Talk:Spinosaurus

Template:WP1.0

Spinosaurus's Weight

I don't get it, Why does everyone put a dinosaur based on a skull rather than complete skeletons, on such a high pedistal. Not many living things are constant, so why are we acting like the size of a skull is DEFINATELY proportional to the size of the body? Also, I'm not sure how, but someone's gotta figure out ONCE AND FOR ALL the final numbers (for therapod sizes).Dinotitan (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought that Spinosaurus weighed around 12-19 tons, yet the article seems to indicate otherwise. Are the weighs indicated by the article correct? Cunfuzzed —Preceding comment was added at 06:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There's still some disagreement about the weight. Most people think 7-9 tons is a good estimate. At least one paper has estimated 12-20 tons, like you said. Which one is right is anybody's guess, though there's been some criticism of the 20t estimates online. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it had similar body shape/proportions to suchomimus or baryonyx I'm inclined to believe the higher estimates are pretty accurate, just basing that off the simple math that comes with scaling something up. (If an animal's dimensions are doubled it's weight will increase 8 fold)DinoJones (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, though I don't follow your logic, and it's original research anyway. Which study says 9t is the cut-off point for being able to eat fish? And has anybody told this to whales? MMartyniuk (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

By this logic, grizzly bears should weigh far less, because they eat a lot of salmon, which are hard to catch? It seems easy enough for the bears. They just stand in one place and grab them. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would it have to be lighter? The fish it ate were probably huge too, so not exactly lightening fast either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that Spinosaurus lived in rivers inhabited by 8ft coelocanths. So all your wild speculation doesn't seem to match the facts. And what does "lumbering" jhave to do with anything? It's foolish to suggest that Spinosaurus was actively "running" after fish. All modern animals in similar niches are ambush predators. They stand in one spot, and then strike quickly when a fish passes. Think of herons, bears or spear fishermen. They're not running around rivers in pursuit of tiny, extremely fast fish. They stand in one place for hours and then lunge with the neck when a fish comes by. The predatory speed of Spinosaurus should be measured by its neck (or arm) musculature alone, not the rest of its body. Again, look at spear-fishing humans. Theoretically, with the right level of skill a 300lb man should be able to catch as many fish as a slim 140lb man. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the likes of T-rex and Giganotosaurus are said to have weighed in excess of 6 tonnes. Now, those guys REALLY needed to run after their prey, especially Giganotosaurus. I think it is reasonable to assume that Spinosaurus, living a less active lifestyle, would be more heavily built. The heaviest animals move the least, or are aquatic (ie; Elpehants and whales comapared to antelope and dolphins, Bears compared with big cats). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.242.155 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

MMartyniuk, exactly what 'logic' do you not follow? It's just a simple fact is all. Baryonyx according to its wiki entry is what, 28 feet long and 1700kg? Assuming safely that baryonyx and spinosaurus have similar body proportions (actually, Spinosaurus would be a bit heavier at equal lengths due in part to the ridge on its back), then that would mean a 56 foot Spinosaurus--double the dimensions of the baryonyx--would weigh 8 times heavier, coming out to 14.96 tons. There is nothing illogical about this figure. T.Rex who is the bulkiest theropod we know of, would also be in the double digit tons category(only even heavier) if scaled up to spinosaurus' 16-18 meter dimensions. So it checks out. It is also not original research as the Thierrien/Henderson paper mentions it as an aside, that scaling suchomimus/baryonyx to spinosaurus' dimensions would give a weight range far higher than Dal Sasso's figure.DinoJones (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The high estimates are valid and published. My disagreement was with the argument (which someone deleted, of course) that this somehow means it couldn't eat fish. Anyway, we should mention the 12-19t estimate but not give it equal weight to more common estimates. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

More snout pictures?

• http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/spinosaurus-snout.html

I believe this is the same snout that Robert Gay took pictures of that I posted in the archives. Now that I see the snout in a more frontal view(I hope a full frontal view picture surfaces) it does look distinctly... crocodilian... And not in a gharial sense like baryonyx and suchomimus. Pretty good find I think.DinoJones (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

• Did you know that spinosaurus is probaly one of the most biggest carnivor dinosaur we have descoverd. 16:55, 24 April 2012‎ User:86.160.225.129

Removed image

Original by the Russian guy.

Fixed, but still kind of wrong.

Yep, I'll try to fix the hands further. But is it only the left hand which is too pronated, or both? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh, looks like you haven't fixed the pronation, you just de-flexed the fingers. The palms are still clearly facing backwards. The entire hand needs to be rotated so the palms fully face each other. The viewer should see a full view of the top of the hand in the foreground, rather than the side. If you open both images and flip between them (cool, it's like a little movie!), the animal was capable of that motion. It's just the entire hands are oriented in the wrong direction. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically it should look like it's holding a basketball (a really, really, really big basketball) between its hands. Sheep81 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I meant that it was the last fix I did, in relation to the original, not the "final" one, which is what I'll do next. So they could not turn the hands either? I'll just draw new hands for them then. Funkynusayri (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The only way they can get the palms to face backwards is to point the elbows out laterally in a sprawling position. This is how modern reptiles get their hands to point mostly forward while walking. If they didn't sprawl, the hands would face sideways in a four-legged position. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the jaws. I noticed that the head lacks the depressor mandibulae muscle which is present on Steveoc's drawing here: [1] A bunch of DB's older drawings seem to have that problem... Funkynusayri (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spinosaurus successful collab (again) for April 2008

Nominated February 18, 2008;

Support:

1. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
2. 72.133.252.224 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Dropzink (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Seems like quite a comprehensive article, already a Natural Sciences Good Article, so it might not be far from FA status. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, if its at GA why not bring it up to FA? 72.133.252.224 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto, this one's pretty popular with the younger dino set as well. It would be good to have an authoritative stamp on there vouching for the facts presented. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To-Do?

OK folks, can we get this to FAC do we think? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm no expert, but I read it, and it seems good to me. Maybe what's missing is just Wikipedia formalities? Funkynusayri (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any thing I can do to help? Although I think it is a very well writtan article, we might want to support the fatty sail theory better as it is not depicted this way nor are any other fatty sail referances made.Rynosaur (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cas. I see you around quite a bit now, don't I? Well, I have read through this article and would be willing to do some copy editing around, but I think FAC is pretty far away for this one. I'd say since its a dinosaur, you would probably need a total of about 60 references for my support. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt there are more than ten papers discussing Spinosaurus in any kind of detail... maybe if you count secondary sources and popular books, but much of that information is going to be redundant and/or wrong. What is the justification for putting a minimum cap on number of sources? Shouldn't it be quality, not quantity? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What's holding the article back? Why haven't a copy-editor showed up? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Teeth

http://www.cjfossils.com/spinohomepage.html has a picture of a tooth over 8 cm long. Should we add it (the tooth length) to the article? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the teeth were terrible for meat, but fine for fish and little else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinotitan (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 March 2010

Only if we can find that in a published source, I'd say. If the tooth hasn't been studied, whose to say it even comes from Spinosaurus? Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

8cm? is that it? [2] Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

skull image

Spinosaurus skull.

Spinosaur (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, but it looks like you forgot to provide copyright info, which will lead to the photo being deleted. It would also be better for you to upload photos to [Commons], rather than directly to Wikipedia. Do you happen to have information on this specimen that could be added to its description, such as the specimen number or what collection it's housed in? Thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, very cool, but you should hurry with a license tag. I can upload it to Commons afterwards. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the license tag (can't believe I forgot to do that :P) and I also added the specimen number. Spinosaur (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's now on Commons. Should I maybe crop it so there isn't so much of the background showing? Like this: [3] Funkynusayri (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would be good, thanks guys! Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You should also try giving something to show to scale. Not everyone knows how big the guy in the photo is. (Dinotitan 11:53, 05 april 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinotitan (talk • contribs)

• He hasn't posted for a long time, but anyone know if Spinosaur is Simone Maganuco? We forgot to ask who owns the photo back then, which is pretty important. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

bite force

If people assume in the first place that the skull of Spinosaurus is similar to that of a crocodile why do they think that its weak? Crocodiles have a bite force of 2,500 pounds. 69.76.53.113 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think any studies of spinosaur bite force have been done. Their jaws are most similar to a gharial rather than a crocodile, I don't know what their bite forces are like. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dinoguy2 is right spinosaur is more like a gharial jaws than that of a croc's or alligator. One difference is tooth structure. The teeth of a spinosaurus are not curved something that was done in JP3. However, with gators and crocs their teeth are slighty curved helping them actually have more force in their bite.

