HOME | DD
yty2000 β Spinosaurus
#dinosaur #spinosaur #spinosaurus #theropod
Published: 2017-02-09 05:57:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 4568; Favourites: 78; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
This is my attempt at reconstructing the skeleton of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus holotype specimen. If what we know about Spinosaurus is current, then this is truly an animal with bizarre features and strange proportions. The hind legs are very short compare to the length of the torso. The order of vertebral elements is speculative. Here I have followed the suggestion of Andrea Cau in his blog, placing the tallest neural process as an anterior caudal; while placing the dorsal centra with more bulging anterior face further up in the series. I chose the slightly up-tiled posture to show that the animal didn't have to be quadrupedal as suggested by Ibrahim. Scale bar is 1 meter.Reference:
Stromer, E. (1915). "Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den WΓΌsten Γgyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharije-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 3. Das Original des Theropoden Spinosaurus aegyptiacus nov. gen., nov. spec".
dal Sasso, C.; Maganuco, S.; Buffetaut, E.; Mendez, M.A. (2005). "New information on the skull of the enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with remarks on its sizes and affinities".
Ibrahim, N.; Sereno, P. C.; Dal Sasso, C.; Maganuco, S.; Fabbri, M.; Martill, D. M.; Zouhri, S.; Myhrvold, N.; Iurino, D. A. (2014). "Semiaquatic adaptations in a giant predatory dinosaur". Science.
Ibrahim, N.; Sereno, P. C.; Dal Sasso, C.; Maganuco, S.; Fabbri, M.; Martill, D. M.; Zouhri, S.; Myhrvold, N.; Iurino, D. A. (2014). "Supplementary Materials for Semiaquatic Adaptations in a Giant Predatory Dinosaur"
Evers, S. W.; Rauhut, O. W. M.; Milner, A. C.; McFeeters, B.; Allain, R. (2015). "A reappraisal of the morphology and systematic position of the theropod dinosaur Sigilmassasaurus from the "middle" Cretaceous of Moroco
Cau, Andrea (2015). "Spinosaurus Geometricus" Theropoda
Headden, Jaime (2010). "Spinosaurus Spines - WP#3". The Bite Stuff
Related content
Comments: 32
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
What is happening here
π: 0 β©: 0
No proof of that.
The most accurate theory it was both bipedal and quadrapedal.
According to baryonix being it's relative and bary was bipedal.
I do believe Spino walked four legged the most of the time but could stand up on 2 legs while catching fishes or fighting.
π: 0 β©: 1
please this comment is almost 6 months old
π: 0 β©: 1
What does it change?
If you changed your opinion by then I agree it's irrelevant and you can ignore it.
If you hadn't then I am always up for discussion.
π: 0 β©: 1
I honestly forgot i posted this, i'm more of a trex gal anywaysΒ Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I see
It's interesting like... pet community is cat vs dog people.
Fantasy community is vampire vs werewolf fans.
And dinos are rex or spino fans
π: 0 β©: 1
Impressive detail... but WOW that is a shallow pelvic area. Going by other spinosaurids, I'd definitely make it deeper. This would also make the legs a bit longer, sort of like the Miyess version.
π: 0 β©: 2
Since holotype and neotype specimens probably had same sized sacra, I assumed that their hip and hind limbs are of same size. This is how big the hind limbs are according to Ibrahim et. al.
π: 0 β©: 0
Legs should be shorter really. They're already longer then the 2014 specimen and given theropod generally have shorter legs when they're an adult they would look even smaller (2014 specimen was only a sub adult)
π: 0 β©: 1
I think the neotype might actually be bigger than holotype. Its mid-dorsal centra are longer, which would lead to a more eleongated body, while the sacrum is about the same size as the holotype.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know about the holotype but the neotype I know isn't fully grown
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, it is still noticeably smaller than MSNM V4047.
