Shorty spinosaurus

[CarnegieCollector]

Hi-oh everyone! I'm at it again with another weird post relating to a dinosaurs fossil authenticity. This time around I will be talking about my all time favorite dinosaur, spinosaurus.

For those few people who arent familiar with spinosaurus, it was a theropod dinosaur with a 6 foot tall sail on its back, it had a long crocodile like snout, and had huge hooked thumb claws. It was the longest of all theropods, at 60 feet long max.

My argument is focusing on the 2014 spinosaurus partial skeleton remains found in Africa.
The skeleton as a whole, was amazing, and changed how we view Spinosaurus. It showed its sail was more con-caved and not so much like an arch, it showed us more of the skull, arms, tail, and today's subject: the legs.
The skeletons legs are very, very, short. Like comical kinda short. According to ibrahim et al., the discoverer of the fossil, these sort of legs woulda been more suited to aquatic life, and would have limited the time it could spend on land, as with such short legs, it could hardly walk (which seems odd, as ducks have very short legs, yet they walk just fine). It was suggested that spinosaurus was a quadruped, walking on four legs. However, theropods had to keep their claws sharp to kill prey. Walking on its hands would dull the ever so precious sharp claws. And we all know theropods couldn't pronate their wrists, so that's out of the question. 
Some people said it could walk on land by knuckle walking, something gorillas, chimps, and other apes do. However, to knuckle walk, you need very strong, thick muscles on your arms, something spinosaurus doesn't (didn't) seem to have. Walking like a normal theropod also seems hard for it to do, as, with such short legs, it wouldn't have been able to keep its self up. It woulda been too top heavy.
Some also theorized that it could have been a tail dragger, a tripod. But since other dinosaurs couldn't do this, this theory also seems unlikely. Perhaps spinosaurus hovered to get around???

It seems unlikely that these legs belong to Mr. Spinosaurus. Phylogenetic bracketing also seems to dislike this "short spino", as no other spinosaurid, or any theropod for that matter, had such short legs. The legs also don't seem to fit with the rest of the fossil. Read this article to see why:
http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/theres-something-fishy-about-spinosaurus9112014

I think (IMO), these legs belong to a smaller dinosaur, a sizing mistake on behalf of the discoverer, or a young spinosaur. Mistakes happen a lot in science, it wouldn't be surprising if this was a mistake as well. I'm also not against the short legged spinosaurus, I quite like the look of it, it just seems unlikely. Did spinosaurus have short legs? Only time will tell...

Thank you for reading my post! Have a nice day!   

[DinoLord]

Trust me when I say you're far from the first to express skepticism over this finding. But until the full manuscript is published all we can do is speculate... 

[suspsy]

You know, CarnegieCollector, claiming that you're not a "butt-hurt spino fanboy" and then going on to belittle Nizar Ibrahim at the end of your post by accusing him of being a "T. Rex fanboy" out to make Spinosaurus look "pathetic" was a pretty tacky and immature thing to do. He's one of the hardest-working paleontologists out there today. Do you have any idea how much time and effort he put in just to find out the location of those new spinosaur remains? And did you know that he very politely and patiently responded to Scott Hartman's blog post?

[CarnegieCollector]

You know, CarnegieCollector, claiming that you're not a "butt-hurt spino fanboy" and then going on to belittle Nizar Ibrahim at the end of your post by accusing him of being a "T. Rex fanboy" out to make Spinosaurus look "pathetic" was a pretty tacky and immature thing to do. He's one of the hardest-working paleontologists out there today. Do you have any idea how much time and effort he put in just to find out the location of those new spinosaur remains? And did you know that he very politely and patiently responded to Scott Hartman's blog post?

Im sorry. I wasnt trying to be rude. to sound mean, or mocking. I in no way, was trying to mock Mr. Ibrahim? I also don't typically go to Scott Hartmann's blog, so I didn't know about that. I'll go back and edit my post so it doesn't sound offensive or rude. I apologize 

[suspsy]

Your apology is appreciated and accepted, thank you. I do understand that you were only joking, but it nevertheless reflects poorly on you and your argument.