I found a few articles about the similarities between Spinosaurs and Gharial skulls. 69.76.53.113 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[4] [5] does the shape of the tooth affect bite force it seems it would make it more efficient at biting through muscle and bone tissue but all the true power comes form the jaw muscle at least that seems to be the general consensus... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.243.46 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes jaw muscles do make a difference, however dentition makes a big difference as well. If Spinosaurus had the dentition of a T-Rex that would make a big difference in the amound of damage it could cause to a prey item. In other words jaw muscles are good but if you have weak dentition of teeth that are not designed to cause serious damaged then the bite force isn't going to be that strong. This can be seen with Felids vs. Canids. Cats have a much stronger bite force because of their muscle structure and dentition. Also skull structure plays a role too. So if you were to seriously compare Spino vs. T-Rex the odds would be in favor of the Tyrannosaur.Mcelite (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

By the look of that jaw, it looks like it could really bite hard. Also, its jaw is slender, giving it two advantages, first it could reach farther to grab its pray and it would have more teeth around so it could tear up its prey easier and have more chunks of meat in one bite so it doesn't have to go in for more bites.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We lack good studies of Spinosaur bite force and pressure. However, when comparing with T Rex it's important to note that T Rex's jaw differs from preceding large therapods in having: 1/ a wider tip to its snout and D-shaped front teeth to increase the amount it could rip off, speeding up feeding from large prey/corpses; 2/ other teeth that were mainly robust deep-penetrators, as you'd expect in a big-prey specialist, with some bone-crusher teeth at the back. 3/ massively higher bite force, indicating that it killed big prey, rather than merely being a bone-crushing scavenger (note Hyenas have lower bite force quotient than Wolves, despite having a bone-crushing habit - they achieve higher bite pressure through robust dentition). Spinosaur teeth by comparison seem to be more adapted to grabbing slippery prey like fish and swallowing whole, and maybe also taking small-medium sized terrestrial prey. The Spinosaur's relatively pointed conical teeth are not like those of a croc (they're too sharp for crushing bone for example), and don't seem adapted to rasping off strips of flesh. The long narrow jaw reduces the bite pressure achievable at the front of the mouth, while greatly increasing the risk of skull breakage when grappling large prey (this injury is common in Gharials when they fight one another; they have high bite force like other crocs but use lower bite pressures.. i.e. their muscle is used to achieve moderate bite pressures at the snout, rather than very high bite pressure closer to the back of the mouth). The teeth are sharp spikes, so would snap or chip under high bite pressures. Although I'm not aware of any good dry-skull reconstructions of Spinosaur bite force, looking at the muscle anchors and space for muscle in the skull I think the force is likely to be much less than T Rex even before factoring in mechanical disadvantage. Having said that I'm sure it could easily take medium-sized terrestrial prey, and the long snout would help catch faster animals in an ambush scenario. Regarding T Rex vs Spinosaur (ridiculous of course), note that brown bears kill larger polar bears when they fight over territory, the latter being bigger, stronger but less robust (their skulls cave in too easily). T Rex is as robust as any predator, much more so than Spinosaurus, and frequently received serious injuries (from which it recovered) suggesting high levels of aggression and persistance... it also had a relatively large brain and excellent binocular vision. I don't think Spinosaurus would have come off well, especially if T Rex was a pack predator (big IF). The one really confusing point for me has always been those robust arms of Spinosaurus. I struggle to see their utility, given the lack of reach relative to the mouth; the way the arms were used could affect estimates of maximum prey size, though bite force has been shown to be a good independent indicator of that. (130.56.110.103 (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Hello,

Considering Spinosaurus's skull was Biologicly almost identical to a crocs,it would seem likely that it had a strong bite like a croc.

Dan6534661--Dan6534661 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Spinosaurus had a Croc like skull but a slender neck. So i think it did have a strong bite but not as strong as modern crocs.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the skull was more like a gharial than a crocodile. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

http://carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=dinosaur&action=display&thread=1979&page=1 soory i cant find the actual picture of the net, i just found it on a forum, look down till you find the spinosaurus skull. Doesnt look gavial to me. the same cant be said about suchomimus though.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Spinosaurus DID have a strong bite. Its been found by some paleo guys, theydidnt give a figure though and it was used in a documentary called Monsters Resurected. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They didn't "find" anything, they speculated that because it had jaws like a croc, it may have had a similar bite. This is not supported by any studies though, and the show never said it was science. Though it implied it, which is why those types of shows are never to be trusted. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. T Rex's bite was radically revised in February 2012, along with that of Allosaurus. Both estimated higher than previously, while the bites of crocodilians were modelled as being slightly weaker than previously claimed. I'm not aware of Spinosaurus' bite having been assessed using any decent computer model. (130.56.110.103 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Spinosaurus probably had a strong bite, but it would not regularly use it like Tyrannosaurus. Rather Spinosaurus would use its strong bite to grip onto fish and small crocodiles.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

More

[6] Found another picture 72.129.152.137 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

photos?

I was watching something the other day(I was flipping through the channels so I do not know the name of the show) that said they had found a few photographs of the original specimen, in addition to the drawings, recently in an archive, any confirmation of if this is right or if I do not remember right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.84.80.104 (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right, the rediscovered photos were published in a paper called "New information regarding the holotype of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus Stromer, 1916" by Smith et al. 2006. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's one [7]. I wonder what the copyright status of this photo is, and whether we can use it? Shrumster (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on when it was originally published, if it ever has been. If it was published before 1923 in Germany, we can upload it here since it's PD US, but not on Wikimedia Commons. But if the photographer died more than 70 years ago, it's public domain worldwide. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• If we really want that picture in, we could use the same license tag as is used here: [8] And by the way, I found an alternate photo of the "Dal Sasso specimen" on the Italian Wikipedia, where more of it is visible: [9] FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the paper, the photos had never been published before, and the authors arranged the original print releases for them. They were donated to the Palaeontologisches Museum in 1995 by Stromer's son, so must have been privately held by the Stromer family until then. (I'm guessing these may have been Stromer's reference photos from which he drew diagrams published in the original paper, or something. But even if Stromer himself took the photo, he died in 1952, less than 70 years ago). I assume that would make the official publication date of the photos 2006, not eligible for public domain. But I'm no copyright expert :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that's what I expected. So if we wanted to use it, it would have to be through fairuse. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Posture / Quadrupedality / Pronation

"it has been suggested since the mid-1970s that Spinosaurus was at least an occasional quadruped." - Naive question: Doesn't the contemporary view of pronated forelimbs (hope I'm saying this right) in theropods argue against any but the most minor and incidental quadrupedality? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The cited article by Carpenter regarding theropods being unable to pronate the manus does not say that all theropods can't pronate wrist. It also makes no mention of Spinosaurus, and actually states that one of the studied animals, Deinonychus, CAN pronate its wrist. Should this particular factoid be in the article? It seems to also appear erroneously in the "Theropod" article. Whipsaw9 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If the paper does not mention this genus it does not belong in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lower jaw: "pits"

Photos of the lower jaw here http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/spinosaurus-snout.html show noticeable "pits". What are those? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

   Its an upper jaw for a start, which is mentioned in the text directly under the photo. Most likely they are present for a similar reason as a modern croc. Whatever reason that might be. http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-229-lg.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.111.82 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 

Size stats

I'm pretty sure Spinosaurus was closer to 15 m long and 7 tonnes... --Contributions/24.150.73.194 (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's debatable. Spino is really incomplete so all sizes for it are estimates. The holotype specimen has been estimated at 15m by some paleontologists and there is the large 988mm snoat that suggests a larger specimen. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would put it's max length at roughly 18 meters and about 9 tons but like you said the remains are incomplete so we can't really tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I think the therapod size chart needs a bit of updating. It is now known that T-rex, Giganoto and Carcharo reached 14m. While the spinosaurus on there is only 15m, not the full 18m. What do you think?Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated since when, and according to what? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

well the spinosaurus article itself states 16-18m but the scale shows a 15m spinosaurus. Carcharodontosaurus Iguidenis could reach 14m: http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/student_identifies_carcharodontosaurus_iguidensis_as_new_species_of_carnivorous_dinosaur wether it is valid i dont know. The giganotosaurus seems fine but t-rex, with the celeste specimin, could reach 14m aswell, but i havent got a link to that yet but ill try and find it again.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spinodontosaurus, I left the overall length of the Spino a bit ambiguous as it;s so incomplete. Note that you can't really tell how long it is due to its tail being hidden behind the others. The absolute size of the sail and skull are consistent with published measurements. Also note that the Carch figured is 13-13.5 m long and the Rex is nearly 14m. The reason they don't measure an absolute 14m is that the silhouettes are posed in a running stance with the neck and tail exhibiting natural curves. The cites measurements are total vertebrae+skull measures if the backbone were in a perfectly straight line. The curve of the spine reduces the length by nearly a meter in some cases. Anyway, the Celeste specimen is not published so we don't know if it's as big as it was originally estimated: these things usually get very reduced between the excitement surrounding discovery and the actual study of the bones. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

i just noticed that another size comparison with spinosaurus on it puts the spino at 16m with a curved tail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giantpredatorsscale1.png but the one used on the giant therapods pages put it smaller. just wondering why. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinodontosaurus (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, ok I see what the issue is. When I made all these diagrams I did so in Photoshop. I assumed the tail was hidden in the size chard on this page by the other theropods. But it looks like what happened is, somebody converted my original diagram to a vector svg file and at some point in the process (either my side or his) the tail was cropped. I've edited the current vector image so you can see the tip of the spino tail poking down making the length about 16-17 meters curved. This should solve the confusion. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

yes it doesSpinodontosaurus (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Im pretty sure spinosaurus was 15 meter+ (17 meters average) but one study seems to suggest spino was 12-14 meters, help!?Dan6534661 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I belive the study your talking about used Theropods like Tyrannosaurs, but since Tyrannosaurs and Spinosaurs are built differently not many have accepted their figure. It doesnt help that they said it would weigh 12-20t. Which at that size would be physically impossible. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes ive come to agree with that, but what do you think ,made spinosaurus so large, i think because it was slimmer than the catrnosaurs.Dan6534661 (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, there isnt really any 'small' Spinosaurs, the smallest i know of is Irritator at 8m long. There is also the possibility that since a 12m Suchomimus wouldnt be able to defend it self from something of similar size, so they got so big as a weapon against other Theropods. Take were Spino lived, there was Carcharodontosaurus, Deltadromeus, Suchomimus and Sarchosuchus as large meat eaters. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but spinosaurus was mainly a fish eater, and sarchosuchus and suchomimus didn't live with it.Dan6534661 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Suchomimus never saw carcharodontosaurus but Spinosaurus met both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchomimus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosaurus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcharodontosaurus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus, Wiki's page on sarco doesnt state What the time range of it was But it does say that it could have come into contact with Suchomimus. Though yes Spino was likely a primary fish eater, which is actually the same as sarco and sucho, it doesnt mean exclusivly fish eater. But one simple explination for its size is this, it got big because it could. Same kind of thing with the sauropods. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, we don't have evidence that Suchomimus and Spinosaurus ever met. Sucho immediately preceded Spino, as Sucho was from the late Aptian Elrhaz Formation and Spino is from formations dating to the Albian-Cenomanian, but not Elrhaz. Sarchosuchus is also from the Elrhaz and would have lived alongside Sucho but not Spino. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia's page are wrong then, both overlap at 112 million years ago. And Sarco's page only says that it may have come across Suchomimus, it dont state the years (if it does i didnt see them). If Wiki's pages are right then it IS possible that they briefly met and that it could be Spino that forced Sucho to extinction. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the pages. It's possible that Spino drove out Sucho as it came immediately after. Or maybe Spino evolved directly FROM Sucho... Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, researching this further, the earliest definite record of Spinosaurus is from the Chenini Formation, which according to Smith et al. 2006, dates only to the middle Albian, some 6 million years after Suchomimus and Sarcosuchus. The article previously listed the entire range of the Albian and Cenomanian, which is incorrect. This is currently a problem with many wiki articles--editors see the periods an animal lived during, and then list the entire span of those periods for the fossil range, whether the animal survived the entire duration (extremely rare!) or not. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

@spinodontosaurus,

okay i agree that spino wasn't a PURE fish eater but it was MAINLY a fish eater, but it could take in other dinos too.

