Talk:Spinosaurus/Archive 2

message: http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200701/06/57/e0064457_12314216.jpg
that's what spino's complete skull is thought to look like right?130.207.180.41 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite--the upper jaw looks too broad. This is a more precise reconstruction based on the newest, more complete skull described by dal Sasso.
It looks like a 5% difference at best in my opinion.The shape and structure are the same basically. I think its good because slight skull variations are a common occurence in individual creatures, theropods included.DinoJones 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a lovely sketch, but the snaot is too bulky. The dentry is too far forward in relation to the upperjaw. When the jaw is closed the 3 most massive teeth on the lower jaw should interlock with the narrower part of the upper jaw. If this were corrected it would further squash the the back of the lower jaw which, although not impossible as it not known, seems too squashed as it is. For me at least it's just not close anough to the published reconstruction to be used.Steveoc 86 10:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, very cool. If I remember correctly from when Rob first posted that several years ago, I think the first specimen (the "saber tooth" one) was from South America, so probably not Spinosaurus. I bet the second one is though. Neither have been published, and I'm not sure how big they are... would be interesting to compare to the dal Sasso specimen. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: complete skull?

message: According to this article the Spinosaur is the biggest predator that have ever lived on land, wich i see really wierd, the Giganatosaurus have been claimed by many scientists to the biggest therropod. I see it really wierd that the Spinosaur is the biggest off the hunter dinosaurs it and by 5 sources i read the Giganatousaurus was bigger than the spinosaurus, the t.rex was also claimed to be heavier.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.178.178 (talk) 08:18:10, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
:Those are probably old sources. Good studies on the size of Spinosaurus didn't come out until last year. Any popular books, etc. containing the new info would likely not have gotten to store shelves yet. Wikipedia works way, way faster than the popular press or the media ;) Dinoguy2 11:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: da big guy?

message: Just to let everyone know that I have added one of those invisible requests that can only be seen when you try to edit the section (cant remember the proper name at the moment) to the JP3 section, seeing as the old "the Rex should have won" debate seems to be rearing it's ugly head again. Hopefully that might help. Regards.SMegatron 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JP3 

message: I think that there's a living reptile with a smaller sail back, I do not know if also made of vertebral extensions, but perhaps it would be could be mentioned if someone knows which animal is it and it would really serve as an example of something. I think it is one lizard of galapagos, but could be from anywere really. I think it resembled a bit more the sail of sailfishes, however. --Extremophile 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you mean the Sailfin lizard; the Marine Iguana would be the Galápagos one, but he hasn't got a real sail. It could of course serve as an example of a sail, but such references are a bit confusing. I personally feel it would be best to avoid suggesting any strong connection between dinosaurs and lizards :o).--MWAK 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one paper has pointed out that the best modern comparison for a Spinosaurus sail are the tall, "sail"-like vertebrae of buffalo and other bovids .Dinoguy2 14:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  isn't there a living reptile with a sailback? 

message: Would someone please give me some god damn proof about spinosaurus being 16-20ft. And please give me proof before you revert it. I say if there isn't any proof for spinosaurus being 16-20ft, We might as well put it at 16-22ft in height or randomly puting it a unreasonable 30ft tall. My point is PLEASE PUT SOME PROOF IN THE ARTICLE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.23.65.113 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you so angry about it? Benosaurus 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The "proof" is already in the article, and has been there for some time. At the bottom, where it says "References", is dal Sasso, C., S. Maganuco, E. Buffetaut and M. A. Mendez (2006). "New information on the skull of the enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with remarks on its sizes and affinities.". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25(4): 888-896.  Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats hardly proof for the height of the animal (And might I add was it realy neccesary to block me from editing? I put down information on a page that is just as likly as the previous info and I get blocked for it. Next time how about a warning insted of being selfish and blocking me from editing.) 69.23.65.113 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of proof; in principle Wikipedia merely reflects the existing literature on a subject. Of course, if you haven't read the paper it's difficult to know what's in it and what information in the article it is supposed to support. Nevertheless, when a certain paper should be considered authoritative, the burden of proof is on you to show a certain claim isn't supported by it. Editing without meeting that requirement is seen as dysfuntional and leads to a block. Nothing personal; just how the system works.--MWAK 08:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lmao, you people always talk about sources being included in the article but now your trying to defend what you've been repeating over and over angin. Now dont lie to me, I know your just trying to make up excuses for not having a reasonable explanation. What was just stated above is a perfect example. What was stated above is not proof but a cowardly excuse. Wikipedia is not what is once was, I should know, I was once a member. 69.23.65.113 02:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's hard to tell, but I think he's talking about height, rather than length and mass. As far as I nkow, dal Sasso doesn't address the height of the animal. I'll remove it until a source can be found, though I doubt one exists.Dinoguy2 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats exactly what im talking about. Thank you much. :) 69.23.65.113 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why are you so furiously arguing about the height of Spinosaurus? Why does it matter that much to you? Benosaurus 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well why do you ask? 69.23.65.113 21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if you say, "Would someone please give me some god damn proof about Spinosaurus being 16-20ft" then I kinda get the idea you're mad about this. Why? Benosaurus 00:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see lol. I guess I am kinda made because It seemed to me that it was just randomly put in the article, being that there where no sources ect. Maybe a estimate would be fine but other then that I say there needs to be some strong evidence to sapport this. 69.23.65.113 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this link to a page that does mention the height of the animal 
I know it is only a guess but are there any thoughts of adding it to the article? 24.208.55.168 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If know body is going to say anything then I guess I will put it in my self.24.208.55.168 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proof