And here is Ibrahim's response to Hartman's blog post: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/aquatic-spinosaurus-the-authors-responsd9182014

[stargatedalek]

Honestly I think the whole argument of longer legs is just silly. For one it's reliant on the idea of the fossils themselves being misinterpreted, rather than the adaptations they represent being misinterpreted, which is a dangerous line of thought to follow. Especially when the person making the point isn't able to examine the fossils (for an example with a more unanimous opinion look up David Peters, his claims are both unconventional and provable as incorrect, but he makes them on the same ground Hartman is using). And for two it wouldn't change anything about the leg muscles atrophy and therefore lack of support for bipedal movement.

[CarnegieCollector]

Honestly I think the whole argument of longer legs is just silly. For one it's reliant on the idea of the fossils themselves being misinterpreted, rather than the adaptations they represent being misinterpreted, which is a dangerous line of thought to follow. Especially when the person making the point isn't able to examine the fossils (for an example with a more unanimous opinion look up David Peters, his claims are both unconventional and provable as incorrect, but he makes them on the same ground Hartman is using). And for two it wouldn't change anything about the leg muscles atrophy and therefore lack of support for bipedal movement.

Good point! It is kinda silly, i guess.
Iv seen some of Mr. Peters pterosaur......"reconstructions", they're.......Intresting to say the least! 

[CarnegieCollector]

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/259/1/5/new_version_spinosaurus_by_manuelsaurus-d7zfjgi.jpg

Quite honestly, the animal doesn't look too different. I just can't wrap my head around how the thing would walk. I mean, I guess it could be a biped, it would just need to hold its head way back.

Also, just in my opinion, the restoration Wikipedia gives of spinosaurus has rather long legs. I would think Wikipedia of all websites, would have the legs more "updated". It's no doubt, an awesome interpretation of the animal, it just that it's legs seem to long:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Spinosaurus_durbed.jpg/1024px-Spinosaurus_durbed.jpg

[CarnegieCollector]

Your apology is appreciated and accepted, thank you. I do understand that you were only joking, but it nevertheless reflects poorly on you and your argument.

And here is Ibrahim's response to Hartman's blog post: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/aquatic-spinosaurus-the-authors-responsd9182014

Thank you.
Intresting response to Hartman. Seems like my point is rather moot! 
Seems as if the short legged spinosaurus is authentic for the time being!

But again, how did the thing walk? I think That's what I'm trying to focus on.
Longer legs would make since (to me) for walking. It would be like any other theropod. But the thing has very short legs. Could it be a biped? Am I missing something? Am I being a nincompoop? 

[E.D.G.E. (PainterRex)]

Your apology is appreciated and accepted, thank you. I do understand that you were only joking, but it nevertheless reflects poorly on you and your argument.

And here is Ibrahim's response to Hartman's blog post: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/aquatic-spinosaurus-the-authors-responsd9182014

Thank you.
Intresting response to Hartman. Seems like my point is rather moot! 
Seems as if the short legged spinosaurus is authentic for the time being!

But again, how did the thing walk? I think That's what I'm trying to focus on.
Longer legs would make since (to me) for walking. It would be like any other theropod. But the thing has very short legs. Could it be a biped? Am I missing something? Am I being a nincompoop? 

Other theories have come about. One suggests it rested its head on itself like a pelican and waddled around like a duck, other suggest a more horizontal godzilla-like pose. However perhaps its skull was very hollow, like pterosaurs so it was not even very heavy? but then it might not be sturdy enough to survive the impacts of the giant fish it likely ate.

[Postosuchus84]

Trust me when I say you're far from the first to express skepticism over this finding. But until the full manuscript is published all we can do is speculate... 

I echo this sentiment actually. Wait for the full manuscript to be published.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

But again, how did the thing walk? I think That's what I'm trying to focus on.
Longer legs would make since (to me) for walking. It would be like any other theropod. But the thing has very short legs. Could it be a biped? Am I missing something? Am I being a nincompoop? 

