Talk:Spinosaurus/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Tonnage 1.1 Updated Size Estimates 2 Biggest 3 Sail debate 4 Not convinced 5 Lost photos found 6 Diet 7 Ping-Pong 8 Put up new picture 9 Paleo template? 10 Face-off 11 Semi-protection 12 Biggest Carnivorous Dinosaur

Tonnage

" Spinosaurus may have reached weights up to 7.5 to 9 tons." Does somebody have a published source for this? It should be in the text if so, it should be removed if not.Dinoguy2 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is simply the Dal Sasso estimate, isn't it? See: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925384.600 . Perhaps you can give a link to Mortimer's DML estimates; that should silence any opposition :o). It has been obvious for some time that Spinosaurus is not only the longest but also the largest theropod known, by a very large margin. There seem to be fragments of a skull over a quarter longer than the ones used for the paper — which would make for 15 to 20 tons.--MWAK 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not arguing with the weight, I just think it shuold be cited in the text, and I didn't know which paper that was coming from. I remember in Mortimer's ranknig of largest theropods a few years ago that the holotype Spinosaurus was the largst specimen known at *that* time, and he mentioned it was juvinile... so I think 15-20 tons for an adult is to be expected, and I bet they got ven larger than that. Dinoguy2 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mortimer indeed has often named Spinosaurus the biggest, wondering why others didn't :o). Apart from the holotype, he also referred to some fragments: http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Dec/msg00216.html. His weight estimates are of course not exactly conservative and he has in the past made some calculation errors, but if that "2.5 m" skull is really that big, it either must have belonged to a 30 ton giant or Spinosaurus suffered from severe allometry ;o).--MWAK 09:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"(MNHN SAM 124) (~28 m, ~50-80 tons, adult) (skull 2 m) partial premaxillae, partial maxillae, vomers, dentary fragment (Taquet and Russell 1998)" Wow!Dinoguy2 15:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated Size Estimates

Mickey updated his estimates based on the new skull material: Okay, I'm updating my website and have started incorporating the new Spinosaurus information. Thus, I'm set to explain the discrepancy between my 28 meter estimate for MNHN SAM 124 and Dal Sasso et al.'s 14 meter estimate.

Basically, one problem is that Dal Sasso et al. assumed the skull/body ratio of Spinosaurus was the same as baryonychines. However, if we use dorsal vertebral measurements compared to Baryonyx, the Spinosaurus holotype is estimated at 17.4 meters long. Spinosaurus' dorsals are over 90% longer than Baryonyx's. Yet Dal Sasso would have us believe the holotype was only ~55% longer than Baryonyx. And indeed, the skull seems to be ~60% longer using Dal Sasso et al.'s reconstruction. So Spinosaurus has a shorter skull for its body size than baryonychines. Not that surprising considering how long-snouted the latter are.

The other problem was my estimation of MNHN SAM 124's skull length, which was too high. The new material suggests it was only 1.42 meters instead of 2 meters. This brings down the length of this animal to ~17 meters, similar to the holotype. My mandibular length estimate for the holotype was also slightly too low - 1.2 meters vs. 1.34 meters.

However, now we have this new larger specimen, MSNM V4047. It had a 1.75 meter long skull, and should thus have a body length of ~21 meters.

As for mass, my ~20-32 ton estimate for the new specimen is so much higher than Dal Sasso et al.'s 7-9 ton estimate because mass scales ridiculously. For instance, if a 17 meter long spinosaur weighed 9 tons, a 21 meter one would weigh 17 tons. But it would be nice to have a good mass estimate for any spinosaurid, so that I could make these numbers more concrete.

So my new Spinosaurus entry would be- (IPHG 1912 VIII 19, destroyed) (17.4 m, 12-19 tons, subadult) (skull ~1.45 m) maxillary fragment, incomplete dentary (mandible ~1.34 m), nineteen teeth (62, 126 mm), two incomplete cervical vertebrae, seven dorsal vertebrae (190-210 mm), dorsal ribs, gastralia, eight caudal centra (MNHN SAM 124) (~17 m, ~11-18 tons, adult) (skull ~1.42 m) partial premaxillae, partial maxillae, vomers, dentary fragment (Taquet and Russell, 1998) (MSNM V4047) (~21 m, ~20-32 tons) (skull ~1.75 m) premaxillae, partial maxillae, partial nasals (Dal Sasso et al., 2005)

I've added some of this info to the article.Dinoguy2 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. I didn't think it was that large. But if the adults are indeed that size, what prey animals existed at the time that it could hunt? Any animal that size would have to consume a huge amount of meat per day in order to survive. Apologies in advance if I offend anyone, but I'm stumped as to what it's regular food source must have been. User 81.151.82.136

My *guess* is that they were big-time generalists. The grizzley bear analogy in the article is a good one. They probably ate whatever they could get, like giant maribu storks. The adaptations in the snout and teeth do seem like their *primary* source of food was fish though. The croc-like look probably isn't a coincidence. As I added to the page, other spinosaurs are known to have eaten everything from fish to ornithopods to pterosaurs.Dinoguy2 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To cover its energy expenditure, a 21 m Spinosaurus needed to consume about 150 kg meat each day. Large fish were an ideal source: they don't run away as ornithopods would — Spinosaurus wasn't a specialised pursuit predator. Perhaps an individual would defend a large territory with ponds and a river flowing through it. This scenario neatly explains the sail as a display structure: reaching a height of over seven metres (and brightly coloured?) it would make Spinosaurus into a walking warning sign, claiming occupation of the land.--MWAK 09:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Biggest

