New Spinosaur Rivals Giant Meat Eaters.

Galvasean

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

Kess73

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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...

Rubecula

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

Adam Khor

No prob

Galvasean

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

Galvasean

Adam Khor wrote: »

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"?

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

Galvasean

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

Rubecula

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

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. :>

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.

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.

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.

CrazyRabbit

Kess73 wrote: »

The PC term used instead of saying religious fanatics or idiots.

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.



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.

Rubecula

Well I don't actually read the bible, not even sure I own one. However didn't it say in genesis that Cain went to the land of Nod and took a wife?

So what species would this wife be?

Sorry badly made point really.:o


Mutation is a form of evolution that is certain, but there are so many factors to cause mutations. Environmental pressures, survival pressures, and even radiation has an effect.

Note: Nearly all Mutations do not produce an evolutionary step forward, mostly they are dead ends and often die out instantly or within a generation. It is just very occassionally that a mutation becomes a good survival trait and continues. Incest within a species may or may not have some effect on this, especially as Incestual relationships seem to be frowned on by nature itself.

Alvin T. Grey

Am I the only one who has trouble visualizing Spinosaurus working the way it is usually depicted?

The thing that I don't understand is his sail.....
It's rigid.

http://images.wikia.com/fossil/images/0/04/Spinosaurus_Monograph.png

Look, they are extensions of the backbone. For the sail to move, the whole back bone needs to move. Which means that it actually woud work like a sail in water. If Spino moved at a right angle to the current, he gets swept away.

Secondly they are usually pictured on two legs...Every other dino that I know of and has a sail or spines are quadrupeds or mostly quadrupeds.

What gives?

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Am I the only one who has trouble visualizing Spinosaurus working the way it is usually depicted?

The thing that I don't understand is his sail.....
It's rigid.

http://images.wikia.com/fossil/images/0/04/Spinosaurus_Monograph.png

Look, they are extensions of the backbone. For the sail to move, the whole back bone needs to move. Which means that it actually woud work like a sail in water. If Spino moved at a right angle to the current, he gets swept away.

Secondly they are usually pictured on two legs...Every other dino that I know of and has a sail or spines are quadrupeds or mostly quadrupeds.

What gives?

The sail doesn´t HAVE to move; if it was, like I suggested, a dorsal fin like that of a shark, it would have to be rigid to provide stability to the beast when underwater.
As for the two legged part, it's not really like that, there are other dinosaurs with high spines are two legged (Acrocanthosaurus, Suchomimus, Concavenator/Becklespinax etc). Dimetrodon was not a dinosaur, as you know.

Alvin T. Grey

Adam Khor wrote: »

The sail doesn´t HAVE to move; if it was, like I suggested, a dorsal fin like that of a shark, it would have to be rigid to provide stability to the beast when underwater.

But the dorsal fin of a shark is a very small surface area as compared to the body, looks like spino (as depicted) has something massive going on. It looks in some cases to ge equal to the aspect of the body it's supposed to stabelize.

As for the two legged part, it's not really like that, there are other dinosaurs with high spines are two legged (Acrocanthosaurus, Suchomimus, Concavenator/Becklespinax etc). Dimetrodon was not a dinosaur, as you know.

I'm new to this, so I only recognize two of those. I'm talking about dinos like Stegosaurus (sp?) I know they weren't sails, but the point stands. or Dinos like Ouranosaurus. And because its rigid I'd imagine that the act of getting from all fours to two would be difficult due to resistance.....

Kess73

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Am I the only one who has trouble visualizing Spinosaurus working the way it is usually depicted?

The thing that I don't understand is his sail.....
It's rigid.

http://images.wikia.com/fossil/images/0/04/Spinosaurus_Monograph.png

Look, they are extensions of the backbone. For the sail to move, the whole back bone needs to move. Which means that it actually woud work like a sail in water. If Spino moved at a right angle to the current, he gets swept away.

Secondly they are usually pictured on two legs...Every other dino that I know of and has a sail or spines are quadrupeds or mostly quadrupeds.

What gives?

The sail does not bother me if the animal was totally submerged. I look at it as potentially acting like how the Keel does on the hull of a sailboat, just upside down.

What bugs me about the picture is that if they want to discuss the idea of a Spino being a capable underwater hunter rather than it simply being a large carnivore that can swim in a somewhat clumsy manner like a modern bear, then it should have obvious webbed feet in the depiction.

It's legs should be webbed similar to how they are with the hind legs of a modern crocodile imho, just like on this Nile crocodile.

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

But the dorsal fin of a shark is a very small surface area as compared to the body, looks like spino (as depicted) has something massive going on. It looks in some cases to ge equal to the aspect of the body it's supposed to stabelize.