P.s please see my talk page, i have a problem i would like to discuss. 90.192.107.228 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry, that comment was me but i wasn't logged on.Dan6534661 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Spinosaurus was 18m long and according to this 13t. http://dinobase.gly.bris.ac.uk/frontend/dinobase_pageViewSpecies.php?id=1430 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.135.157 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC) soory here is the link http://dinobase.gly.bris.ac.uk/frontend/dinobase_pageViewSpecies.php?id=1391 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.135.157 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Spinosaurus was at least 17 metres long. It probably wighd in excess of 8 tonnes. Spinosaurus was probably not lightly built. It didn't need to be. It just needed to sit around and fish, while comtemporaries Bahariasaurus and Carcharodontsoaurus huntd their guts out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.242.155 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2005 specimen and "public consciousness" about its size

Did the 2005 specimen really affect the public consciousness? By "public", does it mean both the lay people and the experts, or just lay people? If it's just lay people, I don't think it had any major effect, or at least I don't recall any sort of news fuss in 2005, and I'm somewhat into this thing. If "public" means experts too, I think that the mention of the 2005 specimen might be better placed somewhere else, more in a context of "more and bigger material to measure", rather than "consciousness", since the article states that it was pretty much known that it was one of the biggest theropods since its discovery. --Extremophile (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaur Exposition 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/06/15/GA2009061501624.html Just thought it was interesting. 72.129.154.127 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Spinosaurus sub-adult discovered

[10] 69.76.52.102 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can make of that page, it's advertising a new exhibition featuring an unpublished spinosaur skull. Probably real at least in part (Moroccan fossils are notorious for their enhancements), but not unique: there are dozens of unpublished spinosaur skulls and jaws floating around at fossil shows. Whether this one will ever be studied, I don't know. Depends on the nature of the linked exhibition I would guess. Wait for the paper. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't have any information about a sub-adult specimen of Spinosaurus. However, I know that François Escuillé from Eldonia has displayed a Spinosaurus skeleton at the Nikkei inc. of Tokyo recently. This skeleton, and the skull itself, is composed of some original material (around 50%) from the Kem Kem beds of Morocco. It will be sell at auction in the well-known Hôtel Drouot in Paris the first of December 2009. I am almost sure this is the same skull as the one you mentioned. Look at the pictures on my website to see yourself [11] (see the skull in the bottom of the page, not the one sold in 2005). I'll get soon many pictures of this skeleton before its sale.--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Spinosaurus reconstruction by Stromer

Could someone confirmed me that this picture [12] has really been made by Stromer himself? Because I have a scan of the article of Stromer (1915) and I have not seen it there. If yes, on what page of what article does it appear? Besides, I read somewhere that it could be the reconstruction of Spinosaurus by Lapparent and Lavocat (1955) based on the material that Stromer published earlier. However, I have got that picture (taken from the book of Piveteau) and no human skeleton is appearing...

- Stromer, E., 1915. Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromer in den Wüsten Agyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharîje-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 3. Das Original des Theropoden Spinosaurus aegyptiacus nov. gen., nov. spec. Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Physikalische 28 (3) : 1–32.

- Lapparent A.F. de & Lavocat R., 1955. Dinosauriens. In Piveteau J. (sous la direction de), Traité de paléontologie, Paris, Masson et Cie : 785-962 pp.

Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask the original uploader, Anetode, he would be the only one who knows. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I'm gonna send him a message right now.--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your discussion, and it seems that the illustration really is from 1955. That means it is not even PD in the US, and would have to be deleted, or given a fair use rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's from 1955, it was made 3 years after Stromer's death. Btw even Stromers actual works from the 1910s to 1930s aren't PD, he'd have th be death since 70 years in order for copyright to expire (it will be another 8 years till then...).Ornitholestes (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

skeleton to be auctioned in Paris

[13] [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.155.161 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a free picture of it in Japan, provided by a Japanese Flickr user who kindly agreed to give his dinosaur images Commons compatible licenses. Could maybe be used in the article when it is expanded. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That may actually be a better option than the one in the taxobox currently. The reconstructed skull on the later looks too broad-snouted. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But aren't some of the other proportions on this one wrong (since it consists of many different specimens)? There was a thread on it at the old Dinoforum, which we don't have access to anymore... The snout on the current image seems pretty close to the snout in the image of the Dal Sasso specimen we have, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Any more info on this specimen? Casts of it seems to be popping up in museums. The private owner appears to be a Wikipedia user[15], who contacted me on my talk page about it a while back. From what I understand, it is now in a private museum in France? FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's in a private collection, there will never be any more info on it, unfortunately. Privately-held specimens only very rarely get published on. How do we even know it's a S. aegyptiacus and not a new species or even a heavily mal-restored Suchomimus? :P MMartyniuk (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The user seems to own many such specimens, and is eagerly uploading images of them to Commons. See for example our image of Darwinopterus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely problematic. Without formal study, we don't really know that's Darwinopterus or who said it was. One of us could examine the image and diagnose it based on known wukongopterygid characters to make sure, but that might be OR. In the past, there have been many enantiornithine fossils from private museums posted to commons that were very obviously mislabeled, some even mislabeled as holotypes of completely different genera! MMartyniuk (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

On further inspection of his Commons page, I found this:[16] So it seems all the specimens are in the Natural History Museum of the city of Toulouse. But the Spinosaurus at least is on loan to the museum, and is owned by him, as far as he told me. So it's hard to say what the case is for all these other photographed fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• In light of the recent Spinosaurus hype, has anyone heard more about this mount? FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Watch Out!

There is a guy who has joined Wikipedia that is from a forum that i use, but he claims that Gig was 50ft+ and rex + spino were 30ft. Just better warn in advance. His name is Giganotosaurus Fan. I am isueing this on the Gig, Rex and Spino talk pages cause those are the 3 he will likely vandalise. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinodontosaurus (talk • contribs)

I love the T- Rex as much as the next guy, but the dinosaur was at an absolute maximum of 45ft. The spinosaurus was much larger than 30 ft. I'm saying that, and I don't even like the Dinosaur. Giganotosaurus was not that much longer than either of them and it was probably smaller than the Spinosaurus. Thank you for the warning. Dinotitan (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture Add

This is fairly new so I can understand it not being in here. This dinosaur was also featured in the movie Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Kilgannon2113 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in there, well in the right aticle. Cause it was a Baryonyx :), i thought it was just a sail-less Spino as well but both the Baryonyx page and Ice age 3 page say its a baryonyx. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Swimming

Apparently so. If this link is a good enough one, can someone incude it in the aticle? i would myself but to be honest, im hopless with wording things right, and it would probally need to be re-worded if i put it in anyway. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks interesting. Right now there's a section in Spinosauridae about it for the group as a whole. I haven't got the article (had to rely on Andrea Cau's Theropoda and the abstract for the changes I made to the Spinosauridae paragraph), but I'll probably be able to get it later this week and be able to say something specific about Spinosaurus (and the other genera as well; Siamosaurus really tracks strongly apart from other theropods, which is somewhat funny given it was thought to be a fish for a while). J. Spencer (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. According to a dinosaur encyclopedia I have, a sauropods' lungs would have collapsed if they were ten feet underwater. Surely this could also apply to muscular Carnivores that would do a bit of sinking before the started to float, and collapse a lung or two?Dinotitan (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to their extensive air sac systems, all saurischians, including sauropods, would probably float on the water like ducks. They'd need some kind of ballast, like swallowing stones, to control their depth. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsensical - this is the only place I've ever read any such statement, and is completely contrary to statements in modern papers and books on dinos. Sauropods were upland animals and would have died if they had waded into water deep enough to cover their bodies from water pressure on their lungs and heart. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that sauropod lungs would collapse if they became immersed in water, but they were not generally upland animals, and seem to have preferred wet and often coastal habitats. But these points are moot because they were physically incapable of being immersed in water due to their extremely high buoyancy. Here's a relevant paper: [17] A sauropod would float in the water and would be quite unstable, but it would not suffocate because it would not have been able to sink itself. Note that there is footprint evidence for this behavior, proving that sauropods did swim on occasion. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you've taken a look at the DML forum, you'll see that theory is not accepted by all paloeos. Put an adult brachiosaur in water (theoretically speaking) - would you put money that such an animal would "float"? And I'll stick to the majority opinion that most large sauropods were upland animals. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Would I put money on the fact a Brachiosaurus would float? Yes, because that's what the evidence suggests. For the same reason I believe a thousand-ton aircraft carrier or the planet Saturn would float. I trust the physics of buoyancy above my own primitive ape intuition. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So Michael Crichton was right after all about T.rex---it always just looked a teeny bit heavy, even with all the air sacs and all. The spinosauroids were understandable, they were specifically built to do that. Crimsonraptor (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Crichton depicted Tyrannosaurus as swimming like a Crocodile in the first book, due to its size i think that Spinosaurus was the least likely to swim out of all spinosaurs, while smaller ones like Irritator were probably better swimmers. also what about the Spinosaur body shape would make them better swimmers?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dudes

