HOME | DD
thedinorocker β bipedal Spinosaurus
Published: 2015-01-21 14:06:39 +0000 UTC; Views: 6125; Favourites: 41; Downloads: 16
Redirect to original
Description
Here I show a different interpretation of the Spinosaurs model based on the neotype specimen described by Ibrahim et al (2014).Related content
Comments: 25
More Than 2,5 meters... Without considering the sail
π: 0 β©: 0
So if this were a 15-16 meter long individual how tall would it be around the hips?
π: 0 β©: 0
It still looks to front heavy to walk on 2 legs.
π: 0 β©: 2
There are reasons to belive that the long dorsals which Ibrahim put over the hips were far more back, smothing out the curve on the sail/hump.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sadly I can t test the point of balance
π: 0 β©: 0
This is the correct skeleton...well correct-ish. The spines' are all wrong
π: 0 β©: 1
Let me know on what thesis you base the assumption "the spine are all wrong"
π: 0 β©: 1
You know the still current new version of the spinosaurus, well that is where I'm getting at
π: 0 β©: 1
At paper level there aren't issue for a back transitinon of the vertebra with tallest neural spine from pre-sacral region to post-sacral but I know some workers (from Cau to Hartman) proposed that
π: 0 β©: 0
In terms of proportions this definitely the most accurate spinosaurus skeleton I have ever seen, but i have to warn you about the size you put on it: the neotype was to small and it was proven to have not reached adulthood when it died (it was a juvenile), while a specimen called MSNM v4047 (an actual adult), well commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil⦠;
scotthartman.deviantart.com/arβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I wanted illustrate the Neotype 'cause any bone (almost)was measured in the paper, the MSNM specimen is just a rostrum (yup a big one!)
π: 0 β©: 1
Glad I am not the only one who realized the legs weren't that short as national geographic ridiculously claimed...
Now the model is changing thought
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree! Finally someone who has recognized the truth!
π: 0 β©: 1
Well; thanks !
You should fave this artist work as well too
π: 0 β©: 0
Who knows wether the Spinosaurus was bipedal or quadrupedal? From what we know, its skeleton could be displayed as either and it could be mainly aquatic or it could've walked on land more like a Tyrannosaur.
π: 0 β©: 1
This is not exactly true...
Ee have A LOT of data about the aquatic lifestyle of Spinosaurus (from bone density to "extra"sense to catch fish in muddy water like crocodile, from 0^2 isotopi to probable webbed toes).
More over even the short leg appear to be a fact (I just see a NatGeo expo with actual fossils of the Neotype) but still there are not strong adaptations for a quadrupedal stand
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd put my money on bipedal, it has more evidence anyway.
π: 0 β©: 0
In this illustration the trunk is some degree more vertical and the forelimbs are scaled to the Neotype metarcapal and so are slighty shorter than in the original model (after Baryonyx proportions) and this is why Spinosaurus seems taller.
In fact by my hands the legs are about the same lenght reported in the paper (1 or 2 cm errors)
if you want to see a more orizontal trunk bipedal Spinosairus see my "Spinosaurus skeletal"
π: 0 β©: 0
Are you sure the size of the legs didn't change from the original quadruped restoration to this one?
Sorry, I'm a bit suspicious because it solves the problem of the stance so easily, that it looks too good to be true.
π: 0 β©: 1
In this illustration the trunk is some degree more vertical and the forelimbs are scaled to the Neotype metarcapal and so are slighty shorter than in the original model (after Baryonyx proportions) and this is why Spinosaurus seems taller.
In fact by my hands the legs are about the same lenght reported in the paper (1 or 2 cm errors)
if you want to see a more orizontal trunk bipedal Spinosairus see my "Spinosaurus skeletal"Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, so the legs aren't that much different... really cool.
I also think that this one with the more vertical spine and shorter arms is better.
π: 0 β©: 1
I m glad you like it but I personally prefer the skeletal version wich best represent the Ibrahim paper dataset without any manipolation
π: 0 β©: 0
In terms of whether or not it was bipedal, quadrupedal, or both, do you have a theory?
π: 0 β©: 1
The paper Ibrahim et al (2014) show strong evidence of acquatic lifestyle for Spinosaurus but do not for a quadrupedal stance.
The BASIC condition for a theropod is a bipedal locomotion, beside his particular hindlimbs morphology Spinosarus do not show any adaptations for walk on Its hand, and in fact with a repose of the same model they used in the paper (based on the table of actual fossil lenght) it s possible show a bipedal stance for this animal.
Note- sadly I actually can t calculate the gravity center of my model
π: 0 β©: 0