True, but keep in mind that Spinosaurus is a giant; it would need a much larger "dorsal fin".
The truth is, though, we don´t really know how large the sail was, because no complete Spinosaurus skeleton or sail has ever been found.

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

I'm new to this, so I only recognize two of those. I'm talking about dinos like Stegosaurus (sp?) I know they weren't sails, but the point stands. or Dinos like Ouranosaurus. And because its rigid I'd imagine that the act of getting from all fours to two would be difficult due to resistance.....

But you really can´t compare Stegosaurus with Spinosaurus; as you said, Spino's spines were part of the vertebrae; Stegosaurus plates, if I'm not mistaken, were only embedded on the skin. They were actually osteoderms like those of modern day crocodiles, only highly modified. They probably didn´t hinder the animal's movements a lot.
As for Ouranosaurus, its spines have a different shape than those of Spinosaurus and are more likely to have supported a camel-like hump. Or that's the last thing I read.

I agree with you Kess; if Spinosaurus was truly a diving/swimming animal its toes may have been webbed; I don´t think there's any evidence against that.

Alvin T. Grey

Funnily enough the more I think about it the more sense it makes....
Can we agree that Spinio had a large set of spines, and that at their highest point they almost doubled the girth of the animal?

If we can agree that then follow me for a second....

If you are driving a 40ft truck and you have a 30mph headwind, you don't have a problem, but if that becomes a 30mph sidewind you do. Thats the reason they close exposed bridges to high vehicles at times.

Now I can think of two ways around that.

First allow the object to bend with the wind, or make it colapsable. - Like the sail of a tuna? Neither is true for Spino.
Or move the centre of gravity very low so that only the strongest currents have that effect. Which on land means quadruped.

Alvin T. Grey

Adam Khor wrote: »

True, but keep in mind that Spinosaurus is a giant; it would need a much larger "dorsal fin".
The truth is, though, we don´t really know how large the sail was, because no complete Spinosaurus skeleton or sail has ever been found.

I realize that, my problem is with it's depiction in popular documents. I suppose it makes it look more 'badass'. As for the size of the sail, the larger the sail as compared to the rest of the animal the worse the problem becomes.

But you really can´t compare Stegosaurus with Spinosaurus; as you said, Spino's spines were part of the vertebrae; Stegosaurus plates, if I'm not mistaken, were only embedded on the skin. They were actually osteoderms like those of modern day crocodiles, only highly modified. They probably didn´t hinder the animal's movements a lot.
As for Ouranosaurus, its spines have a different shape as those of Spinosaurus and are more likely to have supported a camel-like hump. Or that's the last thing I read.

True dat.

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Funnily enough the more I think about it the more sense it makes....
Can we agree that Spinio had a large set of spines, and that at their highest point they almost doubled the girth of the animal?

If we can agree that then follow me for a second....

If you are driving a 40ft truck and you have a 30mph headwind, you don't have a problem, but if that becomes a 30mph sidewind you do. Thats the reason they close exposed bridges to high vehicles at times.

Now I can think of two ways around that.

First allow the object to bend with the wind, or make it colapsable. - Like the sail of a tuna? Neither is true for Spino.
Or move the centre of gravity very low so that only the strongest currents have that effect. Which on land means quadruped.

Well, your not the first one to suggest a quadrupedal stance for spinosaurs, but let's keep in mind one of the animal's main traits; those huge hand claws. They were very sharp, and larger than those of other theropods implying that they were being used as important weapons, perhaps to fight, to aid when hunting or both.
A quadrupedal Spinosaurus would have to walk on a very unusual manner to keep the claws from becoming blunt; it would have to support all of its weight on the sides of the hands, like an anteater or a giant sloth, with the claws facing inwards.
This seems rather impractical IMHO; I don´t think the animal's wrists were adapted for this (although I don´t know for sure; would be interesting to find out), and it would make it a very slow animal too, which would be a disadvantage in a land shared with other giant predators like Carcharodontosaurus and Deltadromeus (both of them agile bipedal runners, particularly the latter).

The fact remains that Spinosaurus had long, strong arms when compared to other theropods, but this could make sense if it was a swimmer; the forelegs would be used actively to swim, like any quadrupedal animal today, making Spinosaurus a better swimmer than other theropods. And this fits the Spinosaurus' obvious adaptations to a water-dependant lifestyle (crocodile-like snout and conical teeth to capture fish).

Kess73

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

I realize that, my problem is with it's depiction in popular documents. I suppose it makes it look more 'badass'. As for the size of the sail, the larger the sail as compared to the rest of the animal the worse the problem becomes.




True dat.

Another thing is that the sail is assumed to be thin and tall. Who is to say that it was not thick and short? That way it could be a thick yet somewhat streamlined ridge, again acting as an inverted keel when the animal was in water.