I'm just wondering, but does this mean that Spinosaurus is now officially(i.e listed as such in things like the Guiness Book of Records) the largest carnivorous dinosaur of all time, or do they need to find more skeletal evidence first? I thought it would be a bit dodgy to base it on the evidence given without a partial skeleton, as such things have been wrong before( like Kronosaurus). User 130.159.248.1

"listed as such in things like the Guiness Book of Records" I think a peer reviewed science journal is more "official" than Guiness, which is a private publication, and probably slow on the uptake for this sort thing. But yeah, at this time there's no way Spinosaurus was smaller than other described theropods. We'll see what happens when the new species of Argentinian carcharodontosaurids are published, but the estimates I've heard for them are still not as large as even the low-end estiamtes for Spinosaurus.Dinoguy2 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the Guiness Book of Records thing. I was going for a general example which is available to the public, rather than a scientific paper you have to wait on the news to get wind of for answers. Other than that you've cleared that up for me, so thanks for your time.User 130.159.248.1

Why is Giganotosaurus still considered the biggest, then?

It's not. Where does it say it is?Dinoguy2 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad info has a momentum of its own :o)--MWAK 11:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How tall did Spinosaurus get? Height at the head I mean.

The legs of Spinosaurus have not been found, so that's a tough one. Based on comparison with Suchomimus and Baryonyx, it would probably have been around 20 ft, I think. Maybe less in a neutral pose.Dinoguy2 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad in the height, I changed the hight to 22 feet insted of 25 feet but I'm still not sure if it's accurate. 23:44,13 March 2006 4.252.194.55

According to Sereno's site, Suchomimus is 12ft at the hip, making it about 14 ft high. Assuming Spinosaurus scaled like suchomimus, its hip height would be around 15ft. So, the head would be at about 17 or 18 ft. The 6ft spines, however, would add 6ft to the hip height, so the top of the sail would be at 20-22 ft. I'd leave the 22, maybe specify that this includes the sail.Dinoguy2 00:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky :o). On the one hand Sereno's hip height estimate of Suchomimus includes a half metre "sail", making for a height at the top of the ilium of about three metres; on the other hand the length ratio between Suchomimus and Spinosaurus is according to Dal Sasso about 11:17, so the latter would indeed stand at about 15 feet at the hip. But if we accept Mortimers ratio estimate of 11:21, this brings the hip height to an astounding nineteen feet — and your earlier head height estimate of twenty feet would be even a bit conservative! Also the sail, if it scaled the same, would then be about 2.3 metres tall, reaching eight metres, without any possible soft parts extending it further.--MWAK 09:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. While I would prefer to keep at least the paleobox in line with published sources, I'm surprised that dal Sasso managed to miss the fact that the Spinosaurus dorsals were a titanic 90% larger than those of Baryonyx...Dinoguy2 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dal Sasso's position was well advised for several reasons:

1. The original vertebrae have been lost, so we can't check for measurement errors or methodical differences.
2. It isn't certain that the vertebrae were correctly associated with the skull elements. They may not even belong to the same species, let alone the same individual.
3. We don't know the degree of synchronic and diachronic variability within Spinosaurus. It's plausible — even though less likely — that some individuals had relatively longer skulls or that relative skull length strongly increased during the millions of years the taxon existed.
4. If the outcome of an analysis is very spectacular, this might well indicate it's wrong :o).
5. A scientist has to be careful of his reputation. It won't do to make amazing claims, only to be proven wrong next year by an articulated skeleton showing Spinosaurus had simply a big head.

So dal Sasso didn't miss anything: he wisely didn't follow the ramifications. ;o)--MWAK 09:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So how tall is it?

According to unpublished estimates: 20-25 ft at the head, 28-30 ft at the top of the sail. According to published estimates, 16-18 ft at the head, 22 ft at the top of the sail. Now, while I can vouch that those unpublished estimates are good ones, I think the paleobox should only use "official" size estimates. So at most, list 18ft tall at the head and 22 ft tall at the spines.Dinoguy2 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

than way does it say 70ft long in the box insted of 52ft-60ft?

What would be the outcome if spinosaurus and T-Rex relly did meat? besides the fact the they lived in differnt times and places.

