Can the Carnegie Spinosaurus represent a different Spinosaur?

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Hi, I was wondering whether the Carnegie Spinosaurus can be used to represent a different genus of Spinosauridae? I like the model but I don't like that it is outdated.

[Takama]

I dont think so.

For one, Most Spinosaurs (That i know of) are fragmentary species with Suchomimus, Baryonyx and Maybe Spinosaurus being the best known from the fossil record.

[Brocc21]

Perhaps it could be an auxalia.

[Joey]

Perhaps it could be an auxalia.

You mean Oxalaia, right?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Maybe Spinosaurus maroccanus ?   Might be conceivable there would be a longer legged Spinosaurus species.

[Brocc21]

Perhaps it could be an auxalia.

You mean Oxalaia, right?

Yeah, I'm not an amazing speller.

[Brocc21]

Maybe Spinosaurus maroccanus ?   Might be conceivable there would be a longer legged Spinosaurus species.

I know it's disputed, but I'm pretty sure s.morrocanis is a nomen dubium. But it would be cool.

[stargatedalek]

Even Suchomimus, a fairly distant relative, was already showing signs of tending towards a primarily aquatic life style. It's hind legs were relatively short and it was moderately front heavy with extremely enlarged forelimbs. It likely hunted in much the same way as Spinosaurus did, actively chasing fish in the water.

It's hard to say exactly when the switch from primarily terrestrial predators that entered the water to hunt fish, to animals that spent most of their time in the water actively chasing fish underwater, happened, but it's very safe to say it happened long before what we currently view as Spinosaurus broke off from it's nearest relatives. Anything more closely related to Spinosaurus than Suchomimus likely looked very similar to our modern understanding of Spinosaurus.

Assuming Oxalai isn't Spinosaurus, what little we have of it is literally identical to Spinosaurus, so there is no reason to assume the rest of it wasn't.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

Until recently, the new Carnegie spinosaurus was spot-on in terms of accuracy so I don't think it could really be anything else that we know of. That being said, there's no shame in having outdated models since they reflect a period in time when our thinking of the animal was different and that's part of the history of how we understand it today. Stromer's original sail-backed allosaur reconstruction is still one of my favorites for spinosaurus.

[tanystropheus]

It could be a a yet undiscovered spinosaurid...

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Thank you all, I will take @tanystropheus idea of it being an undiscovered Spinosaurid as it doesn't match well with any known Spinosaurs.

Until recently, the new Carnegie spinosaurus was spot-on in terms of accuracy so I don't think it could really be anything else that we know of. That being said, there's no shame in having outdated models since they reflect a period in time when our thinking of the animal was different and that's part of the history of how we understand it today. Stromer's original sail-backed allosaur reconstruction is still one of my favorites for spinosaurus.

I don't like recent figures that are inaccurate. Retro figures like Invicta are fine, but not a modern one.

[dyno77]

Iv got both the carnegie spinosaurus and collecta versions and some others, and even though some arent accurate , a well sculpted figure with good detail always holds its own no matter how outdated .The invicta collection are a good example as well of well sculpted plain figures, but accurate for there time.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Iv got both the carnegie spinosaurus and collecta versions and some others, and even though some arent accurate , a well sculpted figure with good detail always holds its own no matter how outdated .The invicta collection are a good example as well of well sculpted plain figures, but accurate for there time.

I like Invicta figures, they are beautiful and are what they are. I only don't like it when a pretty recent figure is not accurate.

[Stegotyranno420]

It could be a a yet undiscovered spinosaurid...

How about a transitional animal which is the descendant of megalosauridans, and ansecstor of aquatic spinosaurs, and the baryonchines

[CityRaptor]

No, such an animal would probably not have such a prominent sail or or more likely no sail at all.

Just accept it as a beautiful yet outdated figure.

[Dinoguy2]

Thank you all, I will take @tanystropheus idea of it being an undiscovered Spinosaurid as it doesn't match well with any known Spinosaurs.

Until recently, the new Carnegie spinosaurus was spot-on in terms of accuracy so I don't think it could really be anything else that we know of. That being said, there's no shame in having outdated models since they reflect a period in time when our thinking of the animal was different and that's part of the history of how we understand it today. Stromer's original sail-backed allosaur reconstruction is still one of my favorites for spinosaurus.

I don't like recent figures that are inaccurate. Retro figures like Invicta are fine, but not a modern one.

The Carnegie Spino is over a decade old. Not exactly recent. It'll be considered just as vintage as Invicta soon enough 😄

All paleoart, including figures, depict a hypothesis. Old hypothesis are just as interesting as new ones IMO. That's why I'm way more interested in getting vintage figures than I am getting modern figures that are based on entertainment instead of science. Those are based on what a movie maker thought would look cool, not on a hypothesis.