We should be ashamed really. Look at the french wiki article. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosaurus Looks about twice as long, and its an FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.220.88 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are two things you can do: either a) continue to waste everyone's time by whining about how better the French article is, or b) try to invest time and energy in helping to improve the English article.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If a user wants to withdraw his own comments, the delete tags are appropriate. Removing another person's remarks is vandalism, and there will be no more warnings on this behavior.μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC) To note, the english wikipedia is more accurate. European articles and articles from other countries tend to have little to no sources. They ramble on and no full stop. They crunch information, sure they have more but are they accurate? --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Cladogram thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosaurus#Classification It seems a little wrong to me. Surely if Suchosaurus is thought to be the same as Baryonyx, that would make it a Baryonychine? And i thought Siamosaurus was just a Spinosaurid, not a Spinosaurine. If Siamosaurus is a Spinosaurine, then the Spinosauridae page needs changed instead. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Who added the cladogram? either way it appears to lack a source and should be removed unless one can be provided. That said, Suchosaurus and Siamosaurus, based only on teeth, probably can't be placed anywhere with any confidence right now. If Suchosaurus is the same thing as Baryonyx, Baryonyx is an invalid name, by the way, as the former was named over 100 years earlier. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Suchosaurus be a nomen oblitum considering it's lack of use at te time Baryonyx was erected? Abyssal (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are confused about what a nomen oblitum is, because the term was eliminated from the ICZN in 1973 and re-introduced in 1999 as a slightly different concept. It now requires two things: 1. For a name to never once have been used as valid after 1899 (I believe references discussing it as invalid don't count but I'm not sure), and 2. for the ICZN to officially rule to conserve a senior synonym. Suchosaurus meets neither of these criteria. In fact I believe references like Buffetaut 2007 treat it as valid and even possibly a senior synonym of Baryonyx, so unless the definition of nomen oblitum changes again it can never be a nomen oblitum. At best it can be treated as a nomen dubium incomperable to Baryonyx and ignored, even if it obviously comes from the same animal, which if you ask me is pretty silly and probably why it's wise that the ICZN doesn't formally recognize any such thing as nomina dubia. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember whether I was the one who adds this cladogram on this article or not. Actually, I created the same cladogram on the French article of Spinosaurus (which I wrote entirely) and I just updated it by changing a couple of things in order to follow exactly the literature on Spinosauridae. Siamosaurus should be considered as a Spinosauridae instead of a Spinosaurinae, indeed. I remember putting it in the clade of Spinosaurinae because it has elongated neural spine and its teeth are not serrated, as Spinosaurus (and on the contrary of baryonychines). But I have to admit that the literature on this dinosaurs do not stipulate it belongs to Spinosaurinae rather than Spinosauridae. Concerning Suchosaurus, the holotype S. cultridens consists of a unique tooth which most probably belong to a Spinosauridae, and perhaps to the genus Baryonyx. Some of the teeth from the NHM collection of London and having the label Suchosaurus are extremely similar to those of Baryonyx walkeri. Hitherto it is impossible to say that Suchosaurus represents a different genus or not. But it is most probably a Spinosauridae and, considering the morphology of its tooth and its temporal and geographical distribution, most probably a Baryonychinae. That's why I put Suchosaurus in the Baryonychinae with a question mark. But if you want to follow the literature scrupulosity, it is a Spinosauridae with a question mark for its validity as a genus. Finally, some new material from Portugal which are currently described by O. Mateus show that Suchosaurus girardi is in fact the same species as Baryonyx walkeri. Therefore, following the ICZN rules, the name Baryonyx may disappeared in the future...--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Website:http://spinosauridae.fr.gd/

Not necessarily, because S. girardi isn't the type species. Only if it were proven that S. cultridens was the same species as B. walkeri would Baryonyx go away. But the name walkeri would because girardi is older, so it would become Baryonyx girardi. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have said Baryonyx walkeri, as a species, and not Baryonyx only, as a genus. I do agree with you MMartyniuk. Let's see what Baryonyx walkeri becomes in the future then...--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

edit protected

Please wikilink Sidor, C.A.. Hryhorash (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it! J. Spencer (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it was protected long time ago. Time to unprotect? Hryhorash (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Per your request, I've unprotected. We'll see what happens. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential Pop Culture Edit

It was portrayed as larger and more powerful than Tyrannosaurus: in a scene depicting a battle between the two resurrected predators, Spinosaurus emerges victorious by snapping the tyrannosaur's neck.[28] In reality, such a battle could never have taken place while the species were extant, since Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus lived thousands of kilometres and millions of years apart.

Isn't this a bit of an irrelevant statement, since the creatures existed in a fiction park where dinosaurs have been recreated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.90.83 (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In any case, the biomechanics of the scene also strike me as slightly improbable. Of course, they just want a new villain. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Image

I though t the head looked a little bit to big. And after whacking the image on some 1m squares, its head is like 2.1m when the whole animal is ~17.5m. [18]Or is the drawing meant to represent a conservative 15 or 16m? Spinodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Woah: Rookie mistake in that whacked-up scale chart. Try scaling to a known element rather than a total estimate based on god knows what proportions. The tallest "spine" of the sail should be 2m tall from base to top. Doing a bit of mental calculation here, the head in this resto does look way too big unless it's supposed to represent a smaller subadult. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think its probally a sub adult. After adding another row of squares, the sail is a little over 2m tall [19]. I hope that the leg furthest away is the one thats supposed to be 'on the ground', its already 5m ish at the hips. Spinodontosaurus (talk)# —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

If it turns out to be a problem, shrinking the head is an easy fix. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I made the head a bit smaller, is it still too big? FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Better! The sail looks too semi-circular compared to any possible configuration but it's not so far off from Hartman's so it's a minor thing. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do anyway, shouldn't be too hard to fix. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

This article starts out saying that Spinosaurus was native to North America but then goes on to say that all specimens were found in Egypt and Morocco. In the Jurassic Park III section its says that Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus could never meet as they were separated by thousands of kilometers. I believe that the reference to North America is erroneous.

John Britton September 6, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.197.189 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Put on your glasses: it says that it's native to North Africa, not America.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to be testy, Mr. Fink. Thanks for showing interest in the accuracy of the article, Mr. Britton, but he's right, it does say "north Africa" at the beginning of the article.

pronunciation

I do not necessarily disagree with the given pronunciation, but the attributed source is hardly authoritative, a self-published web page. It amounts to ref spam and gives the pronunciation an authority that the source (which is highly inconsistent in its anglicized versus latinized pronunciations) simply does not have. I looked in the OED for an alternate source, but the on line version gives no listing for Spinosaurus. Unless there is a better source this should be left out for now.μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Two issues are colliding. First, the author of the page (Benjamin S. Creisler) is certainly reliable as far as translations go; he's a classicist who has co-named a couple of taxa, reconstructed etymologies of E.D. Cope's dinosaurs, and wrote a history of hadrosaur research in terms of their etymologies. If someone wanted to find a source that is both accurate and readily available (more so than shelling out for Glut's series of encyclopedias, for example), they couldn't really do better. However, and this is where the second part comes it, the reference is tagged to the entire parenthetical aside, including the pronunciation, which is given in IPA (unlike the original web page), and I can't read IPA. J. Spencer (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting details on Spino skull

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2009/01/spinosaurid-paleobiology-more-than-just.html&ei=ksMxTYWKLYjPgAeV2IylCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://theropoda.blogspot.com/2009/01/spinosaurid-paleobiology-more-than-just.html%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D855%26prmd%3Divns 72.129.154.231 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Apr/msg00348.html 72.129.154.231 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

statement in the lede needs adjusting

"Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian." This isn't correct. Spino was a land animal - there's nothing about it's anatomy (except its mouth) that resembles a crocodilian. It definitely hunted in/beside water, but whether or not it entered a river or stream beyond a couple of meters is very debatable - for one thing, the bottom would have had to have been hard enough to prevent this large creature from getting stuck in soft mud, and its feet were typical theropod in structure - nothing specialized for river bottoms. It wouldn't have hunted much like a crocodile, either, except in the circumstance of putting its open jaws in a stream waiting for a big fish to swim through them; otherwise, crocs grab mammals and basically drown them via their rolling motion, most probably the same way their giant ancestors grabbed dinosaurs near water - impossible for Spino. 6 September 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan Well, more recent finds and descriptions make me eat crow here seven years later - I'm big enough to admit I was wrong. The hind limb proportions for Spino are mind-boggling.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

How do you know, the beasts have been dead 97 million years! There's no evidence to suggest they didn't (at times) enter the water. I agree that they would have mostly waded through the swamps and devoured fish that were unlucky enough to cross their path, but perhaps they also swam after fast-moving shoals of fish. It all depends on how long spinosaurs could hold their breath and whether they would be able to see efficiently underwater. Just don't pretend you know so much about such a long-extinct animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't "pretend" anything - Wiki is based on what Reliable Sources say, not personal opinion/rationalization/original research, anon ip. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth considering the evidence set out in this paper: Oxygen isotope evidence for semi-aquatic habits among spinosaurid theropods. Amiot, Buffetaut, Lécuyer, Wang, Boudad, Ding, Fourel, Hutt, Martineau, Medeiros, Mo, Simon, Suteethorn, Sweetman, Tong, Zhang, Zhou; Geology (2010) 38 (2): 139-142. In summary, the oxygen isotope ratios of the teeth of spinosaurids indicate a heavily aquatic diet and habit. This is citation 44 in the citation list on the page.Orbitalforam (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Even larger than Tyrannosaurus? Wow. ;-)

Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus Seriously though, there's not much to it to beat the length of a "Tyrannosaurus". What you probably mean is that the Spino was even longer than Tyrannosaurus rex. However, there were more (WAY shorter) Tyrannosaurs than just the T. Rex, so I'd suggest we append the "rex" in the article to avoid the writers of this content getting ridiculed by serious experts? -andy 77.7.2.54 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, but note that currently most researchers do not consider there to be more than one species of Tyrannosaurus. T. bataar is most often classified in the separate genus Tarbosaurus. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you've seen JP3 then you'll know that Spinosaurus got pretty big, the largest specimens are estimated to be 60 feet in length and 20 tons in weight. Tyrannosaurus was stockier and probably more powerful, but Spinosaurus was definitely bigger in all three aspects (length, weight, and height). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

JPIII was not exactly a documentary. J. Spencer (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but the Jurassic Park movies are actually very well researched and don't have any more inaccuracies than some bad documentaries like Jurassic Fight Club (by "bad" I mean inaccurate as I actually did enjoy that show). While I don't necessarily agree with some things such as Spinosaurus being able to kill a tyrannosaur so easily as well as its overly bulky build and serrated teeth. But they did get the size right, and that's what we're talking about isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing is, the Spinosaurus in JPIII was only 13m long,(the T. rex was 11m) but they do talk about the 60 feet in length and 20 tons animal finally described in 2005 on the DVD extras.Mike.BRZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

60 feet and 20 tons is just the maximum size of the animal, not all spinosaurs would have lived to reach that size. The 43-footer from JP3 is just an average-sized specimen. And I think I read somewhere that the one in the movie was only a sub-adult female, so it wouldn't be full-sized anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember reading something similar about the JPIII spinosaurus being a subadult, saying it was average sized is wrong, however, I certainly can't see how 43ft can be the average of an animal known from two individuals that are easily bigger, one of 46ft-49ft and another of 52ft-60ft, that's like saying that the average size of T. rex is 30ft. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"that's like saying that the average size of T. rex is 30ft" That's actually true (well, more like 36ft). A vast majority of T. rex specimens are not as large as Sue etc. Those are exceptional individuals and thus get the most publicity, that's all. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

6ft is a big difference, a 36ft animal would be 170% the weight of a 30ft one, but yes, I agree.Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Spinosaurus' larger size necessarily mean that it would win in a fight with a T-Rex? I think that such discussions make an assumption that size is absolute, without discussing the details. That was something the bothered me when I saw JPIII, and it bothered me that that's how the discussion is carried forward in the popular media. Horner's quote doesn't help things, either. I don't think their comparative lengths make as much difference as the size of their limbos and torsos. T-Rex could be described as stouter, I think, could it not? I just think that if the two animals got close enough to bite at one another, a Tyranosaur's skull, jaw and dental anatomy are far more lethal, than the longer, thinner skull and jaw of the Spinosaur. I also think JPIII exaggerated features of the Spinosaur, especially its jaws, making them stouter, more robust, than the fossil would suggest, any research Spielberg's production staff may have done. So I just can't quite accept, "Spinosaurus was larger, therefore it was the deadliest carnivore of all time", or other such statements.

I concede that I am taking the info too literally, perhaps, and certainly, the excitement people have seeing the animal in fiction can inspire them to learn more about it specifically and dinosaurs in general.

Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)theBaron0530

The question of whether or not Spinosaurus is/was anatomically powered to defeat Tyrannosaurus or not is the paleontological equivalent of the question of whether or not General Charles de Gaulle would be able to defeat Genghis Khan in an old fashioned fistfight despite being taller. Both questions are, obviously, beyond the scope of Wikipedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One thing that must be kept in mind while watching JP is that some exaggerations are going to be made! There have been a lot of assumptions made about dinosaurs. There is a lot we don't know about dinosaurs. We don't even have a 50% complete skeleton of Spinosaurus and yet it was portrayed in the movie as being lager, longer, and more powerful than a Tyrannosaurus Rex!It has been estimated to be sixty feet long, and twenty feet tall, but there isn't enough evedence to prove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillRich85 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exaggerations were made in Jurassic Park, that was blatantly obvious to all except for the dimmest of viewers. Having said that, what we do have of Spinosaurus' skeleton does permit use to estimate that the original owner was, indeed bigger than Tyrannosaurus rex. Having said that, please (re)read my comment about the question of whether or not Spinosaurus is/was anatomically powered to defeat T. rex, and please remember that the talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article, and not forums to natter and gossip about "what if" scenarios.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Teeth

Spinosaurus teeth seem to be pretty common in fossil shops. Should that be added to the article? Carcharodontosaurus teeth seem to be pretty common too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.128.11 (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I, in fact, have teeth from both Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus in my collection (I collect rocks and fossils). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Quadruped Theory

I think this theory is out of the question, wouldn't having non-pronated hands prevent this posture? Unless, of course, they walked on the sides of their hands like giant ground sloths. But there is evidence that this theory is true, even if the evidence has major holes in them. This theory has made other scientists confused and even the scientist that made this theory is turning back on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The animal's arms are too short to do that, it would have to lean incredibly far forward and i'm not certain if dinosaur wrists could bend like that. Who knows how this creature walked two legs, four legs or maybe even both switching on the two for certain problems or situations.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

His hindlegs were too large reconstructed as it appears now. They were smaller, better suited to swim in water, more like crocodiles. That's why the quadruplet theory is most likely the correct one now cause the body needed additional support to carry itself. 134.101.60.131 (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Broken External Links

Every time when i search for additional info's about one article, i found at least one missing,broken link or no info's there. No one check these "external links" ? Example : http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060301_big_carnivores.html Lloyd, Robin. The Biggest Carnivore: Dinosaur History Rewritten. LiveScience, 1 March 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U2know (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Or like this link which contain 6 words about Spinosaurus !!! http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Megalosauroidea.htm#Spinosaurusaegyptiacus

Or like this one which has only a ...site map on the page ?!?! http://www.dinodata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7422&Itemid=67

Spinosaurus in Primeval

I don't see any mention of the Spinosaurus being in the first episode of season 4 of Primeval. Should it be mentioned? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The "In Popular Culture" section should discuss how Spinosaurus is perceived or depicted in popular culture. not be a trivia checklist of shows that use Spinosaurus as a monster of the week.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A statement needs editing

I have an issue with this part:

"The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure"

Really? There's nothing supporting the idea of a sail being likely. It should be:

"The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were thought to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure"

The actual structure is unknown, but the structure of the spines definitely do not support a skin sail. Why would an animal with broad spines develop a sail?

Sauropodomorph (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

New length figure for the specimen

Hi, I was visiting this page when I found an approximate estimate for MNHN SAM 124. I based my estimate for this specimen on observations and measurements, and I found a width of about 7 cm corresponding to a length of 34.4 cm in the image and making this easy calculation: 34.4/7 equal 4.9 of ratio and scaled to the actual width (about 13.6 cm) 13.6 cm (4.9 ratio) equal 76.64 cm long and using the estimates brought by Dal Sasso: 1.75/0.988 cm snout equal 1.77125506(0.7664) equal 1.35 m skull for S. marrocanus specimen. PD: I don't want this to be presented, is just to give an idea for future editions.--Dinoexpert (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well,unless you publish it in a scientific paper, it isn't of much use here. FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

incorrect statement

"Large fish are known from the faunas containing other spinosaurids, including the Mawsonia, in the mid-Cretaceous of northern Africa and Brazil. The only direct evidence for spinosaur diet comes from related European and South American taxa." actuelly this imformation is incorrect. spinosaurus specimen MSnM V4047 had a fish vertebra embedded between the second premaxillary alveolus and its erupting tooth which can be tentatively referred to ?Onchopristis sp. (Stromer, 1926:taf I, fig. 7), a sawfish that is very abundant in the Kem Kem beds(Dal Sasso ed al 2005).Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The evidence is really interesting, I suggest you to cite that paper, to make Wikipedia more complete.--Dinoexpert (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of the Sail?

Is there a theory out there which suggests the Sail on this thing was for the obvious purpose of camouflaging as an Ouranosaur which also had a very similar looking sail, at least long enough to get into feeding range without needing a pursuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.64.83 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, given as how neither dinosaur are found together in the same regions or formations, and no evidence has been found to suggest that Spinosaurus preyed on Ouranosaurus.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Height?

How tall is the spinosaurus? Many suggested and speculated ranges are given for the length and weight, yet as far as I could tell there wasn't a single mention of height. 50.186.66.183 (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Height's not a particularly useful dimension for dinosaurs, because of their horizontal builds, and there aren't consistent measurements. Is it the height of the hips with the leg as straight as possible? A normal crouch? The head height? Head height with the animal standing as upright as possible? And how were the postures determined (range of motion, etc.)? Not that length and mass don't have their problems, but height has never caught on. J. Spencer (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Calculating the height for a species where the legs have never been found would be problematic, too... Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Good points; thanks for responding, both of you. I hadn't thought about upright posture, etc. And I didn't know there hasn't been legs found either. At least if any other beginners like me question why this isn't in the article, they have some very good answers. Thanks guys! :) 50.186.66.183 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! J. Spencer (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we have two life recons in the article?

