What was Spinosaurus?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I did wander into an amusing idea...how many generally accepted and popular dinosaurs are built on feet of clay or in other words, less than satisfactory remains? I had never given this intense thought but the idea is novel....I know two of my favorites are common fossils, the Psittacosaurus, and Oviraptor, but what of less common dinosaurs? The first one that comes to mind for me is the North American Brachiosaurus...no known skeletons, and only scattered elements was the last I had understood. What about others? Gryph mentioned three that are dubious but also widely accepted...and by dubious I mean they lack a great deal of fossil support . What other dinosaurs are seemingly built on little direct evidence?

[Gwangi]

I looked through all of the current material, that I could find online before I ever commented. I see no limb or lower anatomy at all. Nothing to reinforce it is truly bi pedal for instance. I was hoping to find that. Zip. If you found anything like that please show me or send me a link, I couldnt . All I found were skull pieces, which for me are not diagnostic as a bi pedal spinous dinosaurs . That is what I was looking for...limbs, arms, a pelvic, a fused saccral, anything to indicate the actual structure of the animal. As for the material lost, sadly not all of it was illustrated nor pictured. Most yes, but there was some material we did not ever get to view. I still have my misgivings about Romers reconstruction. Are you aware of anything other than skull elements that were found recently? That I would love to look at, and if you do know of any send them my way please Sir.

Theropods were all bipedal, other spinosaurs were all bipedal. Why would we assume anything different for Spinosaurus? Do you know how unlikely it would be for it to turn out as a quadruped? We don't need limb material to figure these things out, just some critical thinking. If you found a Tyrannosaur skull with no limb material would you assume it was a quadruped? 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

If it were a new and unknown dinosaur I would assume NOTHING and that is precisely my point. Read the book " The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt" . It might help you better understand the context of this discovery. Stromer did not discover nor excavate this material himself. He was sitting in Munich and his field man found the fossils and sent them in crates to him. he removed the remains of at least four different theropods from those crates, as well as turtles, and at least six species of crocodilians, and a sauropod. This was not a case of finding something in the field, identifying the entire fossil as something and then doing research. These were huge boxes of fossils sent in packing crates and then sorted much later by someone who had no idea how it came out of the ground.Nor was this done yesterday with advanced scientific methods, the time was 1912.

[darylj]

Baryonyx - discovered about 70% intact.
suchomimus - two thirds intact
im confident that there is enough evidence to confirm that the partial discoveries on spinosaurus warrant it being placed in the same family.

as said above though... the actual dorsal spine could well be in question. it appears that bar some photos from world war two, there isnt much solid evidence, if any to prove this? which shocks me a little

[Horridus]

If it were a new and unknown dinosaur I would assume NOTHING and that is precisely my point.

Yeah, the forelimbs of Spinosaurus are unknown, so there is the most preposterously remote chance that it might have been different from every other theropod known, including other spinosaurs, and been a quadruped. But really, that's just silly.

[Gwangi]

If it were a new and unknown dinosaur I would assume NOTHING and that is precisely my point.

Well in that case we might as well toss out the bulk of what we think we know about dinosaurs. Would you rather us ignore the material found for Spinosaurus? Would you rather just lock it all away and forget it was there? Would you rather us not try to figure out what this animal was? Personally I would rather take a good look at what we have, compare it to related animals and come to the best conclusion we can from there knowing that none of it is written in stone and could all change at the next discovery. If I found out someone had material from any kind of extinct animal and didn't want to work with it because they thought there wasn't enough material to bother; well, I would be pissed off. Especially for something as intriguing as Spinosaurus.
As for the possibility that the neural spines described by Stromer belonged to a different animal than the Spinosaurus skull material, that is certainly a possibility. However, we do have tall neural spines for other spinosaur species, though not as tall as those for Spinosaurus they are tall enough and similar enough that we can infer that the spines described by Stromer belonged to the same animal as the skull. If you feel they belonged to something else than I'm forced to ask you; what? And what is your evidence?
As stated before, there are a lot of dinosaurs for which we only have a small portion of material. Cryolophosaurus is only known from a partial skull and some scant skeletal material, should we therefore not try to figure out what this animal was like or reconstruct it? This strange crested theropod, one of the only dinosaurs known from Antarctica, should we just ignore the fossil material because we don't have enough of it? Paleontology is like forensics or detective work. We take what little we have, do as much research as we can and come to the best conclusion. Hopefully someday more evidence will appear that validates or disproves our theories but until then we must remain content with what we have and keep looking for more. None of it is written in stone, it is all subject to change. No one has stated that they know what Spinosaurus looked like beyond doubt but based on what we have, we formulate out best guess. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Horridus]

knowing that none of it is written in stone

Isn't it all written in stone?