message: Does anybody know if there is a reference to the size of Spinosaurus marocannus? Atroposs 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hi i think that most people think that Spino. marocannus is the same animal as spino.aegyptiacus. I think that MNHN SAM 124 is similar in size to the holotype. We're currently struggling with the holotypes size. Some have reconstructed the holotype at 14 and the recent paper by Del Sasso, some more towards 15m (read above). Its not the most complete animal :) hope that helpsSteveoc 86 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that S. marocannus and S. aegyptiacus are probably the same animal but I just wanted to know if there is difference in size between the two. Atroposs 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S. marocannus

message: Idont think the picture of Jurassic parck III are a spinosaureus because I think is a picture of veloceraptor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.176.72 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what makes you say that? 24.208.43.203 21:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Spinosaurus.  JP Velociraptor's head is significantly different, and you can see the sail on the right-hand side. J. Spencer 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the picture of Jurassic  Parck III 

message: Nominated April 13th, 2007;
Support:
#. cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Spinosaurus]] (8 votes) wins collaboration for May

message: I've got a photo of the original Spinosaurus material on my hard drive. I seem to recall there was a (fairly recent?) paper or article announcing the "re-discovery" of this image. While I'm thinking the original may be public domain, I'm not so sure if it was re-published. Does anyone have the cites for either the original photo or the recent papaer? Dinoguy2 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hay, this site has a the Josh smith paper (it shows the photo of the lower jaw as well) , I could do a spino skull drawing if you'd like.Steveoc 86 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Smith et al. 2006 is the one I was thinking of. If you want to try doing a skull drawing, here's a good one to go by, based on the Dal Sasso specimen and related species . Dinoguy2 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the jawbone photo/drawing from the article in question was actually produced in 1912, and so is probably out of copyright... njan 09:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: would you like it drawn as bones or fleshed out (or both), i'll post it on the image review pageSteveoc 86 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be cool to have a close-up shot of the head based on the new finds, as in a life restoration (especially if we can just use the skeletal from the paper).Dinoguy2 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinosaurus photo 

message: Let's see if we can't kick-start this collaboration.
First, bulleted lists should be reworked into prose, and references should be converted to the "cite journal"/etc. templates.
The intro is a bit too detailed.
Description: actually, all we have are skull/jaws and vertebrae, so those should be the focus.  Limb material doesn't appear to be known for Spino.
Classification: none yet, but this would be a quick paragraph (maybe include Rauhut's chimera hypothesis here); perhaps take the last intro paragraph for a base?
Discovery and species: reformatting is needed here more than anything else.
Paleobiology: a description of the habitat would be nice, and I think there may be bite-force estimation out there somewhere.
In popular culture: just add citations, I suppose.  
Thoughts? J. Spencer 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with those, the artical talks about the limb material to confindendily, and (sorry to keep going on about this),im still not keen on the size. I know of no recent references to 17.4- 21m lengths. Those were Mortimers and he has now changed them. They could be mentioned, but not stated as fact, like they are in the species and specimins section.Steveoc 86 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm prepared to write a bit about the habitat, but where should it be placed in the article? in Feeding ecology or in its own section? Nubula 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for adding the stromer drawing, ive been looking for that pic for ages, the info says its a book cover, which book?, It also says the image was scanned, looks abit distorted and wonky is it possible to rescan it to be closer to the origanl? thanksSteveoc 86 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image is the best I can manage, unfortunatly. The picture came from the corner of a small paperback book simply called Dinosaurs! I Purchased in a Florida supermarket as a kid (Its very old and outdated now.) Although I belive their to be a better version in the book, The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt. Nubula 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope nobody mines me asking but I think there should be a updated size comparison of Spinosaurus and a Human. Other dinosaur articles have one, why not give Spinosaurus one? 24.208.55.168 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not shown as a size comparison to begin with: it's a 1915 drawing of the reconstitution. A proper size comparison will probably be added in time (i.e. before a GA or FA nomination).Circeus 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The section on the function of the sail desperately needs cites, and needs to be cleaned up to follow whatever they may be closely--I have a feeling much of it is original research or hearsay type stuff. Dinoguy2 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Bob Bakker mentioned the theory that the sail was for display though I'll need to go through my books to verify that. Nubula 11:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The artical could talk about the hump therory a little. I don't know what current thinking about this is. 'Neural Spine Elongation in Dinosaurs: Sailbacks or Buffalo-Backs? Jack Bowman Bailey, Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 71, No. 6 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1124-1146' Steveoc 86 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't Stromer himself consider and reject that idea in his 1915 paper on IPHG 1912 VIII 19? Nubula 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i just read the 1915 paper, your right he does reject the idea. Still maybe the artical could meantion it. Steveoc 86 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Some one added a bit about spinosaurus teeth being 2-4 inches, from what ive seen, the largest teeth on MSNM V4047 would reach about 15cm (about 6 inches) excluding root. but i cant find a reference to this sort of size. Steveoc 86 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tooth length

