Talk:Spinosaurus/Archive 3

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)