Spinosaurus' hindlimbs found?

Adam Khor

There's talk on the web about new Spinosaurus remains found, including, for the first time, the hindlimbs!
According to some, this awesome Spinosaurus model (from the "Dinossauri in carne e ossa" exposition from earlier this year in Italy) is actually based on those new remains.





If true, it would add to the idea that Spinosaurus was semi-aquatic, although... the model looks a little bit TOO short legged IMO... with the body being that long, wouldn´t it have trouble to walk? :eek:

Either way the model is a true work of art.

Oh, and just because, here's an also awesome-looking Dilophosaurus from the same expo (note that some scientists have suggested that Spinosaurs may be late surviving coelophysoids, descended from Dilophosaurus-like animals, but not many give much credit to this).

Oh and, I almost forgot... look at the HUMONGOUS teeth in this Spinosaurus upper jaw! (Its upside down)

Kess73

That Spinosaurus model is just stunning.

Rubecula

That's awsome Adam, finding the hind limbs. Thanks for the pictures.

(Look at those teeth, you wouldn't want a love bite off one of those would you?)

Galvasean

So Spinosaurus appears to be a bit of a short arse....
Perhaps those quadrupedal Baryonyx restorations weren't too wide of the mark after all!



It really gives a lot of credit to the swimmer theory. Looks like it would have spent more time in water than on land. In fact, looks like it would have been very awkward on land. Makes you wonder would they have become fully aquatic were it not for the K-T Event.

Galvasean

Meant to ask, is there much more to the coelophysoid -> spinosaur theory other than the perculiar notch in the upper jaw that they both share?

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Meant to ask, is there much more to the coelophysoid -> spinosaur theory other than the perculiar notch in the upper jaw that they both share?

Honestly, I don´t know... I have a friend though who still defends the coelophysoid-spinosaur link. He thinks they have much more in common than megalosaurs-spinosaurs. I'll ask him for details next time I talk to him.

Would Spinosaurs have become fully aquatic? Maybe... but Spinosaurus is, I think, the youngest known spinosaur, and there are no other genera confirmed from a later time. Most paleontologists believe they went extinct long before the K-T event.
I wouldn´t be surprised if we found a late Cretaceous spinosaur eventually, though. After all, we have found Cretaceous heterodontosaurs, dicynodonts and labyrynthodonts...

Galvasean

In terms of dinosaurs absence if evidence rarely proves to be absence of existence..
Of course i never thought the megalosaur -> spinosaur link was particularly well thought out. It always struck me as being along the lines of, "Well, the megalosaurs never really went anywhere, then the spinosaurs showed up and we definitely know they aren't tyrannosaurs..." ie: to me it just seemed a case of drawing a line between the groups for no reason other than completionists' sake.
I suppose if you look at Baryonyx and Suchomimus in relation to Spinosaurus the latter appears to be becoming more and more specialized in terms of fish hunting in terms of teeth. However the new findings of short legs increases this specialty exponentially! Surely now the elaborate spines seem to be an adaptation for swimming?

Think it might be high time to tear up the book on Spinosaurus.

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

In terms of dinosaurs absence if evidence rarely proves to be absence of existence..
Of course i never thought the megalosaur -> spinosaur link was particularly well thought out. It always struck me as being along the lines of, "Well, the megalosaurs never really went anywhere, then the spinosaurs showed up and we definitely know they aren't tyrannosaurs..." ie: to me it just seemed a case of drawing a line between the groups for no reason other than completionists' sake.
I suppose if you look at Baryonyx and Suchomimus in relation to Spinosaurus the latter appears to be becoming more and more specialized in terms of fish hunting in terms of teeth. However the new findings of short legs increases this specialty exponentially! Surely now the elaborate spines seem to be an adaptation for swimming?

Think it might be high time to tear up the book on Spinosaurus.

Well, I insist that the sail may have acted as a giant dorsal fin to stabilize the animal in the water. Among other uses, of course

Galvasean

And just look at those teeth. The big ones at the front look just like tusks.
what an amazing beats!

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

And just look at those teeth. The big ones at the front look just like tusks.
what an amazing beats!

Yes And it seems that the jaw was built for power, despite what spino-haters say. It actually had a powerful bite, designed to sink those huge "fangs" deep into its prey.

Galvasean

Perhaps a polar bear esque beluga whale hunting strategy of sorts... isn't speculation fun?

Rubecula

Convergent evolution perhaps?

Allosaur

Adam Khor wrote: »

Well, I insist that the sail may have acted as a giant dorsal fin to stabilize the animal in the water. Among other uses, of course

I still have problems with that theory. I can't get over the fact that it was too large and too rigid (being direct extensions of the vertebrae). In any kind of cross current the animal would have went belly up and spinning. Made worse if the wind was in one direction and the current in another.

With a fish like a Sailfish, the fin is retractable which cuts down on surface area to prevent this AFIK. With sharks even large ones, the surface area of the fin compared to the surface area of the body is tiny, so even with a large shark this doesn't happen.

Galvasean

To me the more powerful than expected bite hints that Spinosaurus was attacking more than just fish. Maybe it was partial to dining on heavily armoured crocodiles and turtles. In the case of teh former, Spino looks like it became what it ate! :pac:

Adam Khor

Allosaur wrote: »

I still have problems with that theory. I can't get over the fact that it was too large and too rigid (being direct extensions of the vertebrae). In any kind of cross current the animal would have went belly up and spinning. Made worse if the wind was in one direction and the current in another.

With a fish like a Sailfish, the fin is retractable which cuts down on surface area to prevent this AFIK. With sharks even large ones, the surface area of the fin compared to the surface area of the body is tiny, so even with a large shark this doesn't happen.

You have to consider, however, that it was a massive beast, probably weighing 9-12 tons. Currents and wind are not going to have it belly up and spinning so easily.
It's just an idea, though- and there's conflicting information about how aquatic Spino was. The short legs would add up to the idea that it spend a lot of time in water, yet other recent studies suggested that Spinosaurus was the least aquatic of spinosaurs (as compared to say, Baryonyx and Suchomimus).
Because Suchomimus also has a ridge on its back, although much smaller, I had imagined that perhaps Spinosaurus was the closest spinosaurs had gotten to becoming truly aquatic, hence the "dorsal fin". Now, I am not so sure.
Can´t wait for the new remains to be described!

Galvasean wrote: »

To me the more powerful than expected bite hints that Spinosaurus was attacking more than just fish. Maybe it was partial to dining on heavily armoured crocodiles and turtles. In the case of teh former, Spino looks like it became what it ate! :pac:

When you're as big as Spinosaurus you can eat anything you want I think we're back to the idea of a two-legged saltwater croc (a GIGANTIC one), more than simply a "giant heron".

Galvasean

To be fair, if a heron was gigantic it would be a creature ti be feared by all...
But yeah, based on what these new remains seem to indicate it looks more crocodile like alright.