Spinosaurus new look!

[stargatedalek]

Also, here's another good picture of it:
http://dinofuzz.deviantart.com/art/Dat-new-Spino-sail-m8-475400025

I think the nostrils and crest shape are going a tad far, maybe to many barbels, but everything else I like

of course, thats all speculative at this point (I think?)

[Yutyrannus]

Another cool picture:
http://yutyrannus.deviantart.com/art/Spinosaurus-sketched-after-Sereno-et-al-475770405

Also, this is not really news, the pictures that are being used for the exhibit have been online for at least a year now.

[leidy]

Also, this is not really news, the pictures that are being used for the exhibit have been online for at least a year now.

I like that a little better, although probably because it's really not all that different from the picture that's emerged in recent years.

The pose of the skeleton looks a bit dodgy to me.  Like I have trouble understanding how that's even possible.  They have those tiny hindlimbs in a Greg Paulesque running pose, while the front end looks like it's about to trip up and smash face first.  I suppose it must be swimming.   



To be honest, I'm not a big fan of it, but if there's good fossil evidence, I suppose I'll come to accept it in time.  Hopefully from a legitimate dig this time, rather than more scraps rescued from the commercial market and private collectors.

Spinosaurus has always been weird, but it seems to get weirder, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.  Like it's always been very front heavy.  I'd often thought previous restorations had balance issues, and I know I'm not the only one.  Remember those old Baryonyx reconstructions from the 80s?  Like the Invicta model, on all fours?  Somewhere along the line it was decided that that theropod arms couldn't do that.  But it's hard to look at that skeleton and visualise an animal that always kept its arms swept back clear of the ground.

I had come to think of Spinosaurus as fishing something like a giant heron, but I'm not sure that really works anymore.  Seems like it's gonna take quite a bit of reimagining to revise our conception of this animal's behavior and lifestyle.

[Yutyrannus]

Also, this is not really news, the pictures that are being used for the exhibit have been online for at least a year now.

I like that a little better, although probably because it's really not all that different from the picture that's emerged in recent years.

The pose of the skeleton looks a bit dodgy to me.  Like I have trouble understanding how that's even possible.  They have those tiny hindlimbs in a Greg Paulesque running pose, while the front end looks like it's about to trip up and smash face first.  I suppose it must be swimming.   

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of it, but if there's good fossil evidence, I suppose I'll come to accept it in time.  Hopefully from a legitimate dig this time, rather than more scraps rescued from the commercial market and private collectors.

Spinosaurus has always been weird, but it seems to get weirder, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.  Like it's always been very front heavy.  I'd often thought previous restorations had balance issues, and I know I'm not the only one.  Remember those old Baryonyx reconstructions from the 80s?  Like the Invicta model, on all fours?  Somewhere along the line it was decided that that theropod arms couldn't do that.  But it's hard to look at that skeleton and visualise an animal that always kept its arms swept back clear of the ground.

I had come to think of Spinosaurus as fishing something like a giant heron, but I'm not sure that really works anymore.  Seems like it's gonna take quite a bit of reimagining to revise our conception of this animal's behavior and lifestyle.

I think other spinosaurids were like that, but Spinosaurus seems to have evolved to be a mainly aquatic animal.

[leidy]

Also, this is not really news, the pictures that are being used for the exhibit have been online for at least a year now.

I like that a little better, although probably because it's really not all that different from the picture that's emerged in recent years.

The pose of the skeleton looks a bit dodgy to me.  Like I have trouble understanding how that's even possible.  They have those tiny hindlimbs in a Greg Paulesque running pose, while the front end looks like it's about to trip up and smash face first.  I suppose it must be swimming.   

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of it, but if there's good fossil evidence, I suppose I'll come to accept it in time.  Hopefully from a legitimate dig this time, rather than more scraps rescued from the commercial market and private collectors.

Spinosaurus has always been weird, but it seems to get weirder, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.  Like it's always been very front heavy.  I'd often thought previous restorations had balance issues, and I know I'm not the only one.  Remember those old Baryonyx reconstructions from the 80s?  Like the Invicta model, on all fours?  Somewhere along the line it was decided that that theropod arms couldn't do that.  But it's hard to look at that skeleton and visualise an animal that always kept its arms swept back clear of the ground.