It all depends on how big Spinosaurus really was. If we combine Mortimer's ratio estimate with his mention of a yet undescribed 2.5 metres skull, we get a truly titanic seventy ton creature, thirty metres long and nine metres high at the hip. One look at such a giant would make a tyrannosaur show its bird-affinities by giving a loud squeak and making a run for it while praying to the Mesozoic gods that Hutchinson is wrong in his speed estimates. A "puny" nine ton dal Sasso spinosaur however would be in great danger from the largest tyrannosaur individuals. They would be more agile as they were relatively shorter; faster as they had relatively larger leg muscles and much better armed with the heavy broad tyrannosaur skull equipped with the famous D-shaped teeth. Also they might well have been heavier than nine tons. In practice both would probably have avoided combat unless driven by (the utmost) necessity.--MWAK 10:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If we combine Mortimer's ratio estimate with his mention of a yet undescribed 2.5 metres skull, we get a truly titanic seventy ton creature, thirty metres long and nine metres high at the hip Mortimer recently revised his estimate (in a post on Dinoforum) for that skull based on comparison with the newly published material. He believes it to be 1.42m, not 2.5. "This brings down the length of this animal to ~17 meters, similar to the holotype." Which would, I assume, also bring it down to 12-19 tons, same as his estimate for the holotype.Dinoguy2 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the skull Mortimer revised his estimate of was MNHN SAM 124, first estimated at 2 metres. The skull I reffered to was another one mentioned on his website as (Tuscon Rock show) partial jaw (skull ~2500 mm) (Krzic pers. comm., 2003), see: http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Megalosauroidea.htm. Now it is of course quite possible the same errors that lead Mortimer to overestimate MNHN SAM 124 were made in judging the size of this larger skull. Indeed adding 25% to the new estimate of the former brings the latter again to about 1.7 m, a familiar value. But perhaps it is not so.--MWAK 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't know about that one. Thanks for the info!Dinoguy2 15:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In the video game guide to Jurassic Park: Operation Genisis it states that T-Rex is about 40ft long and 20ft tall and Spinosaurus is 50ft long and 22ft tall at the head. Whats with that?

This shows video game guides are a very poor source of information.--MWAK 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked spinosaurus was 20ft tall at the head not 18ft tall at the head. Or is spinosaurus 18ft-20ft tall at the head.

when the estiment for spinosaurus' lenght was 40ft-50ft long was it's hight at the head 18ft tall? If so the estiment know 60ft long shouldn't that increase the hight of spinosaurus?

How big was the femur of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus?

According to [1], the largest known femur of T.rex is 1.38 m long. The biggest G. carolinii femur is 1.43 m long. No Spinosaurus femora have been found.Dinoguy2 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What was the hip height for Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Spinosaurus

Sail debate

The sail could be for heat, it had quick reaction time, depending on the weather at the time of hunting. If it was cloudy the Spinosaurus would be slow, but if it was hot, it would have been a different story.

The sail was not a radiator, it was an air-conditioner. It is practicly impossible for a 17 meters long and 9 tonns heavy animal to be cold-blooded, regardless of its metabolism. The sheer mass and volume of such enormous body would be enough to contain heat and therefore maintain more-less steady temperature. The problem that Spinosaurus and other large sail-backed dinosaurus of its days faced was exactly the opposite; how to radiate excess temperature from such a large, heavy body, how to avoid overheating in warm climate of Cretaceous Africa. Hence the sail, a body structure with huge area but minimal volume that easily losses excess heat. Take a look at modern African elephnats; do you think they have those huge ears because it helps them hear better? No, the large skin membranes of their ears work today exactly as the sails of these dinosaurs that lived on the same continent 90 milion years agoy; a simple cooling devices. Imagine an animal four or five times the size of an elephant that lives in even more warm climate; it simply has to develop some sort of cooling mechanisam or it will literaly be cooked in its own skin. --Hierophant 19:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some complications:

1. While it is true that, given some level of metabolism, there is always some body mass that would be overheated by it, it is also true that, given some body mass, there is always a level of metabolism that is safe. If Spinosaurus, pace Mortimer, weighed "only" nine tons, it wouldn't need a sail if it had a typical modern reptilian resting metabolism.
2. Of course there are other sources of overheating apart from basic mitochondrial activity: external heat, intestinal fermentation and muscle activity. But in these cases, mass protects against overheating or compensates for it: it takes more heat to raise the temperature of a large body.
3. Some alternative cooling mechanisms are not implausible: an unidirectional lung airflow combined with airsacs and bone pneumaticity to increase the exchange surface; high controlled body temperature of over 41 C; variable body temperature allowing cooling in the night or simply taking a cool bath often enough.

Nevertheless the sail inevitably functioned as a heat exchanger, whatever its other functions.--MWAK 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How tall is the sail of Spinosaurus

About 2 meters at the highest point, judging by Stromer's casts. - Dotdotdotdash 07:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Spinosaurs back is often shown on illustrations or sculptures with some type of fish-like sail. But I have large doubts that it was really a sail. The dorsal spines were just elongated and look if they gave hold to muscles. Indeed they looks nearly identical to the elongated dorsal spines of large herbivores with "humps" on their backs, like bisons or other large bovines. The structure of the bones really don´t look if they were only covered with skin. The dorsal spines of Dimetrodon and modern reptiles with dorsal sails are round and have a small diameter, they have no points on which muscles could hold. But the dorsal spines of Spinosaurus are much longer than wide and very compact. Perhaps they gave hold to muscles which strengthened the back when it was hunting fish in a bowed position with the head an claws near the water surface. Perhaps the spines and the covering muscles had also a display function and made Spinosaurus looking larger. In any case, I think this issue should added to the arcticle. There was some time ago also an article about Spinosaurus and the comparison of its vertebras with those of the ancient giant bison Bison latifrons, which came to the same conclusion, that the dorsal spines were no covered with skin, but with muscles, but I have forgotten the author.

Possible. But the dorosal vertebra of Spinosaurus creates a very unusual shape, raising in shape of parabola right in the middle of animal's back, exactly betwen front and hind limbs. If the spines were indeed muscles anchors, I would expcet them take a shape similar to that of Acrocanthosaurus or Ouranosaurus, i.e., a bony ridge running down the entire back of the animal, with the highest points over shoulders or hips. Modern animals with humps, particulary bisons, also have hump over their shoulders, exactly where one would expect stronger muscles needing stronger bone suports. But as much as we know about Spinosaurus from partial fossil records, it appears that its dorosal spines were tallest in-betwen shoulders and hips, IMHO an unusual place for needing a (such an extrodinarly large) support for muscles. --Hierophant 11:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouranosaurus was a mainly quadropedal animal, the dorsal spines in the forequarter of the body acted probably similar as those of bisons. Acrocanthosaurus therefore, seems to be a very "conservative" theropod, i.e. it was probably a hunter of other dinosaurs. But Spinosaurus and its relatives seems to have had a mainly priscivorous diet, so it had probably another function. I can well imagine them standing or wading in shallow waters with bowed head like a giant heron. In this case, a "hump" (or a musculour ridge) on the centre of the body would make much sense. For a bipedal animal a stabilizing ridge on the back wouldn´t make much sense if its centre were over the arms. Independently what function the ridge had, it seems highly obvious that this bones were not covered with skin but with muscles.

While I think the idea of a purely piscivorous 9-ton terrestrial animal borderline ridiculous (especially in light of the direct evidence for carnivory in Baryonyx), this post does make me think of the "sail" structures on the dorsals of some avicephalans, which may have been used to anchor muscles that allowed the head to jut forward rapidly to strike at fast moving prey like insects. A similar adaptation would have been useful for a piscivore, but again, would only need to be present right behind the neck.Dinoguy2 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I also don´t believe in an purely priscivorous diet of Spinosaurids, but I could well imagine that their diet consisted to a big parts of big fish. Large gharial-like crocodiles and probably also Sarcosuchus lived mainly priscivorous and reached similar sizes like Spinosaurus (for example Ramphosuchus). I could imagine Spinosaurids as a very special mix between a crocodile and a heron or stork. Both, crocodiles and the birds eat mainly fish, but they are very opportunistic in the range of their diet and eat nearly everything they can overcome. I think it was similar with Spinosaurids, they probably ate mainly big fish and also smaller Dinosaurs, reptiles and Pterosaurs. I´m a pronounced opponent of the hypothetical scavenging lifestyle of large theropods, especially in the case of spinosaurids (I have huge doubts that they were able to open a thick-skinned carcass with their claws), but they very probably used all upportunities to feed also on carrion. It is also interesting that from all modern terrestrial mammalian carnivores the largest ones are those bears which have the possibility to catch fish. Kodiak and Kamtchatkan bears grow much larger than any tiger or lion, although they normally don´t hunt big prey. Hunting fish by lying in ambush seems to be a very effective way to get food. Such an animal don´t have to be fast, it don´t have to be very strong or a good hunter. Bears in general are poor hunters, but very effective fish-catchers, what enables some subspecies to grow much larger than the largest cats.

The bear analogy is mentioned in text, however, it is worth noting that the largest bears, such as those you mention, are in fact rather formidable hunters when the needs or occasion arrises. Huge bears of Northen America and Asia can and often will hunt raindeers or mooses, and they are able to run amazingly fast (for a short time) when charging into a herd from ambush. One can conjecture that Spinosaurus displayed similar behaviour; after all, another analogy often drawn, that of crocodile, is also based on fairly generalised predator, not a specialist. Therefore, I doubt that the sail, esepcialy such a huge sail, was developed for specialised life-style of a fish-eater who spents all of his days bent in back overt he water. A low bony ridge similar to one in Suchiomimus would be quite enoguh IMHO for anchoring back muscles. A spectacular crest such as one of Spinosaurus, while it might have muscle supports attached to it, surely had other functions as well. My guess is that its main function was that of a cooling device.

--Hierophant 08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Brown bears do hunt, but in fact self-hunted large mammals make up only a small percentage of their diet, whereas fish is in the cases of the large Kodiak and Kamtchatkan bears their main-source of nutrients. I don´t believe the sail had a cooling funtion, if Spinosaurus lived in an environment with many waters, it would have made it like crocodiles or bears and cooled its body in water, instead of developing a huge modification of their bones an muscles. Probably Spinosaurus can be compared also with bears in the occasional hunting lifestyle. Its teeth and the jaws don´t really look if they were adapted to kill large prey, but probably it used like a bear the opportunities to hunt young or ill dinosaurs.

The environment of Spinosaurus was very arid and desert-like from what I've read, which lends credence to the idea that the sail was used for cooling. Many animals in arid environments evolve large heat dispersing structures, like the large ears of African elephants, desert foxes and rabbits, etc. The fact that several other, completely unrelated, large dinosaur species that lived in the same time and place (like Ouranosaurus) have similar sails also supports this idea.Dinoguy2 01:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, now that you mention arid and desert-like enviroment, has anyone ever suspected that these sails might in fact be support for humps of bodily fat, similar to camel's humps? Dromedaries do in fact have enlarged dorosal spines under their humps (though, of course, not nearly as large as those of Spinosaurus or Ouranosaurus), and they are fairly well adopted to living in arid deserts.--Hierophant 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stromer himself made exactly the same speculation. Of course he saw a lot of dromedaries while on expedition :o).--MWAK 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there was a paper out in the last six years or so that also argue for the presence of a hump rather than a sail.Dinoguy2 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean this one:

Bailey, J.B., 1997, Neural spine elongation in dinosaurs: sailbacks or buffalo-backs? Journal of Paleontology, V 71, N° 6, p 1124-1146?