(Sorry, sorry...)

[Gwangi]

knowing that none of it is written in stone

Isn't it all written in stone?

(Sorry, sorry...)

Well....umm, I guess you got me there. 

[Arioch]

Actually, we do have claws and some forelimb remains that most likely belong to Spinosaurus, although still unpublished. They´re def too big to belong to some charcharodontosaur, at least.

[Himmapaan]

knowing that none of it is written in stone

Isn't it all written in stone?

(Sorry, sorry...)

Hey, I said that very same thing a while back on some other thread.

Though my remark was met with a resounding silence, which is fairly standard, I suppose. 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

If it were a new and unknown dinosaur I would assume NOTHING and that is precisely my point.

Well in that case we might as well toss out the bulk of what we think we know about dinosaurs. Would you rather us ignore the material found for Spinosaurus? Would you rather just lock it all away and forget it was there? Would you rather us not try to figure out what this animal was? Personally I would rather take a good look at what we have, compare it to related animals and come to the best conclusion we can from there knowing that none of it is written in stone and could all change at the next discovery. If I found out someone had material from any kind of extinct animal and didn't want to work with it because they thought there wasn't enough material to bother; well, I would be pissed off. Especially for something as intriguing as Spinosaurus.
As for the possibility that the neural spines described by Stromer belonged to a different animal than the Spinosaurus skull material, that is certainly a possibility. However, we do have tall neural spines for other spinosaur species, though not as tall as those for Spinosaurus they are tall enough and similar enough that we can infer that the spines described by Stromer belonged to the same animal as the skull. If you feel they belonged to something else than I'm forced to ask you; what? And what is your evidence?
As stated before, there are a lot of dinosaurs for which we only have a small portion of material. Cryolophosaurus is only known from a partial skull and some scant skeletal material, should we therefore not try to figure out what this animal was like or reconstruct it? This strange crested theropod, one of the only dinosaurs known from Antarctica, should we just ignore the fossil material because we don't have enough of it? Paleontology is like forensics or detective work. We take what little we have, do as much research as we can and come to the best conclusion. Hopefully someday more evidence will appear that validates or disproves our theories but until then we must remain content with what we have and keep looking for more. None of it is written in stone, it is all subject to change. No one has stated that they know what Spinosaurus looked like beyond doubt but based on what we have, we formulate out best guess. There is nothing wrong with that.

Actually to make a horrible pun you are entirely incorrect. Everything we know about dinosaurs is written in stone. All of it. Saying that tongue in cheek of course.  I never said do not work with the material. I never said do not make educated guesses. I also never said to place it in limbo. What I said, and still hang with, is that scientific debate on a dinosaur without much solid evidence for its existence or current possible configuration, is not an unhealthy exercise. It is when people get mired in stating we KNOW and we are SURE and stop discussing and working with and learning from a set of fossils that the problem arises.  Status quo science.......accepting without questioning. We do NOT have to accept what we have , we have a duty to question. That is the nature of science. Stromer might have gotten this dinosaur terribly wrong or perfectly on target, and there is nothing wrong with playing devils advocate and entertaining the possibilities. It certainly bears consideration that not one known dinosaur since or prior was ever found with these same adapatations. The only dinosaurs that I am currently aware of that had spinosaur processes of any length worth noting were all herbivores in fact. I do know from reading the books on this topic that the science brought to bear by Stromer was not at its best, nor most accurate. Many of the identifications and species he named have proven invalid, subsequently. The actul material for the dinosaur is meager at best. I also would enjoy seeing what basis there was for identifying the spines as part of the same animal. Sadly the material was blasted into extinction once more. I cannot of course offer a a use for the spines myself, since I cannot examine them.
I do know his own memoirs and notes mentioned another possible species of Spinosaurus he named Spinosaurus B within the material. He was also dealing with the remains of at least four other theropods within those boxes he was examining. He also identified as many as six crocodilian skulls present. So, I do not feel the identification was as solid as most assume.This not to mention that much of the material he was working with was also from a massive sauropod as well.
What I question and ponder is the all out full throttle we know for certain it HAD to be and it DID look like this method of science. We do not know..we can infer. We can make educated guesses , yes. The guess in the end is only as well formed as the material it is based on. This dinosaur is built on very little at this point.I dont accept the argument because bad science is used for other dinosaurs it is alright to do so in this case. Spinosaurus is visual candy, but where is the actual proof?

[Gryphoceratops]

I am sorry, I dont buy it. You dont look at a tooth and say this one was bi pedal and this one was quadrapedal. You can diagnose diet, and way of life, and if you analyze the tooth you can even determine if it was more of a water type than land based lifestyle. But, thats going a bit far stating you can identify it as a spinous bi pedal dinosaur from a tooth. Dinosaur yes...diet yes, perhaps even a species yes, for the better known dinosaurs.
    The only Spinosaurs skeleton , and the holotype of the species does not exist anymore. There are no other finds that contain verts with the long thin arms, combined with jaw elements from a theropod, and leg elements that suggest a bi pedal dinosaur.
In point of fact the holotype did not provide those either. There were no limb elements. No arms, no saccral, nothing to infer the reconstruction given. The dinosaur was lost before the dinosaur could be studied and a serious effort made to reconcile it with the fossil material.
  Find a fossil, find evidence. This is the same kind of speculation that led to the creation of Brontosaurus, and trachodon, and my precious egg thieves, the Oviraptors. Therizinosaurs......the list goes on and on. Just seems simpler to wait for actual evidence instead of always guessing. That is more my understanding of science, sorry.

See this whole "I don't buy it" mentality is a bit silly to me.  Its great that you want to make your own conclusions and all.  But at least do the proper research and know your facts before hand and THEN draw your conclusions.  Just because YOU can't tell what a tooth came from or a jaw or a vertebra came from automatically means that nobody else can?  Come on!  Some of these people spend their entire academic careers studying real dinosaur bones (have you?)!  I remember when I was running a table at a dinosaur event at the NJ State Museum the head curator there was able to identify a fragment of a Dryptosaurus tooth under a microscope by counting the number or serrations per millimeter plus the shape and size.  According to how science works until better evidence is found, its most accurate to say that based on what we know, that tooth should be considered that of a Drypto.  Same with this spino debate.  Lets use what we have and draw our conclusions based on that instead of saying "well since we don't have exactly the right bits lets go ahead and say that spinosaurus could just have easily been a quadropedal crocodile despite how there is absolutely 0 evidence at all suggesting it!  Oh we have close relatives with more complete remains?  Nah, lets ignore all that I don't buy it."  If we discover something that says differently, great!  But until then lets please be logical here. 

Oh and for the record I have seen real spino teeth up close (I own one) and the better preserved ones I have seen in museum drawers have serrations.  That fact right there says its dinosaur not croc or other related reptile. 

Read some up to date papers (from a real science journal not random sites on the internet).  Go to some good museums.  Talk to some real professionals who have experience with the bones in question.  Then draw your conclusions. 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

You are entitled to your opinion, and I feel I am also entitled to mine without belittlement from you. I have cited the sources and reasonings for my issues with this identification and many of them are considered valid questions that remain unanswered. A tooth fragment will not indicate a spinous nor bi pedal condition. That is bordering on star trek science. There were no known "close cousins " when Stromer made his identification. There is also no proof the material he referred to this specimen was mono specific. If you had read his material you might understand this, rather than ridiculing others who have. Thanks.

[Seijun]

Even if Stromer's spinosaurus remains had never existed in the first place, we would still have enough material today to know that spinosaurus existed (i.e, we have enough to know a big spinosaurid existed that was not bary, sucho, irritator, etc.) so Im not sure why Stromer's remains matter in this debate? The remains we do have may not seem like much, but considering many other species are identified from even less material (like others have said, even a single tooth) what we do have to identify spinosaurus by is really quite a lot by comparison (the entire snout and portions of the crest).

[ZoPteryx]

A tooth fragment will not indicate a spinous nor bi pedal condition.

True, but if well preserved enough, a tooth can be found to belong to, say, a therapod.  All known therapods were (and still are) bipeds, with no trends toward being quadripedal.  Therefore, it's logical to conclude that Spinosaurus too was, most likely, a biped.  If it was not, then that is quite remarkable and exciting.  So in short, what little modern evidence there is (skull elemenst and teeth) points to a bipedal posture because those elements belong to a therapod dinosaur, with zero evidence for it being quadripedal.  And that's the way it will be until new evidence points in one direction or the other.

Oh, and I just wanted to point out that you made a comment some posts ago about recent skull elements perhaps belonging to one of the other known spinosaurids; no other known spinosaurs coexisted with Spinosaurus, whatever Spino may be.

[Horridus]

Hey, Oxalaia is known from even less material than Spinosaurus. Could it have been a crocodile?