I ask this so that we have one recon to represent the "Dimetrodon-style" sail and one to represent the bison-like hump, since both of them seem equally prevalant in the literature from what I've seen. I mean, it's not like we've had more speculative illustrations in articles before, but as long as both of them match up to the general idea of Spinosaurus' bauplan, it's a good idea in my own opinion. --Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a free one showing a hump, for starters. I don't think I've ever seen one, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We could always make one, of course. ;) And I do remember seeing a few of them, but they tend to be drowned out by all of the Dimetro-sails; that might be why you haven't seen them. I'll probably either look for one or make one myself, if I cannot find one that is free-use. --Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The "sail" of Spino is nothing at all like the sail of Dimetrodon and it makes me curious how people ended up restoring it this way in the first place (confusion between the two in pop culture?). If the neural spines of Spinosaurus were connected by a thin skin membrane there would be barely enough room for it between most of the spines. It makes absolutely no sense. A thin muscular ridge would be the most conservative interpretation, but the individual neural spines would not be likely to be visible except maybe the rounded tops. Restorations depicting otherwise remind me of the Crystal Palace ichthyosaur, with scleral rings and phalanges visible through the skin/eyeball... Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that all three life reconstructions in the article seem NOT to treat it as a sail. There are visible vertical ridges along the sides of the spinal "sail" but these don't seem to correspond at all with the contours or shapes of the neural spines so I have to assume they represent soft tissue structures adding a bit of texture. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if this recon is quite as good as the German model in terms of accuracy; it seems to fall into the "shrink-wrap" trap and it's neural spines seem kind of stunted IMO. But again, I'm used to seeing the fatty Spinosaurus, so take my word with a grain of salt. ;) --Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm using this as a reference, by the way. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)--

• Seems like we need new restorations, but for different reasons: http://events.nationalgeographic.com/events/exhibits/2014/09/12/spinosaurus-lost-giant-cretaceous/ FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

New Reconstruction

Apparently there's a new reconstruction of Spinosaurus floating around the internet that gives it a dip in the middle of its sail/hump and shorter legs. 75.156.95.113 (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

See the last comment above. Also notice they don't give it a "hump". When that stuff is published, I'll modify the old reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For some reason no one picked up on the Spinosaurus that had been floating on the internet for some time now. National Geographic Magazine(Italy) published the new material years ago. Here is a pic http://www.nationalgeographic.it/images/2011/09/06/103801659-627e33bd-3e08-42e2-b783-2af23344f15e.jpg

Here's the home page http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&from=&to=en&a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nationalgeographic.it%2fscienza%2f2011%2f09%2f14%2ffoto%2fcome_torna_in_vita_un_dinosauro-502106%2f2%2f

The museum of Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence, Italy has had the new updated full scale model for years. http://www.geomodel.it/images/Spinosaurus-aegyptiacus/spinosaurus-11.jpg

That's right, we've had photos on Commons of that model for years as well. For some reason, one hand is pronated in a semi quadrupedal pose. I guess that part is not so up to date... FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems like there's a lot of hype about this coming up, the new paper is published in a few hours, so what should we do? Leave images until we can correct them? I think it won't hurt to include at least one image showing the "old" version, for historical interest. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• And there ya go: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/10/science.1258750.abstract and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1232.summary FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Seems there is already scepticism, so we should maybe not do anything drastic yet.[20][21] FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• What the heck, they even have it knuckle walking like an anteater in an animation here!?[22] FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How would the proposed quadrupedal gait work if it couldn't pronate its hands? 77.57.25.250 (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just like anteaters[23] don't really pronate their hand when they walk.[24] Anyhow, see here: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/theres-something-fishy-about-spinosaurus9112014 The new sail arrangement appears to be hypothetical, and the small legs may be due to a scaling error. So we shouldn't do anything drastic yet. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that if this is the case, the legs would still be ridiculously small compared with other theropods, just not quite as small as the original figure. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Some more dissent: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-outlaw-spino-saurus/ FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So far consensus seems to be: quadrupedal and double sail? No. Tiny tetradactyl paddle feet? Yes, though slightly less tiny than the figure in the paper. Long neck: apparently. Andrea Cau also agrees with the Sigilmassaurus synonymy on his latest blog. Apparently Sigilmassaurus was created under the impression that "Spinosaurus B" was a chimera due to small pelvic elements compared to certs. The new specimen confirms this was actually the case, so it wasn't a chimera, therefore Sigilmassaurus=Spinosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't a cropped image of this[25][26] mount do for the taxobox? Like this.[27] Also, wouldn't it be somewhat safe to assume that other spinosaurs had tetradactyl feet as well? FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cropping would work, but the neck would still be too short I think. I don't think we can assume more basal spinosaurids were tetradactyl, we know at least Suchomimus had standard theropod legs at least down to the ankles. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Scott Hartman, the reconstruction's pelvis and legs are disproportionately small: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/theres-something-fishy-about-spinosaurus9112014 24.71.44.31 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Scott Hartman has posted a sequel to his original post. [28] - seems like quite a bit of uncertainty going on. As regards the various discussions linked in this section, do these meet the criteria of WP:BLOGS to enable citation in the article? 77.57.25.250 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This would indicate yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#Blog_source_written_by_scientist We should probably discuss it here first, though. The Dinosaur Mailing List has been cited on Wiki before as well, FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The authors of the paper have responded on Hartman's page, it seems their estimates are correct. http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/?month=september-2014&view=calendar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfodon (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the estimates or measurements weren't in question: the proportions of the reconstruction were. Their response simply doesn't answer Hartman's main objection: the proportions shown do not fit their own measurements. They refer to a reconstruction of Marco Auditore. His image does fit the measurements — and has clearly different proportions from that of the paper! But should we want to criticise the estimates, there's ample ground for that. The femur is heavily restored, so the 61 centimetres estimate is questionable. Another problem is the identity of the largest dorsal. Is it really the eighth or one more posterior in the series?--MWAK (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• By chance, I found some Flickr images of the new mount, so we finally have some photos again. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Today I began a sketch of Spinosaurus, using the paper skeletal reconstruction as a basis. However, what should I do with the forelimbs. Is it actually possible for Spinosaurus to be a quadruped, or should I illustrate it as bipedal? IJReid (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it is too early to make a new life reconstruction. There are too many features that are unclear with the new skeletal reconstruction, apart from the hindlimb issue, there's the sail shape and the forelimb size as well, and the whole thing about whether Spinosaurus B material even belongs here... The reconstruction will probably be revised again when the supposed monograph comes out. And by the way, see:[29] FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Strangely, this drawing was not originally meant to be on wikipedia, but I will try to find the best way to make it accurate. I think I just found a loophole to FOP. Commons:Copyright status of work by United States subnational goverment mentions that organized territories, like Washington D.C., are not specified if they fall under section 105, which prevents copyright. As it is not specified, and under certain circumstances it can, works prepared by employees of Washington D.C. can or cannot be copyrighted. This might result in us being able to keep some of these images, as well as upload the new model of Spinosaurus outside the NAt Geo headquarters. IJReid (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm sure this would be exploited more if it really was a loophole, you could try to bring the case up here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Spinosaurus at NY Times

A Lost-and-Found Nomad Helps Solve the Mystery of a Swimming Dinosaur, SEPT. 11, 2014. A nice article, cool restoration, interesting stuff. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add information to the page about a diving spinosaurus? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional information from Ibrahaim (2014)

The authors describe in their paper that the spines had ligament stretch scars on them, and was probably wrapped in skin. Should this go under the hump vs. sail debate? Also, it mentions something about Spinosaurus locomotion, specifically paddling; should a section address the locomotion of Spinosaurus in general, or should this just go under Posture? The paper is here, for those that can access it: [30] Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It should all be added, someone just has to do it. And perhaps we should have a combined locomotion and posture section? FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Is he still arguing for quadrapedal locomotion on land? His specimen is a confirmed chimaera. Look at the new reconstruction outside the National Geographic building. The legs are a bit shorter, but it is still a biped. 108.84.248.11 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

S. marocannus

Is S. marocannus a species or just a synonym? I saw it was a species before but now it was a synonym, and both have ? marksDinosaur Fan (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"over 15 m", NOT "only 15 m"

The Ibrahim et al. paper from 2014("Semiaquatic adaptation in a giant predatory dinosaur") says:

"The digital model of the adult skeleton of Spinosaurus (Fig. 2A), when printed and mounted, measures over 15 m in length"

So why does the article say "only 15 m"? Shouldn't it be "over 15 m"?

Sauropodomorph (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The way it's written now makes it sound like an estimate of 15m somehow contradicts an estimate of 12-18m, when in fact it confirms and narrows down that earlier range. We don't know how much over 15m the largest specimen is, because the tail is not complete, but it appears to be at least 15m and probably more. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

quadruple

Spino walked on four legs. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Only in art, nothing has been published on this yet. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And the reconstructed skeletal (and all art based on it) is also inaccurately measured, so if we use Hartman's measurements then Spinosaurus remains bipedal. Besides that, a Spinosaurus walking on it's forelimbs would probably break them, since it's forelimbs aren't designed for bearing weight; no theropod's are. I say we keep Spinosaurus bipedal for now; the burden of proof is on the quadraped camp. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It sees Hartman agreed with parts of their reply:[31] And Mark Witton with all of it:[32] Still, nothing about quadrupedalism, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In Ibrahim et. al (2014), it says "We note here that Spinosaurus must have been an obligate quadrupedon land, the first discovered among theropod dinosaurs, given the usual horizontal sacroiliac joint and the anterior location of the estimated center of body mass". So it walked on four legs. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that. And no, it doesn't mean it did walk on four legs, it means the writers think they did. Much more work is needed, and it would have to be independently confirmed, for us to state it as "fact". Trackways, for example, and much more complete skeletons. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it because I favor a pangolin-style model myself, but we treat other statements from single sets of authors as facts in other articles unless disputed in print, and we should do the same here. If anybody publishes a serious rebuttal to the Ibrahim paper we should change it, but I don't think we can in good conscience count mailing lists and Facebook posts as serious rebuttals. The only things that have come close (Witton and Hartman) were later retracted when presented with actual data. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was for the body proportions, which is founded in the fossils themselves. In this case, about the entirely speculative quadrupedal posture, we should probably use WP:In-text attribution just to be safe. Probably should also use that a little more on the Deinocheirus article, though claims in that paper aren't as controversial. But they also use more cautious language, and, sad to say, have much better specimens to base their claims on. Whereas Ibrahim and friends say "We note here that Spinosaurus must have been an obligate quadruped on land, the first among theropod dinosaurs, given the usual hori-zontal sacroiliac joint and the anterior location of the estimated center of body mass", Lee and friends say for example "The presence of a pygostyle suggests the possibility that ornithomimosaurs, which are known to have pennaceous feathers, also had fans of feathers at the ends of their tails for display purposes". FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• As some may have noted, the "new look" may be based on a chimaeric association of species and specimens, but it will be rather complicated to explain here to lay readers... A summary of the new paper:[33] FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think trying to dedicate some sort of paragraph to it is a good idea; as it is right now we just have a sentence that says it was doubted that all these specimens go together. That's rather vague and uninformative to the reader.Lusotitan (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Neural spines?