This paper is more more about a muscular hump though, not so much a storage for fat.--MWAK 13:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced

I dunno about you guys but I am not convinced that Spinosaurus was the biggest dinosaur of them all. It all depends on the name for ONCE! So you smart-alecks out there did not convince me at all. I'm a dino expert, whomsover says spinos are the biggest, are biased. Check out the Giganotosaurus' name, it means "giant southern lizard." The spino on the other hand was named for it's sail. ENOUGH WITH THE LIES FOR ONE DAY! If whoever you are has proof, put it in the article!

Your reaction, though a bit vehement ;o), might well be typical of most dinofans. It's always difficult to abandon cherished concepts. And it is deeply human to equate our names for things with the things themselves. But then reality kicks in, this time in the form of some very strong evidence. You may choose not to believe the professionals; but it were the same scientists that gave you T. rex in the first place and then Giganotosaurus. In time you will love Spinosaurus too: wouldn't it be wonderful to have a theropod as large as a sauropod? W.J.T. Mitchell has written a book about how human psychology copes with dinosaurs: The last dinosaur book.--MWAK 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, dinosaurs as a cultural phenomenon are fairly interesting to any student of religion or mythology. --Hierophant 21:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Rigby's T-Rex? Wouldn't Rigby's T-Rex tie up with spinosaurus?

Rigby's Rex is 10.6 meters (36 feet) and 5.7 tons. The biggest known T. rex specimen is Horner's "C-Rex", which is 12.3m (40ft) and possibly 8.9 tons (as heavy as the lower estimates for Spino, but not nearly as long, and nowhere near the upper estimates).Dinoguy2 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Mr.Spielberg was wrong on dino facts. In Jurrassic park and its sequels the dinos were created by gene therapy as the mistakes were present. I guess that's just the way life is.

Remember that Jurassic Park is entertainment. I don't think they were ever trying very hard to be completely accurate. Many of the innaccuracies (frill on the Dilophosaurus, big scaly raptors, etc.) were done to make the dinosaurs look scary for movie audiences.Dinoguy2 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change it from 20ft tall at the head and 24ft tall at the sail, to 18ft tall at the head and 22ft tall at the sail? Some where up here on this page you state that spinosaurus is 20ft tall at the head. You also say that the paleo template box needs published information. Where is the information that says the height is 18ft tall published?

Since it's not published, I feel that we should stick with a more conservative height estimate, as I explained above. There are virtually no published height estimates for any dinosaur, so if we stick to the publishing rule for that category it will become useless anyway. My relevant comments from before: According to Sereno's site, Suchomimus is 12ft at the hip, making it about 14 ft high. Assuming Spinosaurus scaled like suchomimus, its hip height would be around 15ft. So, the head would be at about 17 or 18 ft. The 6ft spines, however, would add 6ft to the hip height, so the top of the sail would be at 20-22 ft. I'd leave the 22, maybe specify that this includes the sail.Dinoguy2 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So why should it be 18ft tall instead of 20ft tall if there is no real published information. Also, if Spinosaurus' length was once 50ft long and it's lenght increased to 60ft, it's height should have increased as well.

It's impossible to say that height should increase directly proportional to length when the legs and hips are completely missing. Even *if* its hip height was at around 18ft, we don't know how its legs were held, we don't know to what degree it could rear up, etc. Who knows, maybe Spinosaurus had long legs designed for running, and it was 30ft tall. It's all just a guess. The *expected* height range for any 40-70ft theropod must be around 15-20ft tall. So, 18 ft is a good conservative estiamte to use, as it can only go up with new discoveries. Better than listing 20ft and then finding out we overshot it.Dinoguy2 03:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer.☻

On the Jurassic park IV page here on Wikipedia it states that Rigby's T-Rex is 60-68ft long but up here it says that Rigby's Rex is 36ft long. I would like it if someone would correct what was put on the page.

I've fixed up the T. rex vs Spinosaurus section of the JP4 page.Dinoguy2 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey I'm not sure if anyone else new or saw this spinosaurus skull image but you can take a look at it. see: http//photos1.blogger.com/hello/297/8739/1024/qeryrth. Spinosaur 06:02, 26 March (UTC)

I have to disagree with the height of Spinosaurus on the spinosaurus page. It states that spinosaurus is about 18ft tall at the head but I have done some research and my estiments for spinosaurus height is about 24.5ft-30ft tall. I got this from taking spinosaurus length and taking any other dinosaurs length(the length has to to be as long or shorter from the other dinosaur) and I subtracted spinosaurus length from the other dinosaurs length and got a number. I took the number and divided it by 2 and got another number. I took the number and I added it to the height of the dinosaur I subtracted from. I got a height eastiment for spinosaurus. I have done this test on at least over 20 dinosaurs and they all seem to get an answer at 24.5ft-30ft. This test seems to work for other dinosaurs as well. Spinosaur 04:59, 27 March (UTC)

I messed up the calculation the first time, but at least trying this with T. rex and Suchomimus (two dinosaurs for which height and length estimates have been published) it seems to work reasonably well, but 30ft high seems very unreasonable except for the very high-end length estimates. What length did you use for the Spinosaurs and what was the dinosaur you subtracted from and its length?Dinoguy2 00:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I used 60ft long for Spinosaurus and I subtracted from a variety of differant dinosaurs to get 24.5ft-30ft. Most of the dinosaurs I subtracted from were part of the Paleo Template project. The most common answer I got was around 25ft tall. I do agree with you that 30ft does seem unreasonable. Spinosaur 06:47, 28 March

Yeah, using Suchomimus as the other dinosaur, which is the best assumption for similar body plan, I get 23ft for a 60ft Spinosaurus. That would be about 30ft at the sail.Dinoguy2 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we assume it to be similar to Suchomimus in the first place, why not use the precise body ratios of that dinosaur instead of the "test" above, which of course is nothing but the extrapolation from the average length-height ratio measured over a larger sample of theropods (at least I hope only these were included :o)? Constructing some vague regularity falsely suggests that it would have some law-like quality that would make it more parsimonious to assume that Spinosaurus resembled the "typical" theropod more than its known relatives. That would be a grave mistake unless it could be shown that Spinosaurus was more basal than both Baryonyx and Suchomimus. Also the larger sample should include only the basal members of the sister clade of Spinosauroidea: the derived types are irrelevant, among them a lot of long-legged theropods. Of course all of this would change if a causal mechanism could be shown to be plausible, explicating the ratio; or if a hidden variable, also relevant to Spinosaurus, influenced the ratio.--MWAK 08:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Until and unless some spinosaur hips or legs become known, we should assume that like Suchomimus and Baryonyx it was "long and low", and go with a lower height estimate.Dinoguy2 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well but you say that we should assume that like Suchomimus and Baryonyx it was "long and low", but in the Baryonyx page it states that Baryonyx is about 16ft tall making it about the same height as T-Rex. Spinosaur 3:15, 28 March (UTC)

That can't be right. Suchomimus is (I'm pretty sure) significantly larger than Baryonyx and it's only 12ft at the hip.

As so often in science, the confusion is caused by using the same word, "tall" for two related concepts:

1. The height in a normal horizontal position of the body.
2. The height when rearing up. This figure, though of course larger than the previous one, tends to get severely overestimated because people forget that the femur couldn't be retracted much in relation to the pelvis. To get his rump in an more upright position a theropod had to squat.--MWAK 07:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How big were spinosaurus teeth?

From what I heard they were about 6" long, but I could be wrong. Spinosaur 3:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The original description by Stromer mentioned a tooth 23 cm long, including the root.--MWAK 08:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think height should be included on the spinosaurus page or on any of the dinosaur pages for that matter.

Is there some sort of graph that shows how big spinosaurus is compard to a average size human being? If so I would like to check it out.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2538/25384601.jpg Couldn't find any with humans in, but here's one using the Del Sasso size estimate compared with other large theropods. User 81.132.81.203

http://gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/carnivores/ This one is worth a look though. I wasn't going to put it in as several of the figures are now out of date, but nonetheless it should give you an idea of how big these creatures were.User 81.132.81.203

From the second site-"Like Allosaurus its huge tail accounts for more than 50% of its body length." This sounds like BS, since most of Spinosaurus tail has never been found.Dinoguy2 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Both graphs are extremely inaccurate.--MWAK 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The second one's well wrong, but using the Del Sasso 55ft average that all the science mags seem to be using the first one looks OK.

You're completely right; I hadn't thought of that. Measuring it gave a length of 16.77 m, about the Dal Sasso spinosaur. But they have forgotten to adjust the length of the spinae :o).--MWAK 13:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

For the first one, I'm a little confused because the first one said it's a graph of the largest preditory dinosaurs. If that's true than why is Suchomimus in the graph?

I think it is because some scientists have estimated Suchomimus to be 12m long - about the same length as T-Rex. Besides, whoever made up the graph might not have heard of some of the other large ones, like Deltadromeus. SMegatron 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does any one know who big spinosaurus arms got up to?

No good material has apparently been found, but, based on comparison, we might very roughly estimate them at about two metres in length (and rather robust) for a 21 metres spinosaur. They would be quite effective weapons. --MWAK 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Spinosaurus page it says that Stromer's Spinosaurus reached a length of 17.4 meters and weighed about 12-19 tons and it also says that Taquet and Russell's Spinosaurus reached a length of 17 meters and weighed about 11-18 tons, but it states Stromer's Spinosaurus was a subadult, and Taquet and Russell's Spinosaurus was a adult. Both Stromer's and Taquet and Russell's Spinosaurus were close in size, but how can one be a subadult and the other a adult if there both that close in size?

I remember reading that both specimens are subadults, but I could be wrong. I'll let somebody else untangle this.Dinoguy2 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Taquet was described as an adult. Dinosaurs of course did not simply grow like modern reptiles and it seems likely rather advanced theropods at some point stopped growing; on the other hand it is uncertain whether any had a typical avian predeterminated growth stop. If Spinosaurus did not have determinate growth, individuals might vary wildly in both growth speed and duration before reaching their maximum length, leading to a large deviation in size. This would be true for the members of a population at any given time; over the millennia populations might again vary strongly and a species like Spinosaurus would typically exist for millions of years.--MWAK 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds me asking, but what exactly are the skeletal differences that mark an adult specimen as being different from a sub-adult? User: SMegatron

The main thing is the fusion and sutures between bones. A lot of bones, in the skull and elswhere, aren't completely solidifies, fused together, etc until full maturity, and still have a lot of cartelige connections. Dino bones that aren't as fused as you'd expect are probably from a juvenile or sub-adult.Dinoguy2 15:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

IF spinosaurus was in fact 93ft long and 80 tons in weight (the high end estiment) wouldn't that make it the 4th most massive DINOSAUR ever recorded?