I had come to think of Spinosaurus as fishing something like a giant heron, but I'm not sure that really works anymore.  Seems like it's gonna take quite a bit of reimagining to revise our conception of this animal's behavior and lifestyle.

I think other spinosaurids were like that, but Spinosaurus seems to have evolved to be a mainly aquatic animal.

What I really want to get a better idea of is exactly how aquatic it was.  The picture before was an animal looking down into the water, now it seems like we're talking about an animal that spent a lot of time actually submerged in the water.  Croc-infested waters.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

More like mud banks and shallows, mangroves, and those type of areas. And one thing Sereno apparently stated he is bringing to the table is absoloute proof that Spinosaurus was the largest theropod known so far.....crocs would be ill fated if that is the case.

[Quen]

Spinosaurus has always been weird, but it seems to get weirder, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.  Like it's always been very front heavy.  I'd often thought previous restorations had balance issues, and I know I'm not the only one.  Remember those old Baryonyx reconstructions from the 80s?  Like the Invicta model, on all fours?  Somewhere along the line it was decided that that theropod arms couldn't do that.  But it's hard to look at that skeleton and visualise an animal that always kept its arms swept back clear of the ground.

I'm glad I was not the only one thinking that! I thought it was just the particular pictures/restorations shown here that made it seem like there's a little too much weight in the front for it to balance on two legs.

[leidy]

Spinosaurus has always been weird, but it seems to get weirder, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.  Like it's always been very front heavy.  I'd often thought previous restorations had balance issues, and I know I'm not the only one.  Remember those old Baryonyx reconstructions from the 80s?  Like the Invicta model, on all fours?  Somewhere along the line it was decided that that theropod arms couldn't do that.  But it's hard to look at that skeleton and visualise an animal that always kept its arms swept back clear of the ground.

I'm glad I was not the only one thinking that! I thought it was just the particular pictures/restorations shown here that made it seem like there's a little too much weight in the front for it to balance on two legs.

I tended to favour the longer estimates for Spinosaurus on the basis that an animal that front heavy would need a looooong tail to counterbalance everything.

But with those stubby legs, not only does it seem as front heavy as ever, it seems like there's so little clearance that the arms would be within touching distance of the ground a lot of the time.  It really begs the question. 

[Yutyrannus]

Spinosaurus has always been weird, but it seems to get weirder, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.  Like it's always been very front heavy.  I'd often thought previous restorations had balance issues, and I know I'm not the only one.  Remember those old Baryonyx reconstructions from the 80s?  Like the Invicta model, on all fours?  Somewhere along the line it was decided that that theropod arms couldn't do that.  But it's hard to look at that skeleton and visualise an animal that always kept its arms swept back clear of the ground.

I'm glad I was not the only one thinking that! I thought it was just the particular pictures/restorations shown here that made it seem like there's a little too much weight in the front for it to balance on two legs.

I tended to favour the longer estimates for Spinosaurus on the basis that an animal that front heavy would need a looooong tail to counterbalance everything.

But with those stubby legs, not only does it seem as front heavy as ever, it seems like there's so little clearance that the arms would be within touching distance of the ground a lot of the time.  It really begs the question.

Okay, Majungasaurus has almost exactly the same proportions, I don't think there would have been any problem walking on only the hind limbs. Also, the arms probably wouldn't ever touch the ground if Spinosaurus was walking bipedally, the legs likely wouldn't bend as much as shown in the mount while walking. I don't think theropod arms were suited to being used for walking. Also, I think Spinosaurus would've been 70%-80% aquatic, so it probably wouldn't have walked on land much at all.

[stargatedalek]

check those proportions again, magungasaurus has some nice thick legs, this spinosaurus has legs that are very thin
I'm not saying it couldn't have stood, just that its a fair bit off from even magungasaurus

perhaps it walked/rested on its wrists like an anteater?