Even if we only had MNHN SAM 124, it would be enough to identify Spinosaurus as a spinosaur. Just like Oxalaia, it would be restored as such based on Suchomimus, Irritator, Baryonyx etc. - strictly bipedal, terrestrial predators.

[Arioch]

Just the thought that Spinosaurus snout could somewhat resemble that of an alligatoroid (because real crocs first appeared in the Eocene, IIRC), more than superficially is merely wrong. It is Baryonyx and Suchomimus-like. We know those weren´t crocodilians. Please move on...

[Gwangi]

You are entitled to your opinion, and I feel I am also entitled to mine without belittlement from you. I have cited the sources and reasonings for my issues with this identification and many of them are considered valid questions that remain unanswered. A tooth fragment will not indicate a spinous nor bi pedal condition. That is bordering on star trek science. There were no known "close cousins " when Stromer made his identification. There is also no proof the material he referred to this specimen was mono specific. If you had read his material you might understand this, rather than ridiculing others who have. Thanks.

Your cited source was a book from 1987. Given that our understanding of dinosaurs can change overnight I don't think it is all that credible anymore. The only "Star Trek" science is whatever you're proposing. That a skull clearly from a Spinosaur could be from a crocodile and that a theropod could be a quadruped despite no quadrupedal theropods having been discovered is nonsense. Experts on these animals are telling us what we're dealing with. They know a hell of a lot more than you or me or anyone on this forum. I'm not saying we should blindly accept what we're told but to ignore evidence in favor of your own idea for which there is no evidence is not science. What you're saying sounds like the same stuff spewed by creationists or BANDits (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs).
And we need to forget Stromer. The others are right, even without his material we have a good idea what Spinosaurus was. You are right, there were no close cousins known for Spinosaurs when the original description was made, but they have been found since and they both falsify and validate what Stromer proposed. Keep in mind, Stromer reproduced Spinosaurus as a standard carnosaur with a standard carnosaur skull. It was only after additional discoveries of other spinosaur species that we realized what Spinosaurus was. These findings showed that old reconstructions of the skull were indeed wrong but that Stromer got it right with the sail because these other spinosaur species also posses tall spines like Spinosaurus itself. Look at the older literature. Since the discovery of Spinosaurus most of what we thought we knew was wrong until fairly recently, only recent work gave us the animal we have today. Science works.

[Gryphoceratops]

You are entitled to your opinion, and I feel I am also entitled to mine without belittlement from you. I have cited the sources and reasonings for my issues with this identification and many of them are considered valid questions that remain unanswered. A tooth fragment will not indicate a spinous nor bi pedal condition. That is bordering on star trek science. There were no known "close cousins " when Stromer made his identification. There is also no proof the material he referred to this specimen was mono specific. If you had read his material you might understand this, rather than ridiculing others who have. Thanks.

Stromer's remains have nothing to do with it (I'm familiar with the study thank you.  They are from the early 1900s...totally up to date  ).  We have newer material like everyone has been saying.  And star trek science?  Really? 

It baffles me how you think just because YOU cant identify something by a tooth therefore nobody else, years of experience, PhD, field studies included can either...nope!  If you cant see it then its not true.  Why don't all the paleontologists just quit their jobs then?

Sorry if I seem belittling but I responded to your point with some facts and recommended you go do some research from actual good sources and you shrugged it off with "I don't buy it" and trudge on with your own ideas that have literally nothing backing them up instead.  Science is about learning more about the world around us.  It seems to me that you are content with your own made up opinions instead of actually taking the time to learn new factual information.

[Dinoguy2]

What I said, and still hang with, is that scientific debate on a dinosaur without much solid evidence for its existence or current possible configuration, is not an unhealthy exercise. It is when people get mired in stating we KNOW and we are SURE and stop discussing and working with and learning from a set of fossils that the problem arises. 

While nobody should say we know for sure spino was bipedal, in science we need to follow occurs razor and assume the most likely scenario is correct until other evidence contradicts that. We also don't know for sure Spinosaurus didn't have wings, but to suggest such a thing is going beyond science into fantasy. Bipedal spino is a plausible and logical inference based on current science, quadrupedal is not.

Think of it this way. In the 1860s, Megalosaurus were thought to be quadrupeds because all other known reptiles were too. Were they right? No. Were they right to think it at that time given current evidence? You bet! Anybody who said to Richard Owen in 1860 that Megalosaurus could ell have been a biped, so stop telling people it was four-legged, was and should have been laughed at. We go with what we have, and then get excited if new evidence proves us hilariously wrong. That's science.