Yes, but I sincerely doubt it even reached half that mass. Even 20 tons is pushing it, at least based on solid evidence.Dinoguy2 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Though, who knows, maybe Bruhathkayosaurus is a theropod after all ;) Dinoguy2 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you put down on the Bruhathkayosaurus page that Spinosaurus was up to 53ft long but on on this page it stats that Spinosaurus is up to 60ft in length. You have also forgot that on this page it states that Stromer's Spinosaurus is estimated to be at 12-19 tons in weight and I'm sure thats exceeding that weight of Bruhathkayosaurus when people thought it was a theropod. Spinosaur 5:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the scientific magazines seem to be using a 53-55 ft average of the Del Sasso figure. Also the 12-19 ton figure is an estimate of a Spino that is 70 ft or so long. 9 tons is the offical figure and is probably better suited to a Spinosaur of that size. Hope that helps. SMegatron 10:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that the megaraptor claw belonged to a dinosaur of the Spinosaur family?

I've seen this suggested on the dinosaur Mailing List, but I don't think it's appreared in a published source. It's a possibility, though. The whole hand of Megaraptor is known, and it's hard to place beyong Tetanurae.Dinoguy2 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed somewhere, maybe on Jaime Hedding's website, but apparently the morphology is wrong. - Dotdotdotdash 07:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

what was the size of Spinosaurus in Jurassic Park III?

43 ft according to the DVD "Dinosaur turntables" thingie. Looked a helluva lot bigger though... SMegatron 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost photos found

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060405175650.htm

Seems something survived the bombing.--Technosphere83 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Diet

I keep on hearing that Spinosaurus just eats fish. I think Spinosaurus is way to large just to eat fish. I bet it prayed on large dinosaurs like Ourannosaurus and Paralittian. I don't know, I'm confused.

There's no evidence of Spinosaurus diet. a close relative, Baryonyx, was found with fish scales and Iguanodon bones in its stomach, so it's safe to assume Spinosaurus ate both fish and other dinosaurs.Dinoguy2 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that Spinosaurus was also a scavanger. Whith it's intemadating size it could preety much get what ever it wants.Spinosaur 7:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd sat its *certain* that all theropods were partly scavengers. No animal is going to pass up a free meal. But the idea that any giant theropod could be an exclusive scaveneger, as Horner suggests, is pretty rediculous.Dinoguy2 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ping-Pong

Hi folks. Seems we're getting into editorial 'ping-pong', over the hypothetical battle between Spinosaurus & Tyrannosaurus, which ain't good for the Dinosaur Project. Is there any way this can be resolved by discussion? Can any other editors help? No good can come from 'see-saw' editing battles. - Ballista 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion would be better sutied for the JP3 page. Anything that comes down to "fanwanking" should be removed. anything that has a scientific source should be included, and that source listed.Dinoguy2 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly one way of putting it but you have a very valid point, Dinoguy, nonetheless! What about it 'Dragon Helm' & 'Name Theft Victim'? - Ballista 15:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I Agree_Dragon Helm 16:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am rather new to Wikipedia, so I'm a little confused as to what's going on--Name Theft Victim 16:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a minor edit war (series of additions and revisions of the smae content) going on here over a paragraph discussing whether or not a Tyrannosaurus would have lost a fight with a Spinosaurus, as depicted in Jurassic Park 3. In my opinion, the whole question is silly and unscientific. If it were changed to something more fact based, it mgiht be ok. There *are* studies on the bite force of T. rex, and as I recall the T.rex *did* bite the neck of the Spinosaurus in the movie. That's only half the story though--there are *no* studies on the neck strength of spinosaurs or on their relative bite force, that I know of. For all we know, spinosauurus could have had ten times the bite force of T. rex (highly unlikely, but this is all speculation anyway).Dinoguy2 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I guess I'll leave out the paragraph. (I was the one who added it to the article in the first place)--Name Theft Victim 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan all round - leave it up to you folks, whether something like it goes in Jurassic Park III article but it's certainly better left out of here. - Ballista 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Put up new picture

I've put up a new picture as the old one is by my opinion ugly and though it's obvius it is a Spinosaurus I think it's bodyparts are unproportional. True this one is smaller but it looks much more like the spinosaurus.--Mudel 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the image is a copyright violation. The website youl ist clearly states images must be used with permission, which you haven't provided.Dinoguy2 16:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There I FINALLY uploaded an image with no copyright violations. I think I really messed up with the previous one, tried to make it better, but only got worse. Meh It'll be deleted in a week right? Anyway this one's ok. -Mudel, June 19. 2006--Mudel 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking someone elses image, changing the colors, and peddling it as your own is not just a copyright violation, it's plagiarism. Please do NOT use any images you find on the internet without the artists permission. If you don't know who the artist is, you're out of luck. The "self made" tag is for images you make yourself from scratch, not modifications of existing intellectual property.Dinoguy2 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine! I'm actually quite good at drawing so I'll make one myself from scratch. Jeez :P PS I hope the unknown original artist's feelings weren't hurt due to my horrific act of 'plagiarism' upon his 'intellectual property' XD (I'm wasting far too much energy on this aren't I?)--Mudel 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In which respect exactly would the body parts be unproportional?--MWAK 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd be more concerned that Wikipedia's feelings weren't hurt due to your act of 'disrespect' towards its 'rules'.Dinoguy2 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In wich respect? Don't you mean aspect? Please, you sound as if I have no respect. Unproportional? Are you kidding?! Look at his legs for example! He's freakin' obees! That there my fellow wikipedians is one fat dino XD He's absolutley fat. The picture is well drawn, but simply ugly. And I did not disrespect the rules I merly did not understand them well. Plus I just have bad luck with uploading pictures is all :P--Mudel 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The anatomy of the current image is perfectly correct. The only problem is minor, in the shape of the skull (as this was drawn before the complete skull was known), but the skeletal you posted has the smae problem anyway. In what way do you think the legs are obese?Dinoguy2 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What would an accurate Spinosaurus skull look like?

