HOME | DD
GetAwayTrike β Cenomanian North African spinosaurs
Published: 2016-03-27 06:17:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 9731; Favourites: 130; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Top to bottom,composite skeletal reconstruction of Sigilmassasaurus sp. (top right),
composite Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (top left),
Spinosaurus cf. aegyptiacus (MSNM V4047),
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (holotype; BSP 1912 VIII 19),
and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (suggested neotype; FSAC-KK 11888).
Scale bar is 1m.
Notes:
FSAC-KK 11888 includes at least 3 dorsal vertebrae. Ibrahim et al. (2014) reconstructed these dorsals as D6, D7, and D8. But these identification is questioned because dorsals of FSAC-KK 11888 are only (badly crashed) centrums. So I reconstructed these dorsal centrum as D9, D10, and D11. Therefore pelvic girdle and hindlimbs and other elements (which recovered only FSAC-KK 11888) are "oversized" compared to rec. of Ibrahim et al. (2014).
References
Stromer (1915, 1934)
Dal Sasso et al. (2005)
Smith et al. (2005)
Ibrahim et al. (2014)
Evers et al. (2015)
Hendrickx et al. (2016)
Related content
Comments: 32
After all these years; This is still the most accurate representation I've ever seen; so far; talented works
π: 0 β©: 0
MSNM V4047 apparently belongs to Sigilmassasaurus sp. now.
π: 0 β©: 1
No; it doesn't; read the ''lack of associated material makes it near impossible to what fossil belongs to which genus''
π: 0 β©: 0
Is the Sigilmassasaurus skull you made off that "subadult" spinosaurus. BTW is that specimen a hoax?Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Sigilmassasaurus looks so well adapted to aquatic life, even more so than Spinosaurus.
Because Sigil lacks the sail, it is more streamlined.
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree (although Sigil is more partial than Spino).
π: 0 β©: 1
Does this mean we currently do not have any fossil specimens of the Spinosaurus forearms?
π: 0 β©: 1
We have several spinosaur forearm bones (although all disarticulated) from Kem Kem beds. But we cannot consider whether to belong to either of Spinosaurus and Sigilmassasaurus.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for clarifying
π: 0 β©: 0
Please see theropod database for detailed measurements.Β theropoddatabase.com/Megalosauβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you do you think the smaller specimens could be juveniles
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes. I think holotype and suggested neotype are juvenile.
π: 0 β©: 0
Very good! But I think there should be more cartilage between the bones.
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe.Β It is very difficult to estimate the actual thickness of the cartilage...
π: 0 β©: 0
Note that in the latest salvo, Hendrickx et al. and Evers et al. agree on the separation of Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis, and the less comparable nature of cervical vertebrae, as shown here. Irregular identification of position in the vertebrae also demonstrate that the super-tight curve in the neck (as reconstructed by Russell, 1996) is incorrect. Thus, the depiction of the neck, almost certainly drawn directly from Ibrahim et al., is not correct, but shown as if it were. The same is true for the dorsal vertebrae and the depiction of the longest spine. As Hendrickx et al. indicated, there's more than one taxon in the Kem Kem, and they (by default, but not explicit comparison) assumed one of them was Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Without more substantial material, assuming they are all the same taxon is not the most tenable conclusion right now, and poorly defensible.
π: 0 β©: 0
Does your Sigilmassasaurus include the specimens of "Spinosaurus" moroccanus?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes. I draw Sigilmassasaurus followed Evers et al. and Hendrickx et al..Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Was S. moroccanus really that small though?
π: 0 β©: 1
Probably, but we know only fragmentary material of this large theropod.
π: 0 β©: 1
Interesting. Thank you!
π: 0 β©: 0
Amazing chart ! Really good work here
So the legs are not '' that '' much small
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks!
I'm looking forward to detailed description of the neotype by Ibrahim et al.. It may help to solve βproportionβ problem.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're very welcome
Even with the '' shortest '' (assumed) leg proportion; the spinosaurus definitely capable of bipedal locomotion; and from carbon scans; it's clear spinosaurus spend definitely a part of its life on land as well as water
π: 0 β©: 0
Good to see them all compared to each other. Nice to see the size of the neotype too, was wondering for quite some time how it looked like compared to adult Spinosaurus.
π: 0 β©: 1
Spinosaurus must change their proportion until growing as many other theropods, but we couο½dn't know how they change, because of fragmentary nature.
π: 0 β©: 1
So you think the Β young sub-adult neotype would have different proportion if it would've grown into an adult?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, though we cannot know HOW it change...
π: 0 β©: 0
Very informative and helpful! Are you going to upload all of your skeletals from your blog?
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe. I might post Β little more modified skeletals.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nice, look forward to seeing them
π: 0 β©: 0