π: 0 β©: 0
i'm not so sure if spino would have walked on all fours either, it just didn't seem built for it? Spino is just a weird creature in general, I have no idea what to think about it's sail because usually when we look at animals elongated spines follow a certain pattern (they form a hump and a smooth transition from small vertebrae to large and then back again) so I really have to wonder where the hypothosis of spino's sail looking like that came from? It's not impossible, there's certainly other super weird dinos that had strange sails (concavenator..)Β
perhaps spino sort of worked like a bi-pedal hippo? on land it would walk on two legs (which wouldn't be often, since it spent most of it's time in the water) and then in the water it was quadrupedal, using all four of it's legs to swim / walk on the floor under the waterΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
Andrea Cau proposed a pose that's a lot more erect that most other theropods. It looks like some kind of japanese movie monster, quite interesting.
π: 0 β©: 1
it is interesting yea. i'm pretty sure her reconstruction is based off of the theory that spinosaurus' neck muscles were positioned much like a pelican, because if I remember correctly there was a path in the bone structure that could have supported those muscles. But it's also controversial, because people for so long have hammered in the idea of dino's walking without their tail dragging, but who knows if spinosaurus' posture could have been different?
the way she made it is interesting, it looks like spino could have sat at the edge of the water and then snapped it's jaws inward to catch a fish with that neck posture. It seems plausible, but it's frustrating because we still don't know
π: 0 β©: 1
Andrea is a guy, that spelling isΒ the ItalianΒ equivalentΒ of Andrew.
π: 0 β©: 1
O SHIT i'm sorry, I don't know much about them except for their name my bad
π: 0 β©: 1
No worries, happenned to me before XD Oddly enough, Andrea is a girls name in my country as well
π: 0 β©: 0
hohoho, man, that is one broken ideal image of a childhood favorite, if there ever was one! 
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you! I personally think feathers make dinos cooler.
π: 0 β©: 1
oh, absolutely
π: 0 β©: 1
so refreshing to find people like you! I've always thought it was weird when only Archaeopteryx was reconstructed with feathers and no other dinosaur was. I wonder if it would have ever occurred to people even Archaeopteryx was feathered had it been preserved as bones only, without the impressions of the feathers.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, there's always that bit of resistance. I really dislike when I see people react like "enough allready!" like feathers are some kind of passing political fad, and having to explain - this isn't about some trend to ruin dinosaurs, make them less monster-bro and more birdy-ballerina, this is actual science, actual discovery - a lot of these people calm down a bit if you suggest to them that in a lot of these cases the feathers were more like fur anyway. Just change the word - feather -> fur, and they calm down
But yeah, it's weird when people take it personal, like it's an assault on people's favorite dinosaurs. That's why Spinosaurus stubby little legs make me chuckle, cus's its undeniable - and right in people's face
π: 0 β©: 1
yup! Or like how deinocheirus turned out to have a back hump! I remember this enigmatic dinosaur mentioned in my first books about dinosaurs and I'd have never imagine to see this mystery solved in my lifetime
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh yeah, that was an exciting surprise. Spinosaurus too, for that matter, that we actually got to find another definite Spinosaurus, with the original so famously bombed to smithereens during WW2.
As a kid I loved this book, Dinosaur Data Book, by David Lambert I think, I was almost obsessed by it - and it contains a lot of these strange speculations, for example depicting Therizinosaurus (and Therizinosauridae) as giant Dromaeosaurids, with hypothetical dromie-claws even (and none of the long finger-blades, iirc), Segnosauridae was considered separate, and iirc they were shown as quadrupedal semi-sauropods in that book.
I also loved David Norman's Dinosaur Encyclopedia, which had this separate little chapter of "Various Theropods", where Segnosaurus, Avimimus and Segisaurus were thrown together, while Oviraptor was put alongside Ornithomimids (probably because of their shared toothless beaks). Other groups were entirely absent, such as Abelisaurids
We're probably beginning to form a relatively full picture of the main branches in Dinosauria, but there are probably a lot of families left to discovery, especially considering the well of fragmentary fossils that we sort of just forget and move on from. Stegosaurs and Pachycephalosaurs come to mind, as families that probably can "afford" to break up into many more sub-groups, as we continue to discover more fossils
π: 0 β©: 1
yes, Spinosaurus definitely was a surprise as well, but I welcome any such new discovery with excitement!
π: 0 β©: 0