[leidy]

Spinosaurus has always been weird, but it seems to get weirder, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.  Like it's always been very front heavy.  I'd often thought previous restorations had balance issues, and I know I'm not the only one.  Remember those old Baryonyx reconstructions from the 80s?  Like the Invicta model, on all fours?  Somewhere along the line it was decided that that theropod arms couldn't do that.  But it's hard to look at that skeleton and visualise an animal that always kept its arms swept back clear of the ground.

I'm glad I was not the only one thinking that! I thought it was just the particular pictures/restorations shown here that made it seem like there's a little too much weight in the front for it to balance on two legs.

I tended to favour the longer estimates for Spinosaurus on the basis that an animal that front heavy would need a looooong tail to counterbalance everything.

But with those stubby legs, not only does it seem as front heavy as ever, it seems like there's so little clearance that the arms would be within touching distance of the ground a lot of the time.  It really begs the question.

Okay, Majungasaurus has almost exactly the same proportions, I don't think there would have been any problem walking on only the hind limbs. Also, the arms probably wouldn't ever touch the ground if Spinosaurus was walking bipedally, the legs likely wouldn't bend as much as shown in the mount while walking. I don't think theropod arms were suited to being used for walking. Also, I think Spinosaurus would've been 70%-80% aquatic, so it probably wouldn't have walked on land much at all.

Well, for one thing Majungasaurus isn't as front heavy, and for another, its arms are tiny stumps.  Spinosaurus has a long torso, long neck, long head, long arms, and then there's the massive spines.

Even if it only spent 2% of it's time walking on land, it still must've done it, so you have to wonder what that would've looked like.  Might've been a bit awkward, but there are animals far more adapted to aquatic life that regularly come ashore. 

I wasn't actually arguing for 4 legged locomotion.

[Yutyrannus]

Well, for one thing Majungasaurus isn't as front heavy, and for another, its arms are tiny stumps.  Spinosaurus has a long torso, long neck, long head, long arms, and then there's the massive spines.

Even if it only spent 2% of it's time walking on land, it still must've done it, so you have to wonder what that would've looked like.  Might've been a bit awkward, but there are animals far more adapted to aquatic life that regularly come ashore. 

I wasn't actually arguing for 4 legged locomotion.

I don't see how it could be less front-heavy and I doubt that the arms made much of a difference. Also, the sail couldn't have weighed it down that much.

It definitely would have been pretty awkward moving on land (especially if it had webbed feet like I believe), I think maybe it splayed out its legs a little bit to spread its weight.

Oh, sorry, it sounded like you were.

[stargatedalek]

I think it could have walked bipedal or when calmer perhaps quadrupedal or even sliding
But its just speculative

[Simon]

Looking at the skeletal display I think the tail was plenty long enough to help balance out the front of the animal - with the pubis and gut being dead-center, and the head being relatively light-weight (compared to a monster like TRex).

The Croc-like lifestyle to some degree makes sense from another standpoint too - remember that Carcharodontosaurines were the mega-predators of the same era on dry land, so the semi-aquatic piscivirous (fish-eating) life style meant that they could co-exist without having to compete with each other for prey ....

[DinoLord]

I also think the aquatic lifestyle accounts for the odd proportions. Interestingly enough the other smaller spinosaurs have slightly more 'traditional' proportions compared to Spinosaurus - perhaps an indication that Spinosaurus was a highly specialized member of the group?

[Yutyrannus]

Interestingly enough the other smaller spinosaurs have slightly more 'traditional' proportions compared to Spinosaurus - perhaps an indication that Spinosaurus was a highly specialized member of the group?

Yep, that's what I said.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Or perhaps the most massive in sheer size and weight.....?

[Balaur]

I'm sure when Spinosaurus walked it was akward. And also, it's looking like Spinosaurus really is the only true "aquatic dinosaur".

[Yutyrannus]

Or perhaps the most massive in sheer size and weight.....?

I doubt it was really that heavy, it looks to be very long and slender.

[Newt]

I have to admit that I find it difficult to understand how this animal could move. Its tiny feet would be little help supporting its body on soft deltaic substrates. If it were a dedicated swimmer, where are its swimming adaptations? Again, the tiny feet would not work well as paddles, and the tail is too tapered for effective sculling. It seems to me that the sail itself would also hinder a good swimming undulation.

I look forward to getting more information on this truly odd animal.