HOME | DD
DrScottHartman β Fisher King revisited
Published: 2012-01-10 04:49:58 +0000 UTC; Views: 30926; Favourites: 299; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I got access to better scaling and photographiv documentation of the Spinosaurus type specimen, so along with Jaimie Headden's observation [link] that one of the presumed sacrals was actually an anterior caudal, I set out to revisit Spinosaurus.Of course much is still unknown, but with the help of Irritator (including Angaturama) and related animals like Baryonyx and Suchomimus I feel like the general proportions are probably about correct, although there is room for uncertainty in the pectoral girdle, forelimbs, and (to a lesser extent) hindlimbs.
Edit: Tweaked the scaling on the head, as well as the rate of drop-off in the distal caudals. Ironically the animal stays about the same length, but the slightly smaller head will have consequences for people trying to estimate the length of the longest specimens.
Edit 2: Now with actual update.
Related content
Comments: 225
Is it actually confirmed that Spinosaurus eagyptiacus had proportionally short legs? I shall try to make my view on the matter as clear as possible.
Franoys: "The specimen is based on multiple individuals but the find limbs weren't isolated when found, they belonged to the neotype of the species, and were found in asociation with other remains from the same individual. Histological analyses were made in several bones of the specimen, finding out that they were all from a single individual of age 17.
It was confirmed that all bones attributed to that specimen were of the same ontogenic stage."
Peleonerd01:"...HoweverΒ it turns out the measurements in the 3D reconstruction were accurate as the size of the vertebrae was recorded in rim-to-rim measurement rather than the total centrum length including the condyles. So yes the short legged reconstruction is accurate. Both the hind limbs and other remains were also confirmed to belong to a single individual as in 2017 the microstructure of the specimen was analysed done by taking thin slices from different sections of the specimen. This proved that each element belonged to the same individual in the same ontogenetic stage."
Now considering FSAC KK 11888 is almost 100% Spinosaurus eagyptiacus, or an incredibly close relative, is it save to assume Spinosaurus eagyptiacus possesed proportionally short hindlimbs?
I'm VERY curious to read your thoughts behind this. To me this all sounds very convincing but some skepticism can never hurt
I hope to hear from you.
Franoys also cited this in his describtion about the histological analyses performed in 2017:
drive.google.com/file/d/0B-K0fβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't think these are correct either, although if you take the scaling of the Ibrahim specimen and the original specimens literally it's a better interpretation than what that paper had.
π: 0 β©: 0
Good thing you posted three of these, Scott surely won't miss seeing it now.Β Β
π: 1 β©: 0
This is amazing Β Β Can't wait to see next updateΒ
π: 0 β©: 0
When will you update this one? We have been waiting on it for a long time.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm actually working on a paper related to some of these issues, so it could be a while yet, sorry.
π: 0 β©: 1
do you have a date or general time frame in mind of when you plan to post it?
π: 0 β©: 1
When it's published. Could be looking at a year or more, sorry!
π: 0 β©: 0
you do not want update your Spinosaurus skeleton according new data?
you have good opinion about Abrahim's Article.....please show us What is Shape of Spinosaurus according new data of Abrahim but with your anatomy theory!
π: 0 β©: 1
That is something I'm working on, but it'll still be a bit.
π: 0 β©: 0
My version of the new Spinosaurus swimming
macrocanthrosaurus.deviantart.β¦
π: 0 β©: 0
The leg proportions seem to be too small; and the animals hands are absolutely not made for a Qued. Gorilla like walking... So it either can't leave water Or there is some 'thing' wrong about the proportions :/
π: 0 β©: 1
The leg proportionsΒ are far out of date now of course : )
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, The 'True' Leg size of the Spino is still unclear tbh
Also there's some research cloncluded it cannot swim either
π: 0 β©: 0
I honestly don't care that the limb proportions are probably wrong. I still find it more likely that the tall spine in the sail was a caudal, not a sacral. I hope they at least try to justify the double-humped sail in the monograph.
π: 0 β©: 0
New paper out, I've read it, this thing is a weirdo, a true semiaquatic weirdo, kinda like a dinosaurian early whale. I'm loving it!
π: 0 β©: 1
I read it and the supplemental data...I have some concerns, but I want to spend some time playing with the scaling before forming a strong opinion either way.
π: 0 β©: 1
I suppose among those concerns are the sail and the relative size of the neck and forelimbs? I was very hyped when I left that comment haha
It's a shame that they made digital models of all the bones and didn't bother to publish them at all :sadface:
π: 0 β©: 1
That is very sad, I agree.
π: 0 β©: 0
After the little Pic of the new Spinosaurus Mount (the Sereno s one), lot of people focus the attention on that (short?) legs, similar to Majungasaurus proportions, but for me is more interesting the neural spine anatomy in fact if that Mount is correct we should reinterpretate the holotype material with the taller vert as presacral....
what do you think?
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm reserving judgement until I see the paper.
π: 0 β©: 0
My version
pedrosalas.deviantart.com/art/β¦
π: 0 β©: 0
After the recent post on "the bite stuff" (the good the bad and the Spinosaurus) I just re-study the Spinosaurus head.Β
using Yours updated one from your blog as base and putting on the fossil of rostrum and partially dentary I had to admit Olotype and Dal Sasso's specimen appear to be as near as the same size!
π: 0 β©: 1
If you want I can send to you my little diagram, or IF for you it is ok I can post here on DA...
π: 0 β©: 1
Send it along and I'll take a look.
π: 0 β©: 1
All right... What s your Email ?
π: 0 β©: 1
You can find it on my website (also a contact form) at www.skeletaldrawing.com. Either that or PM me (I don't want to post it for spam scraping).
π: 0 β©: 1
Done, you have it
π: 0 β©: 1
It's fantastic. See additional thoughts in the email
π: 0 β©: 0
Hi mr Scott!
I don't know if you are still working on Spinosaurus mass... Anyway I found an interesting post about this topic on "Theropoda blogspot".
Read it if you have time
π: 0 β©: 0
small question:
do you think Spinosaurids had webbed feet like a duck?
π: 0 β©: 0
For me the mass of a 16 meters spinosaurus is 9 to 10 tons.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's a bit too low. Spinosaurus was not some giant slender featherless stork, it was actually quite bulky.
Google search Suchomimus skeletons to see how bulky the body of a spinosaurid is. You'll find that they're more like bears than storks.
A more reasonable mass estimate for a ~16-meter Spinosaurus would be around ~11-13 tonnes give or take.
π: 0 β©: 2
How heavy you think that a tyrannosaurus was
π: 0 β©: 1
The smallest adult Tyrannosaurus like B-rex and Bucky are likely in the ~4-4.5 tonne range, usual average Tyrannosaurus around ~6-7 tonnes, such as the case of CM 9380 and AMNH 5027, and large specimens like Sue and MOR 008 usually around ~7-8 tonnes.
So basically, around ~4-8 tonnes.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hi mr Scott, do you have news about the mass est. of Spinosaurus ?
π: 0 β©: 0
Looks like Andrea Cau disagrees with the giant Spinosaurus size estimates:Β theropoda.blogspot.ca/2013/08/β¦Β (you might have to run that link through a translator). What say you?
π: 0 β©: 1
Estimate given to the Spinosaurus holotype by Cau based on Baryonyx centrum length, 12.6m, assuming Baryonyx is 9m. Difference?Β 40%
Estimate fiven to the Spinosaurus holotype by Hartman, 14m, how long is Hartman's Baryonyx? 10m or so. difference, 40% or less.
They aren't that different actually, the main difference is that Cau is using a Baryonyx restored with a short skull, short torso and short tail.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>