Adam Khor

Kess73 wrote: »

Another thing is that the sail is assumed to be thin and tall. Who is to say that it was not thick and short? That way it could be a thick yet somewhat streamlined ridge, again acting as an inverted keel when the animal was in water.

I think the Spinosaurus depicted in Jurassic Park had a thick, short sail, if I remember clearly... and it was depicted as a swimmer/diver at one point.

Kess73

Adam Khor wrote: »

I think the Spinosaurus depicted in Jurassic Park had a thick, short sail, if I remember clearly... and it was depicted as a swimmer/diver at one point.

Here is the JPIII Spino.

Alvin T. Grey

Adam Khor wrote: »

Well, your not the first one to suggest a quadrupedal stance for spinosaurs, but let's keep in mind one of the animal's main traits; those huge hand claws. They were very sharp, and larger than those of other theropods implying that they were being used as important weapons, perhaps to fight, to aid when hunting or both.
A quadrupedal Spinosaurus would have to walk on a very unusual manner to keep the claws from becoming blunt; it would have to support all of its weight on the sides of the hands, like an anteater or a giant sloth, with the claws facing inwards.

I know, and its one of the weak points in my arguement. - The problem is, the rest of it makes bloody sense.

Damn YOU SPINO for being so....weird.

This seems rather impractical IMHO; I don´t think the animal's wrists were adapted for this (although I don´t know for sure; would be interesting to find out), and it would make it a very slow animal too, which would be a disadvantage in a land shared with other giant predators like Carcharodontosaurus and Deltadromeus (both of them agile bipedal runners, particularly the latter).

Reminds me of the old joke about the two cameramen and the lion...it just had to be fast enough.

The fact remains that Spinosaurus had long, strong arms when compared to other theropods, but this could make sense if it was a swimmer; the forelegs would be used actively to swim, like any quadrupedal animal today, making Spinosaurus a better swimmer than other theropods. And this fits the Spinosaurus' obvious adaptations to a water-dependant lifestyle (crocodile-like snout and conical teeth to capture fish).

That makes sense, but a theropods shape just doesn't seem to be the most hydrodynamic, and especially one shaped like this.

BTW thanks for answering the query, it's going to be fun thinking about this.

Yes.
I need a life..:D

Adam Khor

Can´t see the pic...

But here it is:




The sail is quite short for the animal's size. Much smaller than usually depicted in paleoart, but also thicker.
BTW, say what you want about Jurassic Park III but IMHO it has the best CG and animatronics of any movie I have ever seen, period. Most CG these days looks fake.
Just saying...

Alvin T. Grey

Adam Khor wrote: »

I think the Spinosaurus depicted in Jurassic Park had a thick, short sail, if I remember clearly... and it was depicted as a swimmer/diver at one point.

The problem I have with that is
http://images.wikia.com/fossil/images/0/04/Spinosaurus_Monograph.png

If I'm reading it right, the spine is bigger than the associated ribs, so hump or sail, it was comparitivly big...

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

The problem I have with that is
http://images.wikia.com/fossil/images/0/04/Spinosaurus_Monograph.png

If I'm reading it right, the spine is bigger than the associated ribs, so hump or sail, it was comparitivly big...

Ehm... that drawing is grossly outdated. Here, have a picture of the actual, original Spinosaurus remains found by Ernst Stromer in Egypt:



As you can see, there are no associated ribs. But yes, the spines are still huge.

Alvin T. Grey

See?
I told you I'd learn something new..
I suppose that one could look at other theropod dinos and from their size estemate what 6 foot of hump/sail would look like.

And we end up with one weird assed dino.

Truth be known (and not to Jack Horner it) I have a feeling that Spino was not as badass as other theropods. Certainly not my beloved T-Rex.

Hence my problem with how it's depicted........

There I confessed.

Galvasean

Adam Khor wrote: »

Ehm... that drawing is grossly outdated. Here, have a picture of the actual, original Spinosaurus remains found by Ernst Stromer in Egypt:



As you can see, there are no associated ribs. But yes, the spines are still huge.

When you see those fossils it is obvious that the JP3 Spino's spines are too small for the size of the animal depicted. They probably wanted it to look sleeker and more deadly. They also gave it curved knife-like teeth. Again, probably for aesthetic reasons.

PS: I also found the CG in JP3 quite patchy in places.

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

PS: I also found the CG in JP3 quite patchy in places.

Patchy as in...?

I don´t understand why everyone made such a fuzz about Peter Jackson's King Kong, the CG was terrible, especially the dinosaurs.

Galvasean

Adam Khor wrote: »

Patchy as in...?

Patchy as in many of the dinosaurs often did not appear to be bearing weight. they kind of float where they stand.
Plus, what the hell was with those brachiosaurs?


The animatronics are brilliant though: