Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Can Spinosaurus aegyptiacus run?
Topic Started: Jun 23 2013, 03:08 AM (3,502 Views)
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This is for the ones who believe in the ~12+ tonne Spinosaurus.

Can Spinosaurus aegyptiacus run, or is it limited to walking? It's about the size of a Diplodocus or a Paraceratherium in terms of mass, also considering the massive crest, ridge or hump it had. And it's a biped to boot.

If you were to ask me, I say it can't run at all, just walk. What do you think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Who knows if it could have even moved as well as a cormorant, perhaps it had to drag itself along like a loon. I think it could probably have managed to stagger briefly on it's hind limbs, they were small sure but the vertebrae columns over the hips are substantially wider than those over the shoulders and could well have supported a larger mass (hump) which could have helped to balance it out. Not entirely of course, it would still have been a poor biped at very best. I think it probably either dragged along it's belly or was in some form a quadruped, but the ability of briefly rising on its hind legs (like a pangolin perhaps) is not impossible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
stargatedalek
Nov 2 2015, 05:02 AM
Who knows if it could have even moved as well as a cormorant, perhaps it had to drag itself along like a loon. I think it could probably have managed to stagger briefly on it's hind limbs, they were small sure but the vertebrae columns over the hips are substantially wider than those over the shoulders and could well have supported a larger mass (hump) which could have helped to balance it out. Not entirely of course, it would still have been a poor biped at very best. I think it probably either dragged along it's belly or was in some form a quadruped, but the ability of briefly rising on its hind legs (like a pangolin perhaps) is not impossible.
There is absolutely no way whatsoever that spinosaurs dragged itself along on it's stomach, where did you even get that idea from? It's a biped.

Actually, a pangolin IS a pretty good example though, because pangolins are one of he few bipedal mammals. They don't have the brief ability to stand like that, thats just straight up how they walk.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I say that, if we are talking about quadruped Spinosaurus, it could stand on its hindlegs and run for a short time, but it was getting tired soon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Grimace
Nov 2 2015, 05:52 AM
There is absolutely no way whatsoever that spinosaurs dragged itself along on it's stomach, where did you even get that idea from?
I got that idea from a basic understanding of bio-mechanics, weight distribution, and references from extant animals that have high degrees of similarity in both regards.

Quote:
 
It's a biped.
Evidence/source? Please? (If someone mentions Hartmans already debunked skeletal I swear I will kill someone... :P )

Quote:
 
Actually, a pangolin IS a pretty good example though, because pangolins are one of he few bipedal mammals. They don't have the brief ability to stand like that, thats just straight up how they walk.
That is... not even worth my time explaining why it's not a valid reason. No offense but re-reading it again should already be enough to convince anyone as to the nonsense present.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurus is a theropod. All other known theropods are bipeds. Therefore, Spinosaurus is assumed to be bipedal until it is demonstrated otherwise. Nobody has put forth any convincing evidence of Spinosurus not being bipedal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 2 2015, 07:37 AM
Spinosaurus is a theropod. All other known theropods are bipeds. Therefore, Spinosaurus is assumed to be bipedal until it is demonstrated otherwise. Nobody has put forth any convincing evidence of Spinosurus not being bipedal.
The weight distributions present in the skeletal remains we have are plenty of evidence that Spinosaurus was not walking in a manner similar to any other non-avian theropod. I'm not saying it definitely couldn't have been a biped, but that train of thought simply falls through given the evidence. It's also untrue that all other known theropods are bipeds, several species of birds are incapable of sustained bipedal movement and instead drag themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FishFossil
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurus in all likelihood was capable of both methods of locomotion. I highly doubt that a bipedal walk would be used as the primary one. I see it kind of like a bear in that respect; capable of a bipedal walk, but not being able to keep it up with any kind of speed.

Quote:
 
Spinosaurus is a theropod. All other known theropods are bipeds. Therefore, Spinosaurus is assumed to be bipedal until it is demonstrated otherwise. Nobody has put forth any convincing evidence of Spinosurus not being bipedal.