This one [2] is based on the newest and most complete skull material.Dinoguy2 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry I ment obese not obees :P, it was a joke, the legs and belly look absolutley huge to me, almost looks as if he'd have trouble moving. Listen to simply put it: I don not like the picture. It's well drawn, but I don not like it. I will try to make my own FROM SCRATCH, when I have the time.--Mudel 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The size of the leg muscles is about correct; it should be remembered that such a large species would probably have compensated its absolute size by evolving relatively larger muscles. The belly is hardly visible; what you see is the thorax, which seems quite proportional. Your remarks remind me of dinosaur illustrations of over thirty years ago, which typically showed the legs as much too slender and the thorax incorrectly as tapering — in those days they took the lizard for a model, a fundamental mistake. Could it be you have been somewhat out of touch with the latest developments in paleoart? If so there is a whole new world full of wonders to discover! I personally recommend the work of Gregory S. Paul.--

Could be mon ami, could be. I haven't been activly checking dinosaurs for a long time as I've put much more work and interest in Philosophy and theology. The base for my taste of dinosaur art can be found in a book called The Age of Dinosaurs (big blue book T-rex on the cover). I just love the art in there. And nope the last development on paleo art that I can remember is...peope finnaly excepting feathers? Years ago people didn't believe me when I said I thought dinos had feathers and evolved in to birds. It was a logical asumption for me. I have an african grey parrot and she looks just like a dinosaur to me. Birds have eggs, just like dinos and reptiles, on some parts of their body scales just like dinos, feet like dinos ect. Everything about dinosaurs like raptors reminded me of birds and at some piint there had to be a between stage, and when you think of it don't feathers look like scales? So I'm glad to see the new raptors are all fuzzy like ^^ Well I'll be sure to check around to see if dionsaurs got fatter haha, and if you are THAT content with the picture I guess it's okay for me too.--Mudel 23:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic released a small article about Spinosaurus in this month's issue (Sep 2006), stating that the Spinosaurus could reach lengths of 56 feet, while the largest Tyrannosaurus Rex found reached "a relatively puny 42 feet". Stronger arms, and cone-shaped teeth added to its dominance.

Paleo template?

Should we even have a paleo template? I don't think this article needs one or any other articles for that matter.

It already has a paleobox, if that's what you mean, but Wikiproject:Dinosaurs is starting to eliminate these, since they just repeat info from the text in a more vague and possibly misleading fashion.Dinoguy2 01:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Face-off

May I put these words: "In order for them to face-off, they need a boat and a time machine."? --Triple-Quadruple 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be rather pointless. Spinosaur 11:25, 18 July 2006

Yes, about 27 million years worth of time, and a span of continents. I do believe that Spinosaurus would win in the big battle.

I don't think this "big battle" would be as impressive as most seem to believe. These are animals, not monsters__Dragon Helm 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Heres a size comparison between the two, with Giganotosaurus thrown in for fun. Ugly as hell though. SMegatron 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[3]

Hey, nobody said dinosaurs were pretty ;) It would be great if we could get something like this for the article.Dinoguy2 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It would make a good addition to the article. Spinosaur 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this page for now, which means only established editors may add or remove content. I was originally reluctant to do so, but I feel we can't keep reverting this unverified material, most of which appears to be speculation/cruft from Jurassic Park III. Too strong of an action? Thoughts? --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's a good idea for the short term. There have always been people adding bollocks about how T. rex got shafted in JP3, but it really seems to have picked up this week.Dinoguy2 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[4]Feeling paranoid?__Dragon Helm 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I used to post on that site (as Thagomizer). One day it stopped letting me log in. Probably a good thing, I was starting to feel like Sisyphus...Dinoguy2 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Biggest Carnivorous Dinosaur

Isn't that supposed to be Giganotosaurus? Dora Nichov 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not. It was for a while, but new estimates place Giganotosaurus at 46 ft and around 5-6 tons, while the Del Sasso estimate featured heavily on the main page puts Spino at 52ft - 60ft and 9 tons in weight. Hope that helps.SMegatron 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus should never have been considered largest. I've found a couple cites from all the way back to the discovery of Spinosaurus that show it to be as large or larger than the first Giganotosaurus estimates. Even Greg Paul in PDW lists it as the longest theropod. For some reason its massive size was simply ignored during the '90s...Dinoguy2 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, thats likely due to the percieved lack of skeletal evidence at the time. T-Rex and Gig both had fairly complete holotypes while Spino didn't have much in the way of evidence.SMegatron 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)