking" arms.

Yet another problem with the "quadruped Spino" theory ...

amargasaurus cazaui

I remember when I questioned all this and then all we had was Stromer's long lost material and people wanted to stone and tar me for it. Now we have even more material and it is being questioned soundly...the science world is a funny place.
Authors with varying competence have suggested dinosaurs disappeared because of meteorites...God's will, raids by little green hunters in flying saucers, lack of standing room in Noah's Ark, and palaeoweltschmerz—Glenn Jepsen


HD-man

Quote from: Simon on October 11, 2014, 01:51:07 AMhttp://brolyeuphyfusion9500.deviantart.com/art/Spinosaurus-aegyptiacus-skeletal-reconstructions-483433951

A WORD OF WARNING: While I agree with your main point, you shouldn't take Brolyeuphyfusion9500 too seriously; I speak from experience (E.g. Carnivora Forum) when I say that he's a strawman-building troll who'll ignore any source that contradicts him.
I'm also known as JD-man at deviantART: http://jd-man.deviantart.com/

Yutyrannus

Quote from: HD-man on October 11, 2014, 05:03:18 AM
Quote from: Simon on October 11, 2014, 01:51:07 AMhttp://brolyeuphyfusion9500.deviantart.com/art/Spinosaurus-aegyptiacus-skeletal-reconstructions-483433951

A WORD OF WARNING: While I agree with your main point, you shouldn't take Brolyeuphyfusion9500 too seriously; I speak from experience (E.g. Carnivora Forum) when I say that he's a strawman-building troll who'll ignore any source that contradicts him.
Indeed.

"The world's still the same. There's just less in it."

Amazon ad:

Simon

Quote from: amargasaurus cazaui on October 11, 2014, 04:11:44 AM
I remember when I questioned all this and then all we had was Stromer's long lost material and people wanted to stone and tar me for it. Now we have even more material and it is being questioned soundly...the science world is a funny place.

Well, not too much. I'm skeptical about the size of the reconstructed legs as projected onto a 50+ foot long animal 5x the mass as the juvenile individual found at a location 1000 miles away.

I'm not questioning that this animal was partly aquatic,with proportionately much smaller hind limbs than Suchomimus, probably webbed feet, and that from now on it is best depicted as swimming in search of prey (as the beautiful paintings in the Nat Geo magazine do).

I'm only questioning the "quadruped" theory which in my view is taking the evidence a step too far, especially given the well described problems with it, not the least of which is the lack of arms that could support that type of thing ...

amanda

I think it is still too soon to say, but I am inclined to believe the official reconstruction. I understand the reservations to a degree, but I still get the feeling this new look is on the right track.

stargatedalek

I don't see why it couldn't have been bipedal with the small legs...

tyrantqueen


Simon

Everybody's getting into the act!  ^-^  I don't know, but its prettier than the "official" reconstruction.  I'm waiting for Hartman to do a reconstruction, but I don't think he's gonna do one until he can examine all of the data in the upcoming publications from Ibrahim & Co.....

stargatedalek

I think the legs look a might thick on it, but other than that it looks nice


tyrantqueen

Quote from: stargatedalek on October 11, 2014, 04:00:49 PM
I think the legs look a might thick on it, but other than that it looks nice
It probably weighed over a ton, so such thickness would be appropriate.

stargatedalek

I meant the bones themselves rather than the fleshed leg (my bad, I should have been clearer)

Balaur

Quote from: tyrantqueen on October 11, 2014, 04:16:07 PM
Quote from: stargatedalek on October 11, 2014, 04:00:49 PM
I think the legs look a might thick on it, but other than that it looks nice
It probably weighed over a ton, so such thickness would be appropriate.

I think they estimated it to be 15-25 tonnes.

Simon

Quote from: Balaur on October 11, 2014, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: tyrantqueen on October 11, 2014, 04:16:07 PM
Quote from: stargatedalek on October 11, 2014, 04:00:49 PM
I think the legs look a might thick on it, but other than that it looks nice
It probably weighed over a ton, so such thickness would be appropriate.

I think they estimated it to be 15-25 tonnes.

That estimate is likely wildly inflated, as we have seen in the past with sauropod weight estimates, in particular.  Argentinosaurus was advsertised as weighing 120+ tons, but more recent estimates put it at the 70 - ton range.  If a TRex weighed 7 tons max, then the 50-foots Spinosaurus probably weighed a few more.  My personal guess would be around 10 - 12 tons max.  The more it weighed, the harder it would have made for it to get around on its hind legs - which it had to do while on land,

Balaur

Quote from: Simon on October 11, 2014, 07:22:22 PM
Quote from: Balaur on October 11, 2014, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: tyrantqueen on October 11, 2014, 04:16:07 PM
Quote from: stargatedalek on October 11, 2014, 04:00:49 PM
I think the legs look a might thick on it, but other than that it looks nice
It probably weighed over a ton, so such thickness would be appropriate.

I think they estimated it to be 15-25 tonnes.

That estimate is likely wildly inflated, as we have seen in the past with sauropod weight estimates, in particular.  Argentinosaurus was advsertised as weighing 120+ tons, but more recent estimates put it at the 70 - ton range.  If a TRex weighed 7 tons max, then the 50-foots Spinosaurus probably weighed a few more.  My personal guess would be around 10 - 12 tons max.  The more it weighed, the harder it would have made for it to get around on its hind legs - which it had to do while on land,

Well, it had dense bones, which add to the weight.

stargatedalek

#398
15-20 tons actually seems reasonable to me
lets start with that 7 ton rex, and then work our way up from there
(yah I'm calling tyrannosaurus rex, I apologize in advance, I'm on mobile and it takes long enough to type on mobile already...)


the bones are not merely denser, they are essentially solid, this alone easily adds another few tons to the animals weight
-12-14 tons

the large ridge while not a rhino like hump is still thick and well muscled, thats another ton maybe even two
-13-16 tons

the forelimbs are immense compared to rex (previously this would round out because of rex front heavy head and torso, but the torso while thinner is longer than that of rex, the longer neck also makes up for rex larger head), which probably adds easily another ton, again maybe more
-14-18 tons

the tail is much longer, theres another ton
-15-20 tons

Simon

#399
Scott Hartman is working on a post analyzing the mass (aka weight) of the "Super Spinosaurus". 

Here is the link to the (as of right now incomplete) post on the Spino's mass - bookmark it for later:

http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/super-spinosaurus6282013

DISCLAMER:  BEFORE ANYONE GETS AS EXCITED AS I WAS WHEN I FOUND THIS LINK, SINCE MY ORIGINAL POST I HAVE FIGURED OUT THAT THE POST IS OVER A YEAR OLD.  THEREFORE WHEN HARTMAN WILL GIVE US HIS ESTIMATE OF SPINOSAURUS' MASS/WEIGHT IS UNKNOWN.  PROBABLY NOT BEFORE HE FEELS CONFIDENT ABOUT RELEASING A RE-WORKED SKELETAL RECONSTRUCTION.  MEANING - DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!

Disclaimer: links to Ebay and Amazon are affiliate links, so the DinoToyForum may make a commission if you click them.


Amazon ad: