# Talk:Spinosaurus

Please consider referencing:
Romain Vullo, Ronan Allain, and Lionel Cavin. Convergent evolution of jaws between spinosaurid dinosaurs and pike conger eels. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 61 (4), 2016: 825-828 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4202/app.00284.2016

14m and 7.4t is a underestimate and putting at a wider range is more logical especially when 70% of its Skelton is missing
Cats12r2! (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for your personal opinions ("I think..."). You have not yet provided a reliable source to back up your claims or justify making changes against the current academic (and page) consensus. As it stands, the page spends four paragraphs discussing the history of body size claims for Spinosaurus and why the current consensus is what it is. (See also discussion here).-SlvrHwk (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder — I agree that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and should avoid personal interpretation. My intent is not to advocate a personal view, but to ensure we fairly represent the range of scientific perspectives that exist in the literature.
While the current consensus is based on CT-derived reconstructions suggesting ~14 meters and ~7.4 tonnes (e.g., Henderson 2018), there are still credible sources that report larger estimates — up to 17–18 meters and ~20 tonnes. For example:
Paul, G.S. (2016) — The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs lists Spinosaurus aegyptiacus at up to 18 meters in length.
Ibrahim et al. (2014) describes a specimen estimated at ~15 meters and discusses semi-aquatic adaptations that imply unusual body proportions.
Britannica currently still reports a possible maximum length of up to 18 meters.
I’m not suggesting changing the main consensus view in the article, but a brief mention that some published sources report larger estimates — properly attributed and marked as contested — would provide a more balanced view and meet Wikipedia’s due weight and neutral point of view standards. Cats12r2! (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
After reading their main points, I would have to agree that we shouldn’t change it. Because some of authors of your sources basically revised their estimate.
We can’t really use Britannica either because it’s not a peer reviewed source, but it’s likely citing Dal Sasso et al. 2005 which has been criticized by other studies. ExplorerKing (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
yeah but dal sasso used the 1.75m skull and did the equation which got 18m and 10t was has been contested Cats12r2! (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
yeah but dal sasso used the 1.75m skull and did the equation which got 18m and 20t was has been contested Cats12r2! (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Main point is there’s already an entire section on it. So from what I’m seeing, we should keep the summary pretty much the same, as we’re using the more up to date weight on the animal. I would get it if many studies still have Spinosaurus at 18m and 20t, but that’s largely been dismissed with many studies nowadays. So overall, I say we keep 14m, there is no point of using a discarded estimated. ExplorerKing (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Why 14m still? nizar ibharm specimen was 10t and 15m at the time of death and that is one of the most complete Spinosaurus specimen. The 7.4t and 14m was from that CT scan back in 2022.  Cats12r2! (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Because that specimen’s size has been revised within a later study. ExplorerKing (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
which is the CT scan Cats12r2! (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok lets make consensus and resolve this dispute. We need to decided whether the estimates should be kept or changed based on reliable sources.  Cats12r2! (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
A consensus was reached long before you started editing. There is no dispute. As the page stands, it accurately reflects the current understanding of the animal based on the most recent and rigorous published research. There is an entire section dedicated to discussing and disputing the upper size estimates you are so insistent on promoting. For the sake of concision and ease of understanding, the lead does not need to explain how some outdated sources once proposed slightly larger sizes. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
No Spinosaurus size has always been a debate especially with the incomplete and partial fossils. This data in this article is not up to date but I understand that my proposal of 20t might be a overestimate. After researching I found that the most recent sizes are 14.1-16m and 7.3-8.5t One study from Paul serno and his colleagues showed that Spinosaurus could of weighed 8t+ with a higher bone density. But the specimens that surpass 16m and 8.5t are Those larger estimates apply for the more fragmentary cranial, vertebrae specimens. But according to Nizar Ibrahim the largest Spinosaurus were around 15m long and could reach over 10t. I am not insistent on promoting the larger size estimates But trying to find the most up to date data as well as speculating about the larger size estimates.  Cats12r2! (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Quite literally every Theropod’s body mass has been up for debate even ones with more complete skeletons (Especially when regarding how much soft tissue should be added or their density), so this is just a poor argument. How is it not up to date if  Ibrahim has yet to publish a paper to counter Sereno et al. 2022’s estimate?
You can’t say it’s not up to date if we haven’t gotten a response paper yet. Also Sereno et al. 2022 never once suggested Spinosaurus could surpass 8 tonnes either. Another thing is when reading their studies,  Nizar Ibrahim never once gave a mass estimate within his study like you’re claiming. ExplorerKing (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I know that quite literally every Theropod's mass has been up to debate even for the most complete specimens. I got the data from researching multiple up to date websites. Sereno only said that the specimens with more bone density could weigh 8t+, further more the decade old estimates are for the fragmentary fossils and our current fossils of the Spinosaurus are from different times and ages. This means that 18m and 20t could be possible for those specimens, as for the counter paper by Ibrahim is yet to come out. But from a I know dino source Ibrahim says that the larger ones were around 15m and 10t+ in 2021. Which might of been revised within a later study from the (CT scan 2022) Cats12r2! (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Except Ibrahim never mentioned Spinosaurus weighing over 10 tonnes in any of his papers. From what I’m seeing he just mentioned the length estimate for Spinosaurus not the mass. ExplorerKing (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Britannica is accurate source? Oh so Velociraptor lacks feather after all.[1] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I am not saying that Britannica is always accurate, but it does have some correct information.  Cats12r2! (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
The size estimate on Spinosaurus isn’t one of them. ExplorerKing (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
It is it accurate it acknowledges Spinosaurus weighing 7.4t Cats12r2! (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
We don't know what is accurate. That's just plausible. At least it's more available than the 20 ton estimate that has been criticized by several researchers in older papers. You try to act objectively, but in the end, I think you can't hide your selfish side, which tries to prioritize the information you believe. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I know that 7.4t is for the more complete specimens of Spinosaurus but the less complete  specimens could have exceed this Lets finish this debate and put it over then 7.4t.  Cats12r2! (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
So you agree that we should leave it at 7.4t then? ExplorerKing (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
No I have recently found a paper that might challenge Paul Sereno estimate and Ct scan  (2022) and its from 2024 I have listed the paper here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381260634_Spinosaurus_aegyptiacus_resolving_weighty_matters It does not give a size but it suggests that the previous sizes were underestimated like the Ct scan in Sereno (2022),The paper also reinforces the aquatic ecology of Spinosaurus which fits into our current understanding of the creature.  Cats12r2! (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The conference paper doesn’t explicitly say Sereno 2022 underestimated the Spinosaurus mass, so this is really not a good argument. ExplorerKing (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I know the paper does not mention Sereno 2022 underestimated the Spinosaurus mass, since you are so strictly following Sereno estimate on his website for Spinosaurus it says 50 feet (15.2 meters). But for the mass is still 7.5t but using the weighty matters paper we can infer that Spinosaurus was around or reached over 14.7m and 7.4t which makes 10-20t estimate more plausible and for 18m Sereno himself released a paper saying Spinosaurus reached 18m as well.
here are the links:
https://paulsereno.uchicago.edu/discoveries/spinosaurus_aegyptiacus/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381260634_Spinosaurus_aegyptiacus_resolving_weighty_matters Cats12r2! (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Released a paper? No it is unpublished abstract, which is barely usable as reference. Furthermore, it is uncertain because there is no guarantee that the content will actually be included in the paper data that is scheduled to be published. Like, previously a vandal user edited that Megalodon had average length of 16 m based on a poster on researchgate,[2] but this data is not included in published paper.[3] Because of examples like this, you should not use data that has not been published in a paper, like abstract, poster or thesis. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
You should read "conclusion" part of this paper.[4] It doesn't matter if the size estimate is based on the largest specimen, it would be better to present an estimate based on a more complete specimen: we don't know if it was the average size of the dinosaur, or if it was smaller or larger. This is true for all dinosaurs, and for dinosaurs of which only a few young individuals are known, all we can say is about the size of those individuals. Even if a larger partial specimen of Spinosaurus were available, it cannot be used unless a size estimate for the specimen itself has been inferred in the literature.
Finally, here are unofficial weight estimates that you will love.[5] Even fans who like to guess the size of dinosaurs independently of the papers don't put this at more than 10 tons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think that the page needs to mention these estimates? Do you propose that we follow the example of Dunkleosteus? Anthropophoca (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Those estimates should mentioned in this page because my point is that the higher estimates like 10+ and 15m+ are for the more fragmented fossils of Spinosaurus which were the ones found in the 2000s this is why lots of people are saying that 18m and 20t is a decade old estimate. This should not follow the example of Dunkleosteus because most of the  Methods, measurements, and specimens used were not stated for the higher estimates. I know that on the article  for Spinosaurus there is a whole part dedicated for the higher estimates but Its needed  instead of the 14m 7.4t Cats12r2! (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
But a part of what we should follow like Dunkleosteus is mention the largest estimates on top of the page saying "the largest estimates of Spinosaurus were 18m and 20t but 14m and 7.4t are more considered and accepted"  Cats12r2! (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the main issue is the Dunkleosteus size estimates has been debated far longer than Spinosaurus. Not to mention, I do think Dunkleosteus page needs some rewording regarding the size estimates. ExplorerKing (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I would like to inform that the user who started this discussion has been blocked for some other reason. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
So is it fine to unlock the page then or? ExplorerKing (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Let's wait and see, they seem to want to come back from block, I don't think that will be accepted though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
IP user for block evading is appeared in Spinosauridae, so should wait to unlock until that IP is also dealt. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Change "The most recent study suggests that S. aegyptiacus could have reached 14–18 m (46–59 ft) in length and 7.4–20 t (8.2–22.0 short tons) in body mass." to "The most recent study suggests that S. aegyptiacus could have reached 14 m (46 ft) in length and 7.4 t (8.2 short tons) in body mass."
Reason: The sentence in the lead section is about the most recent size estimate based on Sereno et al. (2022), not the older estimates, so logically, the sentence should be corrected this way or else it would not make any sense. Additionally, it has already been agreed in this very talk page that the older estimates are outdated. Junsik1223 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. This is only logical: it's the more recent study. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Even though the lower estimates are the more recent study some articles and papers still support the 18 metres in length and 20 tons proposal but it is less accepted, This is why we should put Spinosaurus at a wider size range due to the incomplete fossils and ongoing debate on its size. The estimates should be combined but note the larger estimates have been criticized. Teatimenew (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The very lead sentence in question is about the most recent study's estimate, regardless of the dispute (which is non-existent as far as WP:Paleo is concerned); hence logically speaking, that particular sentence should only include most recent study's estimate, not listing all historical estimates. I'd like to see which "recent study" supports that old estimate anyway (and I mean actual academic, peer-reviewed papers), for I haven't seen paleontologists suggesting significantly higher estimates since the discovery of the neotype. Junsik1223 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Here is the recent study/article:https://biologyinsights.com/how-heavy-was-spinosaurus-explaining-the-weight-estimates/ Teatimenew (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I said academic, peer-reviewed papers. Not websites written by anonymous authors that doesn't even fit the slightest definition of an academic paper, let alone the definition of a preprint, dissertation or abstract. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The higher estimates are not in academic, peer-reviewed papers because they are less supported so therefore less mentioned but 14 meters in length, and 7.4 tons in weight is definitely a underestimate. Teatimenew (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Unless you bring actual academic, peer-reviewed papers (or at the very least paleontologist's blogs/websites, though obviously less recommended) that actually does support your claim (which is non-existent as far as I'm concerned), you cannot include such info, especially in an article rated "good article (GA)" like this one, since there is no substantial evidence for such a claim. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
You are right there is not much actual academic, peer-reviewed papers that support 18 meters and 20 tons it is a speculative estimate but this live science blog references the estamite:https://www.livescience.com/24120-spinosaurus.html. Teatimenew (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
What's discussed in this live science blog (written in 2016 by a non-paleontolgist journalist who has a bachelor's degree in physics and master's degree in science journalism) is pretty much already discussed in the article body, and in fact, the 18 m and 20 ton estimate is specifically stated to be an estimate prior to the discovery of the neotype so it's clearly not an accurate one. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Those larger estimates come from the 2000s but they are sometimes still referenced in articles and papers this is why putting Spinosaurus at a larger size range makes sense, lets end the debate here and implement the upper size estimates but they are possibly less accurate. Teatimenew (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I can't see any reason to include an estimate prior to the discovery of the neotype, especially when you haven't provided any source material yet that supports your claim, nor you have made yourself clear why this should be included with a proper source. Junsik1223 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
That's fine if you don't want to believe that Spinosaurus is 18 meters long and 20 tons in weight. I have clearly listed my sources here: https://biologyinsights.com/how-heavy-was-spinosaurus-explaining-the-weight-estimates/ https://www.britannica.com/animal/Spinosaurus specimen nmc 41852 weight over 15 metres in length and 10 tons or more in weight. backed up by <nowiki>https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/paulsereno/i/docs/14-SCI-Spinosaurus-SM.pdf? Teatimenew (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The last source doesn't even mention any weight estimate (and the 15 m estimate from that 2014 article was specifically criticized by Sereno et al. 2022); the other two sources are not academic, peer-reviewed sources. So none of the sources actually fully support your claim. In short, you clearly didn't check your sources (and thus didn't understand what's written) in the first place, and (based on what you've written on my user talk page) the fact that you thought a reddit discussion would be considered acceptable as source is actually baffling. Junsik1223 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Teatimenew and Junsik1223. Is there any lingering dispute here? We would prefer to end the full protection as soon as possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there is anymore. At least it's clear that Teatimenew didn't check the sources properly, nor did the user provided an academic peer-reviewed source to support the claim. Junsik1223 (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Here is the source that supports the weight claim:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634%282007%2927%5B108%3AMTIBTY%5D2.0.CO%3B2 Teatimenew (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
That's literally the outdated 2007 estimate we discussed about (and addressed already in the article body). Junsik1223 (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
It looks like there is still a dispute. Of the first-thought dispute resolution options, do either of you have any preferences?
Post a neutral request for input at the two related wikiproject talk pages
Start a case at WP:DRN
Hold an RfC
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
This dispute (size of Spinosaurus) is between a single new user with WP:IDONTHEARYOU mentality against multiple other Wikipedia editors, and also took place at Spinosauridae, where it also produced multiple screen pages of discussion and edit wars. (The new account took over from another new account, user:Cats12r2!, that is now blocked, and I wonder if those might be the same person). We just need this user to stop. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it was the same person. Now blocked again. If any other new accounts come along and start making similar points, feel free to let me know. Girth Summit (blether) 14:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks GS. @Firsfron of Ronchester, maybe time to unprotect? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this in detail, but I'd have thought it could at least be lowered to ECP or semi at least. It ought to be fairly obvious at this point if a new account comes along and starts making the same arguments. Girth Summit (blether) 14:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, scratch that, I see it's already been dropped to semi. I'd be inclined to leave it like that for a bit. Girth Summit (blether) 14:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
It has been semi-protected since 2011, as it is one of those articles that attracts more vandalism than usual. I support keeping this protection. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Indef semi is fine by me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)