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
  • 3
Can Spinosaurus aegyptiacus run?
Topic Started: Jun 23 2013, 03:08 AM (3,500 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:
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
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. 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.
Nor have you. All you have cited is the fact that the model in Ibrahim et al. has a Centre of Mass further forward than is typical for non-avian theropods. This is not evidence of it being quadrupedal or a crawler.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
All those threads where Spinosaurus is being underrated are mostly a result of Tyrannosaurus fanboism. Spinosaurus haters make two major mistakes.

1) They take the Ibrahim paper into account like if it's the Bible or something while ignoring that its validity still remains controversial. I accept that it's an official study and that the suggestion of a lighter, quadrupedal Spinosaurus should be studied further to be proven or debunked, but when you take it as a standard that Spinosaurus was like this then you clearly do this on purpose to underrate Spinosaurus.

2) Spinosaurus haters also tend to add in their own cocnlusions like "Spinosaurus was much shorter than 18 m.". "Spinosaurus weighted less than 7 tons", "Spinosaurus couldn't run", "Spinosaurus was just a fish eater".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
We just have to use the most recent size estimates, everything else would be foolish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 3 2015, 03:45 AM
We just have to use the most recent size estimates, everything else would be foolish.
Since they remain controversial and they might actually be a stupid suggestion, you shouldn't feel so proud that "Spinosaurus was CERTAINLY lighter" (which is what you msotly care about, you don't care so much about if it was quadruped) and make assumptions such as "it was sluggish" and "it was a fish eater" cause those two things combined clearly show that you are just trying to ensure Tyrannosaurus would win in a battle with Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's pretty childish of you to project your own way of thinking of dinosaurs as pokemon onto other people. All of your assumptions about me are false. This thread isn't even about tyrannosaurus rex, you keep bringing it up. If you have any valid arguments why Spinosaurus should be heavier than 6-7t (which is still on par with the largest theropods), bring them forth, otherwise just stop annoying people with your wishful thinking.
Edited by Spartan, Nov 3 2015, 04:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 3 2015, 04:12 AM
It's pretty childish of you to project your own way of thinking of dinosaurs as pokemon onto other people. All of your assumptions about me are false. This thread isn't even about tyrannosaurus rex, you keep bringing it up. If you have any valid arguments why Spinosaurus should be heavier than 6-7t (which is still on par with the largest theropods), bring them forth, otherwise just stop annoying people with your wishful thinking.
This is the first post in the thread.
Quote:
 

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?


This, in combination to a bunch of other posts saying that Spinosaurus was walking and in combination with other threads like that "The new largest theropod" (talking off course about Tyrannosaurus) are in my opinion examples of Spinosaurus underrating. This is like a guy who, a few weeks a go, posted supposed proof that the lion is larger than the tiger or something like that, which was clearly about this "Lion VS Tiger" thing.

Also, ever since Ibrahim's paper was published, you are all like "no, Spinosaurus couldn't win, cause that Ibrahim paper says it was lighter and it was quadruped, so it couldn't run" and you are feeling really proud of yourselves. Give me a break! It was published too recently and it remains unsure! It's clear that the only reason why so many years you were trying to find a weak point on Spinosaurus and suddenly this paper comes out and you take it as certain shows that you only do this cause of how the paper pictures Spinosaurus. And I say "OK, it's an official report, I accept it". Do you really ahve to make assumptions that are not mentioned in the paper like "Spinosaurus was a fish eater" and "it couldn't run"?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
They take the Ibrahim paper into account like if it's the Bible or something while ignoring that its validity still remains controversial. I accept that it's an official study and that the suggestion of a lighter, quadrupedal Spinosaurus should be studied further to be proven or debunked, but when you take it as a standard that Spinosaurus was like this then you clearly do this on purpose to underrate Spinosaurus.

All you're doing is demonstrating your ignorance on the subject matter. Before Ibrahim et.al was published Spinosaurus was already established to be lighter then the 10t+ reported in therrien & Henderson, whose use of a carnosaurian model resulted in overestimation(someone correct me if I remembered that but wrong). A 7-9t estimate was published by Del sasso before These new findings were published in 2014, so those who studied this subject matter knew fairly well it was not that huge.
-------------------------------------
As for the bit on quadrupedalism in Spinosaurus being discussed here, I think it's foolhearty to believe it was quadrupedal(which would be based on what, exactly?). I agree with Spinodontosaurus here, we should think Spinosaurus was bipedal until a quadrupedalism gait is shown to be valid.

