Talk:Spinosaurus/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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)--

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)

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)

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[4] don't really pronate their hand when they walk.[5] 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[6][7] mount do for the taxobox? Like this.[8] 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. [9] - 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:[10] 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)

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: [11] 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)

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)

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:[12] And Mark Witton with all of it:[13] 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:[14] 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)

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 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

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)

"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)

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[15], 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:[16] And free supplemental PDF:[17] 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[18] (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[19], 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
    Current

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[20], 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[21]. 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 [22][23][24], 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[25], seems we don't~necessarily have to follow the 2014 version... FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2021 (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)

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.[1]

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

  1. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2190-3?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20200507&utm_source=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20200507&sap-outbound-id=C9E7143E9EA87C2CE051AF5C2D85054A4556865E

"highly semi-aquatic"

Is it just me, or is the phrase used in the summary, "highly semi-aquatic", nonsensical? "Highly aquatic" could make sense, or "semi-aquatic", but "highly semi-aquatic" seems self-contradictory. Also, such a phrase is not used anywhere in the article body, and in fact includes reference to sources saying the subject was not even semi-aquatic, let alone "highly". Can we just remove the word "highly" here? I'd have done it myself except for the protection status of the article. 108.51.137.137 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

In the 2nd paragraph, there is an annotation for “who?” when stated that certain authors have suggested a hump-like appearance, yet if you follow the link to “sail-like” that is right before that line, it brings you towards the hump-like appearances as well. Maybe have that whole line about sail-like vs hump-like all hyperlinked to the correct article. Mamahistorian826 (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

FSAC-KK 11888

FSAC-KK 11888 might not be Spinosaurus. https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/the-road-to-spinosaurus-iii-of-chimeras-and-leg-proportions11262020 I am a Green Bee (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Doubts have been made in an actual scientific article[26], and agreed, it should be stated more clearly in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Spinosaurus is not exactly 14 metres long and 8.2 short tons

The wiki should say 14-17 metres long and 8.2-11 short tons , this explains more on the size of the animal as though I agree most average spinosaurus specimens wouldn't reach more than 15 metres but some exceptions are always there in the animal kingdom in which some specimens grow quite large (compared to average) while some specimens grow quite small (compared to average) so with all honour I request Wikipedia to correct the size written 2401:4900:1740:A8D8:2821:55FF:FEAC:AFD4 (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought maroccanus was a subspecies?

Title 155.4.124.213 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New Photo

The Field Museum recently installed a cast of FSAC-KK-11888. It includes the new material (tail paddle) and is displayed in a swimming pose. I wanted to see what others thought before incorporating in the article since questions have been raised about the "semi-aquatic" behavior and the fact that this specimen may not be Spinosaurus.

  • New Spinosaurus Mount
    New Spinosaurus Mount
3blindMies (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Looks better than our current taxobox photo, which is also in swimming posture. It's not like it couldn't swim at all even if it wasn't semi-aquatic, so there's nothing inaccurate about it. Might you have a version with background as well? Can also be useful. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's a cropped version with the background.
    • 3blindMies (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    Nice, I see it's of course more busy with the background. Either way, these are an improvement, so I think the infobox image should be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
    New images look nice, though perhaps the image without background could be cropped more tightly, as currently there's lots of unused space above and below? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, thought the same. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

    Potential typo in the first paragraph

    sentence says "longest known" and then makes a comparison to largeness immediately after. Should this read "largest known" or is the phrasing just confusing 198.20.49.98 (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spinosaurus/Archive_4&oldid=1214682520"