It isn't as exaggerated as spinosaurus, but majungasaurus seems to have a similar orientation as far as having a long body and short legs. I don't know of any other wiener-dog theropods but I guess we'll have to wait until its published to see how things are. It's on the growing list of publications I'm still waiting for.

[Mamasaurus]

I think you'll find these posts very interesting. They are from Duane Nash's blog, Antediluvian salad, and illustrate how spinosaurus was more like a hippo/croc. Not a powerful swimmer, doesn't walk on land, but an expert at running along the river bottom, and taking advantage of the tide. I personal find his ideas very plausible and elegant. They make sense of the whole animal as a successful species, rather than an awkward mistake or in between phase

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2015/10/spinosaurus-unauthorized-i-hippos-are.html?m=1

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2015/11/spinosaurus-unauthorized-ii-spino.html?m=1

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2016/03/spinosaurus-unauthorized-iii-run-spino.html?m=1

[CarnegieCollector]

I think you'll find these posts very interesting. They are from Duane Nash's blog, Antediluvian salad, and illustrate how spinosaurus was more like a hippo/croc. Not a powerful swimmer, doesn't walk on land, but an expert at running along the river bottom, and taking advantage of the tide. I personal find his ideas very plausible and elegant. They make sense of the whole animal as a successful species, rather than an awkward mistake or in between phase

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2015/10/spinosaurus-unauthorized-i-hippos-are.html?m=1

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2015/11/spinosaurus-unauthorized-ii-spino.html?m=1

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2016/03/spinosaurus-unauthorized-iii-run-spino.html?m=1

Wow! I never thought of this kind of interpretation! I love it! Thanks for sharing those!

[Mamasaurus]

You're welcome, I'm glad you could enjoy them I'm getting quite fond of this interpretation, and it'll be interesting if it gets picked up and discussed by those in professional circles.  It's certainly worth a number of papers I'm sure!

[HD-man]

I think you'll find these posts very interesting. They are from Duane Nash's blog, Antediluvian salad, and illustrate how spinosaurus was more like a hippo/croc. Not a powerful swimmer, doesn't walk on land, but an expert at running along the river bottom, and taking advantage of the tide. I personal find his ideas very plausible and elegant. They make sense of the whole animal as a successful species, rather than an awkward mistake or in between phase

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2015/10/spinosaurus-unauthorized-i-hippos-are.html?m=1

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2015/11/spinosaurus-unauthorized-ii-spino.html?m=1

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2016/03/spinosaurus-unauthorized-iii-run-spino.html?m=1

Quoting Hartman ( http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/there-may-be-more-fishiness-in-spinosaurus9132014#comment-1594913312 ):

Belly sliding requires you to be able to propel yourself on the substrate. Crocodilians are already built for this with their sprawling limbs. Loons and (especially) penguins have shifted their legs posteriorly and rotated the acetabulum laterally so their limbs push out to the side more (loons of course depend on that as a propulsive stroke). So short legs aren't enough, Spinosaurus would need to be shown to have a radically modified pelvis, which the neotype simply doesn't have. Also note that plenty of living theropods simply walk along tidal flats - loons belly slide not because walking can't be done, but because their aquatic adaptations make locomotion on land difficult.

Now, if those pelvic and femoral adaptations were there in Spinosaurus I would say it deserves more exploration, but without them its hard to see how belly-sliding could have been more than a very occasional mode of locomotion. Second, there seems to be no reason to invoke it - matching the skeleton to the published element lengths makes normal theropod bipedality easy to accomplish, and it also moves the center of mass back. With those two problems solved belly sliding as a regular form of locomotion becomes a solution in search of a non-existent question.

I understand the appeal of breaking false dichotomies, but sometimes dichotomies aren't false, and sometime the data simply doesn't demand it.

[stargatedalek]

And yet again Hartman dodges the question about the muscles themselves and simply tries to disprove other theories in order to prove his own.