Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

New Spinosaur Rivals Giant Meat Eaters.

  • 18-03-2011 6:53pm
    #1
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭


    An entirely new (and by new I mean it was first unearthed in 1999 but has only finished being formally described now) type of spinosaurid from Brazil has been named. Oxalaia quilombensis is the tongue tying name scientists have chosen. I have no idea what that means. Sadly, my source is all in Dutch and we only have google translate to interpret, so apologies for the slightly incoherent article.
    As described, Oxalaia was somewhere between 12 and 14 meters long, weighing somewhere between 5 and 7 tonnes (first person to come in and say "So six then?" gets banned from the forum). It lived about 95 million years ago in the early-mid Cretaceous period. While I am not certain how much of the animal has actually been found, this beautiful restoration suggests that in life it would look very similar to Spinosaurus. Wikipedia says it is only known from a partial skull. Therefore, the image below is for the most part speculation. Wikipedia also says the specimen has not been formally published yet, meaning it is not yet official.

    oxalaia_quilombensis.jpg?w=460&h=640
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I find it very interesting that a giant spinosaur lived in South America at the same time as giant carcharodontosaurs such as Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus. Similarly, Spinosaurus shared Africa with carcharodontosaurus. This would suggest very similar eco-systems.


  • #3
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    So 6000kg then?

    (Sorry, couldn't resist. And blame Rubecula's post in Feedback forum for bringing me here!).

    Odd that after all these years, I still find new forums of interest to me.

    Now, regarding this Oxliaiiamm qulimnebneus Oxylai quibombonsus , ah feck it...dinosaur, I've never understood how they can get soo much information from just small pieces of bone, or in this case, a partial skull. Is it just guesswork, or do they use other similar dino's as a reference? Or am I missing something?


  • #4
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    I've never understood how they can get soo much information from just small pieces of bone, or in this case, a partial skull. Is it just guesswork, or do they use other similar dino's as a reference? Or am I missing something?

    It's guesswork based on relatives. In this case they already know of smaller spinosaurs from the region such as Irritator, which is also only known from partial remains. It would have been similar in size to Spinosaurus so (in the illustration at least) this is how it appears. Incidentally, Spinosaurus is not known from a full skeleton either (albeit a lot more than what we know of Oxalaia)! Fortunately the spinosaurs Suchomimus and Baryonyx are better known. Most of what we know of spinosaur biology comes from these two animals. Frustratingly though, they are earlier members of the family so simply adding their features to the partial skull of Oxalaia would not likely be an accurate guess. For example, Suchomimus and Baryonyx had curved and serrated teeth, unlike the later Spinosaurus which had conical and comparatively blunter teeth (believed to be an adaptation for catching large fish). Since Oxalaia was closer to Spinosaurus in terms of when it lived (and also size), the assumption is that it would have had features more like Spinosaurus than the earlier spinosaurs.


  • #5
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    . And blame Rubecula's post in Feedback forum for bringing me here!).

    Odd that after all these years, I still find new forums of interest to me.

    If I may ask, what was Rubecula's post in Feedback in relation to?
    And welcome to the forum! :)


  • #6
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Galvasean wrote: »
    If I may ask, what was Rubecula's post in Feedback in relation to?
    And welcome to the forum! :)

    Here's a link (High praise for you!):
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056205840


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    Oh Gawd I am in trouble again :pac:


    I was wondering though, 95 million years ago how close was South America to Africa? Spinosaurs in Africa must surely have been related to the ones in South America?

    At least they probably had a common ancestor surely.

    Always liked these big carnivores as it is a pet theory of mine they were NOT pack animals as has been mooted about T.Rex and as such they must have had to rely on themselves to gain food. Which would make them fearsome creatures indeed. A sort of cretaceous version of a tiger perhaps.


  • #8
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    I'm sure that they were somewhat related. Probably 2nd cousins, twice removed...on the fathers side naturally.

    As for the distance between Africa & South America...well, 95 million years ago they may have been the same landmass...unless our spiny friends were damn good swimmers. Alternatively, their ancestors would have shared the same pangaean landmass, with (present day) South America & Africa being beside each other.


  • #9
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I recall reading that after the discovery of Giganotosauus scientists were forced to rethink at what point Africa and South America seperated since Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were so similar.

    Oh great I google 'Oxalaia' looking for more info and this thread is the first result. :rolleyes:


  • #10
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Oh great I google 'Oxalaia' looking for more info and this thread is the first result. :rolleyes:


    Does that make us the World's official authority on Oxalaia?:pac:


  • #11
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Rubecula wrote: »
    Does that make us the World's official authority on Oxalaia?:pac:

    Well considering that the regulars on this forum probably know more about Oxalaia than 98% of the world population, I'd say yes.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Only 98%? I'd say it's a much higher percentage than that TBH...

    Quite a few people are saying it might be a fully grown Irritator. Although Oxalaia (I was incorrect to highlight the name in italics as it is not an official scientific name yet) is a somewhat younger animal geologically speaking. It could be an adult version of a new species of Irritator. I guess more research is needed before we can know for sure.


  • #13
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    Irritator? Quite a name, I would think being munched on by one of these monsters could more than a little irritating.

    But yes they could be the same, although I personally am not at all sure.


  • #14
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    I am just waiting for the troll Jack Horner to come out and say something about them that annoys me.:D


  • #15
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Dinosaur Tracking have covered the find:
    http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/03/oxalaia-brazils-new-giant-spinosaur/

    They mention that the skull would have been four and a half feet long. In contrast T. rex's was 5 feet, Giganotosaurus was just shy of 6 and a half fet and Spinosaurus' was estimated to be six feet long.


  • #16
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    Short skull is interesting but tells us little. The short faced bear for example was massive compared to today's bears but it's skull was proportionally shorter. Not too sure length of skull can really indicate size of the beast that way. Overall skull size would be a lot more informative.