Just because all other therepods are bipedal does not mean it should be instantly assumed Spinosaurus was as well.
Edited by FishFossil, Nov 2 2015, 08:33 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
stargatedalek
Nov 2 2015, 08:06 AM
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 2 2015, 07:37 AM
Spinosaurus is a theropod. All other known theropods are bipeds. Therefore, Spinosaurus is assumed to be bipedal until it is demonstrated otherwise. Nobody has put forth any convincing evidence of Spinosurus not being bipedal.
The weight distributions present in the skeletal remains we have are plenty of evidence that Spinosaurus was not walking in a manner similar to any other non-avian theropod. I'm not saying it definitely couldn't have been a biped, but that train of thought simply falls through given the evidence. It's also untrue that all other known theropods are bipeds, several species of birds are incapable of sustained bipedal movement and instead drag themselves.
Yes, but spinosaurus obviously didn't. The reason a couple bird species can get away with dragging themselves is they are so light are also have proportionally longer legs. The only reason they can't walk well is their legs are super far back with no tail to counterbalance. (they also use a mathod of underwater locomotion spinosaurus couldn't have. Can you even imagine an animal the size of spinosaurus DRAGGING itself in little hops like that? Theres probably a good reason i've never seen that even vaguely described as a possibility.

Probably was an obligate biped on land, seeing as how it's arms would have been pretty poorly suited for being walked on imo. (though you can at least make an argument for it, unlike DRAGGING)

Just because modern theropods can do something, doesn't mean huge dinosaurs did. It'd be like me going into a thread claiming tyrannosaurus obviously was incapable of walking, and instead moved around exclusively by hopping like a finch.
Edited by Grimace, Nov 2 2015, 08:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
FishFossil
Nov 2 2015, 08:33 AM
Just because all other therepods are bipedal does not mean it should be instantly assumed Spinosaurus was as well.
Unless we have evidence to suggest otherwise, which we don't, then yes that is exactly what we should assume.



Quote:
 
The weight distributions present in the skeletal remains we have are plenty of evidence that Spinosaurus was not walking in a manner similar to any other non-avian theropod. I'm not saying it definitely couldn't have been a biped, but that train of thought simply falls through given the evidence.

The skeleton as restored by Ibrahim et al. is a chimera, so it isn't very helpful in estimating the Centre of Mass. Also note that therizinosaurids also had a Centre of Mass much further forward than is typical for non-avian theropods, most modern birds probably do too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
All you keep saying is "obviously", you haven't came up with any data or references to your point. I understand the image of a quadrupedal let alone a crawling theropod is a new one, but I don't see any evidence outright disproving such theories, whereas we have evidence that Spinosaurus at the very least would have had great difficulty as a biped.

When I say it could have moved sprawled on the ground I mean its limbs may not have been necessary to keep its body elevated, it probably had no reason to ever hurry on land so why not move in the least energy expending fashion. It's certainly not the most conservative assumption but I still think it's relatively plausible, and still more conservative than an obligate biped.

What we have of Spinosaurus fingers (however little that may be) doesn't show any specialization for weight bearing, this of course doesn't rule out the knuckle walking theory entirely but it does bring it into question. Personally I see no reason Spinosaurus couldn't have employed a number of different methods of locomotion.

The heaviest modern day reptiles also drag themselves when on land, and while I certainly wouldn't say Spinosaurus was similar bio-mechanically or behaviorally to a sea turtle it does give me cause to refute the argument that weight would be a limiting factor in whether an animal can move on land without elevating itself on its limbs. Below diagram displays several methods of possible locomotion in Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (assuming it is synonymous with current nomen dubium maroccanus).

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, there are some cervicals from another Spinosaurid, that does not change much of the torso.
And birds and Therizinosaurs have pretty different body postures.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
stargatedalek
Nov 2 2015, 10:58 AM
All you keep saying is "obviously", you haven't came up with any data or references to your point.
Can I cite every single bit of research from anyone on spinosaurus as my references?
Like, is there anyone even halfway reliable anywhere who has ever proposed a spinosaurus that drug itself around?

Also looking at those pictures, it looks like spinosaurus would be even less suited for dragging itself than any other locomotion. it's legs would be too short to do it.

Heres a loon, for reference.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FishFossil
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I have to agree a bit with both sides here. I fully agree Spinosaurus would have used at least a couple modes of locomotion, but I also agree that it's unlikely that Spinosaurus drug itself around because as grimace brought out, it's back legs were far too short.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Its also worth mentioning that the dragging birds like loons cannot be on land for long. If you have to keep them out of the water, they basically need to be sitting on cushions or their undersides get all covered in scrapes and sores. This can happen in birds that are only a couple pounds, if not less. Now imagine the same thing but with something the weight of spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
I wasn't saying I found it likely, just that it wasn't impossible. Keeping in mind Spinosaurus may only have very rarely returned to land at all, and that it lived in a sandy mangrove region, I'm not inclined to say it's impossible or that it's likely.

Personally, I'd put my money on resting on its forearms. This allows a quadrupedal stance which would likely be a lot less effort for the animal to maintain but also not require any specialized weight bearing adaptations in its limbs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.