Are we sure that 'neural spines' is the correct term for the enlarged vertebrae? What do nerve have to do with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.4.221 (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Neural spines are the part of a vertebra that sticks up over the main body (centrum) of the vertebra (an extension of the neural arch, where the spinal chord passes through. Maybe we can make this just "vertebral spine" or something for clarity. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Size???

This article is wrong from my point of view. I LOVE DINOSAURS and this is my favorite, so from my research I have figured out that Spinosaurus is about 55-65 feet long as an adult. And I can't edit the actual wiki.:( -KK47 (cause I can't say my real name)unsigned comment added by 216.173.144.208 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if your research is correct that would be original research on your part and we don't accept that in Wikipedia, but if you managed to get it published in a scientific paper, we could add it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015

I have a good Spinosaurus image illustrated by National Geographic

File:Spinosaurus Nat Geo.jpg

An illustration of Spinosaurus hunting fish in Africa

Jeet Laha (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not free, so cannot be used. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction: word choice

In the "In popular culture" section, the first paragraph ends with "climatic fight near the end of the film". That should be a "climactic fight". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrdepew (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The sail

Reading the description of the sail made me think of another thing in the water with one a submarine. It's sail is for stability while submerged. has anyone considered that spinosaurus might have served the had purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.243.173 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Crocs are very 'stable' underwater - even the 50-foot Mesozoic species - without any sail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.238 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The snout

Please consider referencing: Romain Vullo, Ronan Allain, and Lionel Cavin. Convergent evolution of jaws between spinosaurid dinosaurs and pike conger eels. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 61 (4), 2016: 825-828 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4202/app.00284.2016

Reference needs editing

Please edit reference 43 (for it to be scientifically correct): Gimsa, J., Sleigh, R., Gimsa, U., (2015). "The riddle of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus’ dorsal sail". Geological Magazine. 153 (3) 544-547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756815000801 PaleoSalad (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The posture section

The following sentence in the posture section; "The hypothesis that Spinosaurus had a typical quadrupedal gait has fallen out of favor, though spinosaurids may have crouched in a quadrupedal posture." is misleading, as reference 42 is not relevant to the subject matter. The work referenced is a 1997 study of Baryonyx walkeri, and the page referenced, while discussing the hind limb bone morphology of Baryonyx, makes no mention to Spinosaurus nor its potential for quadrupedalism. Reference 42 therefore is not relevant to the information it is used to cite, especially since the aforementioned sentence argues against the 2014 re-assessment of Spinosaurus's gait. Luke Beall (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The text directly above gives enough context to provide a reason for the inclusion of that information. The idea has been around since before Baryonyx was named, and the reference is directly for the information about Baryonyx, so I've added more references there. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the new sources, but I still fail to see how the opinions of one scientist, Scott Hartman, is enough evidence to prove that the quadrupedal hypothesis has fallen out of favor? I was under the impression it was an ongoing debate. Luke Beall (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Spinosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3KCCC7LS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927124847/http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/losos/mahler/publications/Mahler_2005.pdf to http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/losos/mahler/publications/Mahler_2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721013005/http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/media/navep1/abstracts.pdf to http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/media/navep1/abstracts.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060301_big_carnivores.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219195023/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Megalosauroidea.htm to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Megalosauroidea.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox Image

The Japan Expo mount depicted in the taxobox image could be better. A image of the National Geographic museum Spinosaurus mount, I think, could be better than this one. Unless there's some requirement of taxobox images saying that the image has to only include a Spinosaurus mount, and nothing else, a photo of the National Geographic mount of Spinosaurus hunting the sawfish might help readers understand Spinosaurus more. Of course, most of the images of the National Geographic mount we have on Wikimedia right now are mostly focused on the head, but if we find a better angled photo, it might be more reasonable to replace the Japan Expo image. BleachedRice (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The Japan photo is better than what else we have, since it shows the entire skeleton, and is not foreshortened. We can't use the sawfish, since it is a model in the US, which does not have freedom of panorama, and is therefore not compatible with Wikimedia Commons copyright requirements. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

70MYA??????????

Spinosaurus might have lived 70 mya I am not sure because fossils works has been wrong before so. It's not that far off but i am not sure

http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=38598

And it would literally kill you to try and look for a more reliable source than fossilworks?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I dug through the data for the specific papers cited for the 70 Ma date, which are:

• C. S. Churcher and D. A. Russell. 1992. Terrestrial vertebrates from Campanians strata in Wadi el-Gedid (Kharga and Dakleh Oases), western desert of Egypt. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12(3, suppl.):23A

• C. S. Churcher and G. De Iuliis. 2001. A new species of Protopterus and a revision of Ceratodus humei (Dipnoi: Ceratodontiformes) from the Late Cretaceous Mut Formation of eastern Dakhleh Oasis, Western Desert of Egypt. Palaeontology 44(2):305-323

Not exactly at the cutting edge of spinosaur research. But apparently at least as of this 2011 paper the rock unit the Spinosaurus remains were reported from is still dated to the Campanian. As to whether or not Spino itself was there, page 307 uses both the open "cf." notation and has an unqualified assertion of its presence. So it looks surprisingly good. If we don't have any other sources saying this is part of Spinosaurus's age range then we probably shouldn't include it in the range above the image box, but it might be worth noting as a possibility in the article text. Abyssal (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Turonian timespan

The International Commission on Stratigraphy gives 93.9 to 89.8Mya as dates for the Turonian stage, meaning the 93Mya figure for last extant Spinosaurus would lie in the lower, not upper, rock layers of this stage’s boundary type sediments located near Pueblo, Colorado. (See link below.)

Of course our Spino’s from North Africa, how high in its own fossiliferous columns I have no idea; variable deposition rates could lay nearly all this column during its first million years, putting Spinosaurus near the top despite its early Turonian extinction. However, as far as I know, the adjectives early, middle and late always refer to the type strata for a geological timespan regardless of local conditions. (Lower, middle and upper are synonymous adjectives, and the formal ones ICS uses.) Hence Spinosaurus extends from the lower Albian to lower Turonian.

The small technical matter warrants a change in the article to achieve greater accuracy. Explanation would take it off-topic, and should be omitted. I enjoyed the article enough to print a copy as I’d never realized a “sailback” dinosaur had ever lived, only the Permian critters Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus, neither of them dinosaurs, coming to mind with tall dorsal spines. The article’s major contributors and Wikipedia community can decide on an edit after further research.

Turonian stratotype & global boundary ICS http://www.stratigraphy.org/gssp/turonian.pdf

Thanks. Jessegalebaker (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Jessegalebaker (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

New skeletal image

File:Spinosaurus skeletal reconstruction.png

I managed to find a free version of the Ibrahim et al. skeletal on PLOS One, I think this could be useful in the article since it more clearly shows the details of the 2014 reconstruction. Thoughts on where it could be placed if possible? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it is really free, though, the article only states it is form that Nature paper, but it has a non-free license... FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

PLOS One states that all the content it publishes is released under a CCA 4.0 license[34], but is this nullified if it uses content from non-free papers? The Oxalaia taxobox image for example is from PLOS One, but it uses fossil images from the Kellner et al. paper, which is not free; that seems to be the case with this skeletal image. Can someone explain to me how this works? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If they have permission form the authors of the other papers, it should fine. Problem is whether they have only gotten permission to use them rather than re-licence them, it is impossible to know form the captions there alone... So not sure what could be done, other than ask the authors... FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• So Scott Hartman just threw another grenade into the mix, with yet another look for Spinosaurus[35]. Be sure to read his series! FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

He has some good takes. At the same time, though, I don't think any of our reconstructions are definitely wrong...

That being said, part I of the series has some implications for megalosaurid skull anatomy. We should perhaps revisit our reconstructions of that bunch. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

We actually have a few image that anticipated that, such as [36][37][38], but yeah, our Megalosaurus and Torvosaurus images probably aren't entirely accurate... Or looking again, eve those articles seem to have skeletals and restorations with low, long snouts? FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• And here's yet another (published) take on the sail[39], seems we don't~necessarily have to follow the 2014 version... FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out the outdated "modern" quadrupedal theory in the Posture section?

Ever since the 2014 reconstruction of Spinosaurus, there have been posts pf theories and claims on the internet on websites that say that the creature was a quadrupedal because the of it looking front heavy, and may have walked on its knuckles like a great ape (Today, the 2018 study mentioned and sourced in the article may disprove this theory). Because of this, should the Posture section have something mentioning any of those mentioned above "recent" research posts that say what the locomotive and posture of Spinosaurus in some studies were like since the 2014 study, even though there is a lot on the quadrupedal theory already, but from posts that are decades old?Gabeluna27 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The theory has as yet been all but absent from modern literature; babble on internet forums is not valid as a source for inclusion. Everything there is to say based on published papers is there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as I remember, quadrupedality is suggested in the 2014 description. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Their suggestion is already mentioned in the article; the majority of the posture section already is about post-2014. There's nothing further to say since that 2014 paper is the only published mention and it was a single off-comment with no elaboration or evidence. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Spine depiction description?