    Oxalaia could have been a short faced Irritator? If it was it would be very ugly by our standards. No matter I don't think we know enough to be certain either way just now.


  • #17
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Rubecula wrote: »
    Not too sure length of skull can really indicate size of the beast that way. Overall skull size would be a lot more informative.

    This is true. one study into the size of giant theropods based on skull lenght indicated that Spinosaurus' total body length was just shy of 12 meters. The study had been more or less discredited as it scaled up Spinosaurus as if it would have the same head to body ratio as T. rex (they also took a very conservative estimate of Spinosaurus' skull being only 5 feet long), which is unfair as best evidence indicates that spinosaurs were generally longer and slimmer in build than tyrannosaurs. In other words, their body plan was so radically different from a more 'standard' theropod that to scale them up the same way you would with most others is simply incorrect.


  • #18
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    Being a comparitively slimmer creature than a T.Rex, was it a speedy thing? Was it more like a greyhound version of a carnivore? Or perhaps a cheetah as opposed to a leopard?

    I suspect, and I am probably totally wrong here. T.Rex could be an ambush predator and Spinosaurus could be a more active hunter? Just like a cheetah and a leopard.

    I don't know, just an idea that came to me.


  • #19
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Rubecula wrote: »
    Being a comparitively slimmer creature than a T.Rex, was it a speedy thing? Was it more like a greyhound version of a carnivore? Or perhaps a cheetah as opposed to a leopard?

    I suspect, and I am probably totally wrong here. T.Rex could be an ambush predator and Spinosaurus could be a more active hunter? Just like a cheetah and a leopard.

    I don't know, just an idea that came to me.

    I think this is unlikely; even with a comparatively slimmer build, Spinosaurus was just as heavy as T. rex, perhaps even more, and even tho we only know fragments of its skeleton, it doesn´t seem to have been a runner.
    Its jaws and teeth are very similar to those of certain crocodilians, tho, indicating a similar diet, and it seems that spinosaurs were always found near water. They have even been suggested to be semi-aquatic, with the long, strong forelimbs aiding when swimming, and even the sail on the Spinosaurus' back has been suggested to have acted as a shark's dorsal fin, stabilizing the huge animal when diving.

    spinosaurus11.jpg

    Also, keep in mind that Spinosaurus coexisted with another giant carnivore, Deltadromeus, which does seem adapted to high speed running (although, sadly, its remains are also fragmentary).
    Seems to me that Deltadromeus was the actual "cheetah" of the Spinosaurus' ecosystem.

    Just my two cents...


  • #20
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    Thank you for that Adam Khor. :) Very good information, well put.


  • #21
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    No prob :)


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    ^^ Great image that one. Never seen it before.


  • #23
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    spinosaurus11.jpg

    I was thinking about this idea/image and the way spinosaurs are often described as occupying an ecological niche similar to that of a modern bear. You don't suppose Spinosaurus was becoming "almost like a whale"?


  • #24
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    I think that's a little bit too much, but I guess it probably was better adapted to an aquatic lifestyle than say, Baryonyx or Suchomimus; after all, Spinosaurus lived somewhat later. Suchomimus and other spinosaurs have tall neural spines, maybe the "dorsal fin" of Spinosaurus evolved from this as it became more adapted to water. There is no record of spinosaurs (confirmed, at least) more recent than Spinosaurus so the current view is that the family went extinct long before the end of the Cretaceous.
    But who knows... maybe the remains of a truly marine spinosaur are just waiting to be found :D


  • #25
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Pssst...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_Like_a_Whale


  • #26
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    Land animals have evoled into marine creatures so many times that we know of. So this is perfectly feasible really.


  • #27
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Agreed. I kinda misunderstood Galvasean, what I meant was that Spinosaurus itself was not whale-like, but yes, of course it may have been evolving towards that. :>


  • #28
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I just wanted to throw out that famous Darwin quote. At the time of publication the "almost like a whale" notion recieved quite a bit of flak. So much so that he withdrew the piece from later editions of the Origin of Species. To this day evolution deniers use it as an example of 'something Darwin got wrong', which is a bit rich, considering it was a footnote at the end of a parahraph. Really little more than a musing. Not like it was supposed to make or break his theory.
    Pity Darwin was not aware of spinosaurs way back when.


  • #29
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I just wanted to throw out that famous Darwin quote. At the time of publication the "almost like a whale" notion recieved quite a bit of flak. So much so that he withdrew the piece from later editions of the Origin of Species. To this day evolution deniers use it as an example of 'something Darwin got wrong', which is a bit rich, considering it was a footnote at the end of a parahraph. Really little more than a musing. Not like it was supposed to make or break his theory.
    Pity Darwin was not aware of spinosaurs way back when.

    Evoluion deniers will use anything, but even proving Darwin's words and hypothesis wrong doesn´t disprove evolution.


  • #30
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    Evoluion deniers will use anything, but even proving Darwin's words and hypothesis wrong doesn´t disprove evolution.


    The PC term used instead of saying religious fanatics or idiots. :D;)


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Kess73 wrote: »
    The PC term used instead of saying religious fanatics or idiots. :D;)

    Well if we all came from Adam & Eve, there there was a lot of incest going on. And we know that the offspring of incestuous relationships can suffer from many physical and mental issues. I guess that explains the intelligence of creationists.

    Thank God that I'm the product of evolution instead.

    :D

    On a related note, I've wondered if the different branches of similar species occured due to mutations caused by incest that occured in the 'parent' species. E.G, did humans evolve from apes because of a random genetic mutation caused by some aspect of the ape society whereby incest was common? All it would take is a few 'good' mutations over many thousands of years.


Advertisement