The problem with trying to make an outdated figure into a non-outdated figure is you need to think of a hypothesis it would now fit. The problem is that our entire concept of what spinosaurids are has changed. In 2008 we thought they were just big megalosaurs with sails and long snouts. But it turns out they were highly specialized for a semi-aquatic habitat. This shift probably occurred in megslosauroids before the long snout, sail, etc. evolved. So there's no way you could have distinctive spinosaurine features like a long thin snout and huge sail slapped onto a standard theropod body. It just doesn't fit the current paradigm at all. You'd have to imagine that a separate lineage of early spinosaurids independently evolved these features for a different reason in a different ecology and therefore kept the standard theropod body. Highly implausible. Just let it be a historical representation, like those Deinocheirus figures that naively guessed it was just a scaled up ornithomimid.

[Stegotyranno420]

No, such an animal would probably not have such a prominent sail or or more likely no sail at all.

Just accept it as a beautiful yet outdated figure.

I know, and i do, but sometimes imagination is fun, even if its illogical
ALso are you talking about the 2009 one or the vintage on

[CityRaptor]

The 2009 one. This thread is about it, after all. The vintage one, while having it's own charm, isn't exactly what I would call beautiful.

[Stegotyranno420]

The 2009 one. This thread is about it, after all. The vintage one, while having it's own charm, isn't exactly what I would call beautiful.

Okay then.

[Tyto_Theropod]

Thank you all, I will take @tanystropheus idea of it being an undiscovered Spinosaurid as it doesn't match well with any known Spinosaurs.

Until recently, the new Carnegie spinosaurus was spot-on in terms of accuracy so I don't think it could really be anything else that we know of. That being said, there's no shame in having outdated models since they reflect a period in time when our thinking of the animal was different and that's part of the history of how we understand it today. Stromer's original sail-backed allosaur reconstruction is still one of my favorites for spinosaurus.

I don't like recent figures that are inaccurate. Retro figures like Invicta are fine, but not a modern one.

The Carnegie Spino is over a decade old. Not exactly recent. It'll be considered just as vintage as Invicta soon enough 😄

All paleoart, including figures, depict a hypothesis. Old hypothesis are just as interesting as new ones IMO. That's why I'm way more interested in getting vintage figures than I am getting modern figures that are based on entertainment instead of science. Those are based on what a movie maker thought would look cool, not on a hypothesis.

The problem with trying to make an outdated figure into a non-outdated figure is you need to think of a hypothesis it would now fit. The problem is that our entire concept of what spinosaurids are has changed. In 2008 we thought they were just big megalosaurs with sails and long snouts. But it turns out they were highly specialized for a semi-aquatic habitat. This shift probably occurred in megslosauroids before the long snout, sail, etc. evolved. So there's no way you could have distinctive spinosaurine features like a long thin snout and huge sail slapped onto a standard theropod body. It just doesn't fit the current paradigm at all. You'd have to imagine that a separate lineage of early spinosaurids independently evolved these features for a different reason in a different ecology and therefore kept the standard theropod body. Highly implausible. Just let it be a historical representation, like those Deinocheirus figures that naively guessed it was just a scaled up ornithomimid.

I couldn't have put it better myself.  Anyway, not to sound combative towards @Gothmog the Baryonyx, because my intention is anything but.  However, I find it a little confusing that you're saying you're unhappy with the Carnegie Spinosaurus being inaccurate because that's only okay for 'retro' figures.  Definite 'retro'.  I'd agree with your statement if you were talking about a model that had been released after the new Spinosaurus material came to light, but that's not the case with the Carnegie.  As @Pachyrhinosaurus pointed out, this model was a really good, up-to-date reconstruction for the year it was released.  The fact that it's from the 2000s and not the 1980s doesn't make a difference to that.  Science marches on, and sometimes it does so much faster than whatever the required amount of time something has to be around for in order for it to be considered vintage.  So I guess you could say that the 2009 Carnegie Spinosaurus is a 'modern' toy, but a 'retro' hypothesis of what the animal looked like?  Although, as @Pachyrhinosaurus also pointed out, it isn't exactly modern anymore, being eleven years old and from a discontinued line.

No, such an animal would probably not have such a prominent sail or or more likely no sail at all.

Just accept it as a beautiful yet outdated figure.

Not to mention that the long, thin snout probably came later, and the high-up position of the nostrils almost certainly did. 

The best I could suggest to make this figure somewhat up-to-date would be to mod it into Suchomimus, but of course then you'd have to lose the sail (or at least most of it), and the head would also need a lot of re-sculpting.  Besides, I'd hesitate to do something like that to the figure in question, because being a discontinued figure it might be hard to get another if something went wrong, and being a Carnegie I'd anticipate its becoming highly collectible in the future.  Added to which, it's not like we don't already have at least one good Suchomimus from Wild Safari.  Modding some long-legged Spinosaurus toys might not be a bad idea if you wanted it to have some friends for a diorama or whatever, but the Carnegie wouldn't be my first choice for the reasons I've already given.