There have been different depictions of whet the neural spines of Spinosaurus looked like, through out the years. There was the design with the spines going in a smooth dome-like shape from neck to tail; then there's the design of the neural spines that are almost "M" shaped, completed with the dip around the center of the spines, which has gained popular attention shortly after the 2014 description of Spinosaurus. Should something similar to this be described on the "Neural spines" section of the article on how such views of the spine depictions, skeletal wise, changed over time if such reliable sources for this exist out there? Gabeluna27 (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the various shapes are based on how individual vertebrae are placed in the series, so there should be something to write about that. Someone just has to do it... FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is proper data and reasoning to discuss about it, but almost all of it has been discussed through blog posts and informally online rather than in the literature proper, so sources might be a problem. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Japan

Spinosaurus teeth, etc., have been found in Japan recently. The RS's are out there for addition. 50.111.3.59 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Spinosaur as in the family, not Spinosaurus the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903300001.html <-- and I saw another article on the DML stating Spinosaurus remains in Japan. Obviously, this would be an Asian species ... 50.111.3.59 (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, science reporters invariably get genus names mixed up with common versions of family names, and add the language barrier to the mix. Spinosaur teeth are not identifiable to species or even genus, so all we can say is that it's a spinosaurid, until more than teeth are found. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The quote is from the paleontologist - and as I said, there was another story on the DML about it - which stated that Spinosaurus spanned farther apart than was previously suspected. And, of course, it's not the same species as in Africa. But the genus was specifically stated in both stories.50.111.3.59 (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, this isn't published science, and you can be sure once a paper is out, it won't assign it to a specific genus. Spinosaur teeth are not diagnostic to genus, which is why tooth-based taxa like Suchosaurus have caused quite some headaches. Furthermore, there is currently no agreement as to what material belongs to either Spinosaurus or Sigilmassasaurus, which shows we can't use teeth to identify either. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Spinosaurus tail paddle

Notifying everyone that a new paper has just come out by Ibrahim et al. describing almost complete remains from the tail of Spinosaurus, revealing the presence of a giant paddle that would've been the animal's main method of aquatic locomotion. This is definitely some exciting news, but in addition, means that all our restorations (at least those that show the tail) just became outdated. I'll do my best to update the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, just keeps on getting weirder! And how I hate paywalls... I wonder whether this also makes their older skeletal reconstructions inaccurate, or if it was already taken into account? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe so, the tail is substantially deeper in this new reconstruction, so unfortunately the skeletals are also inaccurate (including the one we recently added from the Kem Kem monograph). It could be edited and updated however using the recon from the new paper as a reference, would just take some time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a new skeletal[40], and what the heck, looks like a salamander... And what's up with the hands?! FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, the supplemental videos are free! Here's a cool one:[41] And free supplemental PDF:[42] FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)] FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is fascinating news. might wanna try my hand at some palaeoart... DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, slightly off-topic from this particular genus. But I recently received confirmation from Ronan Allain by email that Ichthyovenator also had a tail fin, which is the main reason I'm creating a new restoration and skeletal. In fact, you may have noticed it in that skeletal next to the Paris fossil casts you notified me about[43] (bottom left corner). Crazy coincidence that this paper came out at the same time I was doing that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What, the info was hiding in plain sight hehe... Seeing what's known of Suchomimus and Baryonyx[44], could be true for them too? FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Though nothing can be said for sure at the moment, I would think probably not, since they were less derived and didn't show as much specialization for semiaquatic life. So probably safe on that front as far as article images go. However, Oxalaia is the closest relative of Spinosaurus we know of besides the disputed Sigilmassasaurus. So though its restoration is very speculative, it could probably also use a tail fluke given how much its already based on Spinosaurus, and the fact that earlier relatives (Ichthyovenator) had them. Will add that to my to-do list. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe time to add all the images we might be able to save to the dino review page so we can evaluate them? Maybe an addendum to the section you already started. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should use a different photo for the infobox with less emphasis on the tail? Here are some contenders... I'd vote file:Spinosaurus swimming.jpg or one of its derivatives (the white one has a bit too pixelated contours, could be smoothed out, Mariomassone?). FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• 
  Current
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

"Demonstrated non-chimera"

The "Specimens" section includes this line about FSAC-KK 11888: "However, it has been demonstrated by multiple paleontologists that the specimen is not a chimaera, and is indeed a specimen of Spinosaurus that suggests that the animal had much smaller hind limbs than previously thought."

It gives three citations to back this up - however, two of these are from the same blog, and the other ("Spinosaurus Surprise") contains nothing at all to support this particular sentence (except maybe the "is... a specimen of Spinosaurus" part, though the blog post even questions whether the Spinosaurus neotype and holotype are conspecific). "Episodio IV" at least touches on the "smaller hind limbs" clause, but is not relevant to the "demonstrated... not a chimaera" clause, which I would consider the more citation-worthy part of the sentence. Finally, "Episodio V" favours Spinosaurus and Sigilmassasaurus being equivalent - but the sentence is making a very different claim, that FSAC-KK 11888 itself (all of which was assigned to Spinosaurus) has been demonstrated non-chimeric by multiple paleontologists, and thus "Episodio V" is completely irrelevant here too.

While I'm happy that FSAC-KK 11888 probably isn't a chimera, stating that this has been outright "demonstrated by multiple paleontologists" is a rather strong claim, and should either be given proper, relevant citations or removed from the article. --120.151.147.147 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Anything controversial sourced to blogs can be scrapped. But I believe the chimaera claim has also been published properly (Sereno and co have published reputations of it), maybe one of the Sigilmassasaurus papers. In any case, it certainly shouldn't be stated as fact. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Under 'In Popular culture' replace Tyranosaurus Rex with 'the Velociraptors as the film's main antagonist' Lisztomania2017 (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? Spinosaurus literally replaced Tyrannosaurus in the Jurassic Park logo. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The Spinosaurus is the main antagonist in Jurassic Park III. SK2242 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discovery of Paddle Tail

Hi. As someone interested in the field of Paleontology and the Spinosaurus, I am naturally intrigued in the development of the new discovery of the Spinosaurus' paddle tail. Upon reviewing the Spinosaurus Wikipedia page, I decided to add more info regarding the important discovery because I had not seen much about the discovery in the page at all. The text I added, which has since been undone, was "Discoveries of a paddle-like tail in Morocco, on the Kem Kem beds outside Erfoud, by Nizar Ibrahim and colleagues, put to rest doubts that the Spinosaurus swam, and proves that it did, in fact spend significant time in the water." I cited a National Geographic article from late April, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/first-spinosaurus-tail-found-confirms-dinosaur-was-swimming/, as the source. Please consider adding this, or something like it that expands on the discovery, back into the article as it would be very beneficial to add more information and details on such a monumental discovery that is imperative to the understanding of the species. Thank you. SBLII (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)SBLII comment added by SBLII (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Merger Proposal from talk of S.Brevicolius

The below translcusion basically summarizes what I want to ask.PNSMurthy (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC) As stated elsewhere, this is premature and controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Second merger proposal Isn't S.Brevicolius synonymous with S.Aegypticus? I'm pretty sure they are of the same taxa. If I am wrong, please remove the sign from both taxons, but if I am write, please inform me, and I will merge the pages, or, merge the page yourself. Please get this clarified

- transclusion

Spinosaurus is 41-59 ft long Silgimassasaurus is 40 ft long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1320:459E:C55F:DAC6:F038:230A (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

something wonky here ...

' Spinosaurus is the largest of all known carnivorous animals, nearly as large as or even larger than other theropods such as Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. ' - the lede needs to be corrected - either it IS the largest, and therefore larger than the land carnivores listed, or there is ambiguity. 50.111.44.55 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, surely the claim that "Spinosaurus is the largest of all known carnivorous animals" is incorrect regardless? Aren't blue whales carnivorous? Or is there a distinction I'm missing? 11:50 GMT, 13 August 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

In the 'Aquatic habits' section, the line "Studies of the tail, thanks to specimens recovered and analyzed by Ibrahim, Pierce, Lauder, and Sereno and colleagues in 2018 indicate that..." needs to be rewritten to "Studies of the tail, thanks to specimens recovered by Ibrahim's team in 2018 then analyzed by Ibrahim, Pierce, Lauder and colleagues indicate that..." because Sereno was not involved in the 2018 expedition or the resulting Ibrahim et al. 2020 paper about the tail. Slbaumgart (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The authors listed in the Ibrahim et al. 2020 publication are: Nizar Ibrahim, Simone Maganuco, Cristiano Dal Sasso, Matteo Fabbri, Marco Auditore, Gabriele Bindellini, David M. Martill, Samir Zouhri, Diego A. Mattarelli, David M. Unwin, Jasmina Wiemann, Davide Bonadonna, Ayoub Amane, Juliana Jakubczak, Ulrich Joger, George V. Lauder & Stephanie E. Pierce. Sereno is not listed, therefore he did not contribute to this research. In the Acknowledgements section of this same paper (bottom of the page), he is not listed as providing feedback on the manuscript or any other contribution:

Acknowledgements:
We thank M. Azroal, H. Azroal, M. Fouadassi and all other expedition members from the 2015, 2018 and 2019 seasons for assistance in the field; A. A. Ha for help in preparing the fossils; the Moroccan Ministry of Mines, Energy and Sustainable Development for providing fieldwork permits; F. Manucci for helpful discussions about the flesh reconstruction of Spinosaurus; and P. Fahn-Lai for coding assistance. This research was supported by a National Geographic Society grant to N.I. (CP-143R-170), a National Geographic Emerging Explorer Grant to N.I., contributions from the Board of Advisors of the University of Detroit Mercy to N.I., a Jurassic Foundation grant to M.F., a Paleontological Society grant to M.F., an Explorers Club grant to M.F., as well as financial support from the Lokschuppen Rosenheim, the Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano, J. Pfauntsch and A. Lania.

Slbaumgart (talk) 016:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References