I personally like the model Andrea Cau has done..
Posted Image
Here's a link for those interested
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2014/09/spinosaurus-revolution-episodio-iv-una.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Where did I say that Spinosaurus couldn't run? It's also pretty certain that Spinosaurus hunted fish (not that that would say much on its own).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 3 2015, 04:49 AM
Where did I say that Spinosaurus couldn't run? It's also pretty certain that Spinosaurus hunted fish (not that that would say much on its own).
I remember seeing someone refering to Spinosauru's fish-eating habits ironically, in a manner saying "Spinosaurus could only kill little creatures". THIS is something that annoys me about this.
Ceratodromeus
Nov 3 2015, 04:47 AM
Quote:
 
They take the Ibrahim paper into account like if it's the Bible or something while ignoring that its validity still remains controversial. I accept that it's an official study and that the suggestion of a lighter, quadrupedal Spinosaurus should be studied further to be proven or debunked, but when you take it as a standard that Spinosaurus was like this then you clearly do this on purpose to underrate Spinosaurus.

All you're doing is demonstrating your ignorance on the subject matter. Before Ibrahim et.al was published Spinosaurus was already established to be lighter then the 10t+ reported in therrien & Henderson, whose use of a carnosaurian model resulted in overestimation(someone correct me if I remembered that but wrong). A 7-9t estimate was published by Del sasso before These new findings were published in 2014, so those who studied this subject matter knew fairly well it was not that huge.
-------------------------------------
As for the bit on quadrupedalism in Spinosaurus being discussed here, I think it's foolhearty to believe it was quadrupedal(which would be based on what, exactly?). I agree with Spinodontosaurus here, we should think Spinosaurus was bipedal until a quadrupedalism gait is shown to be valid.

I personally like the model Andrea Cau has done..
Posted Image
Here's a link for those interested
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.com/2014/09/spinosaurus-revolution-episodio-iv-una.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8
I do not reject the possibility of Spinosaurus being much lighter than thought before, although 6 tons seem too few for a 15+ meter creature. I'm just saying that I don't like those threads of the kind "The new largest theropod is Tyrannosaurus cause of the Ibrahim paper" neither this whole thing that is like "I finally found proof that Spinosaurus might have been smaller than Tyrannosaurus and I'm proud of it".
Also, I do not like this model. It looks retarded. Either Spinosaurus had small legs and could walk on both four and two legs, or I was biped like its relatives and all normal theropods.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 3 2015, 05:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nobody talked about T. rex except for you. Stop blindly arguing against strawmen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Before Ibrahim et.al was published Spinosaurus was already established to be lighter then the 10t+ reported in therrien & Henderson, whose use of a carnosaurian model resulted in overestimation(someone correct me if I remembered that but wrong).

Since you ask; Therrien & Henderson’s estimates were 12 and 21t, not just 10m+, the former for an (unlikely) revision of MSNM v4047’s skull length to 1.5m. Their overestimate wasn’t the result of using a carnosaurian model, it was the result of using one model for all theropods, including compsognathids as well as tyrannosaurs.

Not only are a number of length and weight estimates in their dataset, as well as their choice of taxa to include or estimate, rather dubious or based on scaling errors (e.g. their 12m, 10t sue), there is also clearly a systematic bias in the data resulting from the disproportionate amount of tyrannosaurids (several specimens of T. rex, Tarbosaurus, Daspletosaurus and Gorgosaurus, but only one of Acrocanthosaurus and two of Allosaurus) among large and giant theropods.
This sampling bias likely causes an exaggerated amount of positive allometry in their dataset (exponent of 3.6 instead of the isometrical 3[!]).

That isn’t to say it wasn’t a commendable attempt, but the results are, and have always been, of very limited value. That has little impact on Spinosaurus though, we’ve known about the study’s problems since a long time, yet there was good indication through other means that 12t was a highly plausible weight figure.

Their weight estimates were certainly disproportionately massive, but because their length estimates were disproportionately short and because they assumed an extreme amount of allometry. An isometrically scaled Spinosaurus (based on other spinosaurids, not carnosaurs, tyrannosaurs, or allometric equations) would easily have exceeded the 10 ton mark, but at a far greater body length (in excess of 15m instead of Therrien & Henderson’s 12.5m).

So it was certainly not established to be lighter than 10t before the Ibrahim et al. paper came out–to the contrary, that was arguably the most likely estimate at the time, although Therrien & Henderson’s study wouldn’t have been a good argument to support it.

Alas, current data indicate a different built than that of baryonychines, so all of that lies in the past and neither more complete spinosaurs, not other theropods can be expected to be a good analogue for its bulk.
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
« Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.