HOME | DD
StudioSpectre β Spinosaurus Part Two!
#bipedal #dinosaurs #paleo #paleoart #paleontology #quadropedal #sereno #spinosaurus #therapod
Published: 2014-09-14 20:52:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 5212; Favourites: 55; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
new rendition of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus based on the controversial new paper by Sereno Ibrahim et al.ΒRelated content
Comments: 41
Your work is awesome !
Thought (luckily) this moel isn't deemed accurate for now; not anymore... They clearly used different species and different sized\aged individuals on this 2014 model
I thank you making it bipedal BTW
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, we need a lot more data on Spino, so few bones it's hard to tell anymore. Lot's of speculation going on.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Absolutely indeed !
Fossils from Turkana Grits might change that; hopefully
π: 0 β©: 0
There is a flow chart called; should I crit that. You should read it.
π: 0 β©: 0
You do realize there is no reason to expect this to be a quadruped even with short legs?
If it used unconventional locomotion it was belly-sliding.
π: 0 β©: 1
Didn't I mention that this is purely speculative?
π: 0 β©: 1
I did, but Imo this is probable and isn't much of a speculation.
π: 0 β©: 0
ummm. I don't think spinosaurus walked on all fours. Its arms were actually for killing, not walking.
π: 0 β©: 2
ummmmm, are you a paleontologist?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
no, but I have been a dinosaur expert since my childhood and I read a lot of stuff about them, especially the new ones.
π: 0 β©: 2
sorry for commenting on an old post but.. its just too funny XD you were and EXPERT in your CHILD HOOD?!?! XD XD XD sorry if not relevant now but still..
π: 0 β©: 1
Everybody on DA is both Expert and Art Critic.
π: 0 β©: 0
oh an expert are we, well well! So Spinosaurus is a New one eh? I though Dinosaurs were really old though, like before people and stuff.Β
Also where is your spinosaurus painting? I'd love to take a look at it so I can let you know in what ways your painting is wrong, thanks
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, Spinosaurus was discovered by Stromer, a German Paleontologist in 1915. However, the specimens he had found were ultimately destroyed during the Allied bombing of Munich during WW II.
π: 1 β©: 1
but where's your painting of it though?
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't paint stuff. I have a drawing of a Spinosaurus with a D-shaped spine, along with a B-shaped spine drawn next to the whole creature.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, so your just an art critic then.Β
π: 0 β©: 3
It's called a painting dude.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually several paleontologists pointed outΒ that the furcula that Ibrahim found with the skeleton would inhibit the shoulders from moving independently of each other, thus quadrupedal locomotion would be improbable.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm not just a critic. I'm skeptic with the idea of Spinosaurus being four-legged.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, you've made that clear. Anything else?
π: 0 β©: 0
New evidence published from new fossil found. Leans towards quadrupedal locomotion. This is a fairly recent discovery.
π: 0 β©: 1
I still doubt about such a conclusion.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Science is about discovery and revision. This is the first major discovery of Spinosaurus since the first remains were described in 1915. Those were blown up in WWII, 1944.
I seriously doubt that they were able to define the entire animal with half a skull and a dozen broken vertebrae.
π: 0 β©: 1
This all fours conceptis nothing new.Β The theory that Spinosaurus dinosaurs sometimes walked on all four legs was proven incorrect when it was discovered that this species of dinosaur could not rotate their forearms so that the palm was flat on the ground. And the claws on its arms were for killing instead of walking.
π: 0 β©: 2
A Grizzly bear walks on all fours, could it kill you with it's claws?
π: 0 β©: 1
tyranno-teen.blogspot.com/2014β¦
www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/tβ¦
here's two links to back my claim
π: 0 β©: 1
Here's no links to I don't care.
π: 0 β©: 0
Do you have some evidence and data to support your conclusion the claws were for killing as you say?
π: 0 β©: 1
nypost.com/2014/09/11/giant-waβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
The paper isn't controversial. Only the skelettal reconstruction and the resulting reconstruction of the animal's pose have drawn some scepticism.
π: 0 β©: 1
But.... other than the ossified long bones with minimal marrow cavities, the skeletal reconstruction basically IS the paper, ie. it generated controversy, yes?
π: 0 β©: 1
The discrepancy between paper data and skeletal illustration is controversial.
Also the spine arrangement of that illustration.
π: 0 β©: 1
Can't we safely say that the new spinoasuarus skeletal arrangement by Ibrahim et al is what is controversial? without it being published in a paper, then what would it be other than paleoart just as I have created above, ie/therefore the paper is controversial.
I suppose that many if not most scientific research papers generate some controversy.Β
Regardless guys, this is just a painting, I'm not advocating anything here, I just did a painting for goodness sakes! You don't have to like it, but there ya go, it's a painting.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll give you that a media affecting part(and therefore an important part) of the paper is controversial. The controversy lies therein that the supplementary data contradicts the skeletal reconstruction (which of course is paleoart, even if it appears in a scientific publication).
I can't say that papers which describe newly found specimens can be justifiable called controversial, just because someone doesn't like it. But yes, papers with topics like behavior can indeed be controversial because of their content.
Also, no one is attacking your artwork or your person, I (and probably TheOmnivore too) just find it dangerous to call that paper controversial because it implies the paper's content itself is erroneous while actually it's just the provided paleoart.
π: 1 β©: 0
Anytime Friend keep up the good work hey can I add you to my friends list.
π: 0 β©: 1