message: Found this image on the web. Is it accurate at all? 
:It was made before the new skull was known, so the shape of the snout is wrong. Otherwise it seems ok. Dinoguy2 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: accurate picture

message: Spinosaurus is known to have had a diet of mostely fish. Fish isn't really considered meat, is it? If its not considered meat would that mean that Spinosaurus is not a meat-eater? 24.208.55.168 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fish is certainly meat... and there's no direct evidence concerning what spino ate. Its close relatives are known to have eaten everything from fish to young Iguanodon to pterosaurs! Dinoguy2 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The del Sasso paper mentioned a fish scale lodged in one of the tooth sockets... 
'MSNM V4047—Specimen MSNM V4047,......The specimen was reported to have been found east of the town of Taouz, within the red beds
underlying the Hammada du Guir plateau, and more precisely in the area called Kem Kem. More specific field data were not recorded but sediment adhering to the bone is closely consistent with the Kem Kem red sandstone both in colour, composition, and texture. An isolated fish vertebra associated with the specimen is embedded between the right second premaxillary alveolus and its erupting tooth and can be tentatively referred to ?Onchopristis sp. (Stromer, 1926:taf I, fig. 7), a sawfish that is very abundant in the Kem Kem beds.' Steveoc 86 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fish diet

message: The bottom copyrighted image needs a fair use rationale for the GA to pass; please address this before somebody reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone around here know how to work the rationales?  I'm also worried about when the Theropod Database will reappear. J. Spencer 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale provided. As for the Theropod Database, didn't Dinoguy or Sheep say Mickey Mortimer was putting it back up in August? If it's really a worry, we can always link the cached version from Google or the Internet Archive. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie-dokie.  There should be another source on the S. marocannus=S. aegyptiacus anyway.  I just remembered that we forgot to cover the briefly fashionable quadrupedal Spinosaurus ('80s-'90s fad, if I recall correctly, but it may not be in the lit [it might have just been something someone said that caught on in the semi-popular books]). J. Spencer 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quadrupedality was, incorrectly, ascribed to Baryonyx.--MWAK 12:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, going back through, it was Spino as well - Glut '82, before Bary had been published, mentioned this, and Glut '00 discusses it in connection with Bailey's work and has a photo of a Spino sculpture that is a quadruped. J. Spencer 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: They are helpful.  The external link has just moved to a new permanent location, which will require a lot of link fixes in WP: The Theropod Database. J. Spencer 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got the external link issues. J. Spencer 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through the other suggested fixes.  The one I'm not sure about is the definitions of analogy and homology; I don't think the sentence reads that well anymore. J. Spencer 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fixes, I agree that the extra bit about analogous probably isn't necessary and broke up the flow so I have removed it. I also adjusted the bit you added to the lead as the two different species had been mentioned just before. I hope it is still accurate and makes sense! Suicidalhamster 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread it, and the species clause looked redundant, so I cut it out.  I don't know why I missed that there was already a sentence about that in the lead before! J. Spencer 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comment

message: I've promoted it to GA status. I think that each section should be expanded more, but it all checks out with GA criteria. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA]]

message: I've been bold and semi-protected this article, as well as Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. I'm tired of seeing the already well-sourced size numbers for these animals changing on a daily basis, and I know that first thing in the morning, some IP is going to change the information without changing the reference. I understand that fanboy-types want their favorite to be the largest, meanest, baddest ones, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is ridiculous to add a few feet in length just to make your favorite the largest. Since the disruption is limited almost entirely to IPs, semi-protection should work fine. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: Shouldn't a picture of spinosaurus actually have its spine in it? Just a thought, but that would much better depict it in my opinion, since the spine is one of its most distinguished features DallasOConner 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Accurate Jurassic Park Picture 

message: Look, I know it sounds a little far-fetched, but might we all agree to at least explore the possibility that the Spinosaurus may not have exsisted?  Not everything adds up and I'm not the only one who thinks so.  -Dr. John P. Windsor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.59.106 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where did the fossils come from? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: More importantly, if Spinosaurus isn't real, then what are those fossils of?--Mr Fink 02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hee! Also: if Spinosaurus didn't exist, what does that say about all the other dinosaur fossils discovered? Did they also not exist? At least a thousand genera, all non-existant? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent blog post by Darren Naish again mentions the old chesnut that Spinosaurus could be a chimera. There's no way to prove or disprove it without new remains. It is true and a bit odd that several allosauroids have tall spines (Acrocanthosaurus, Altispinax) while apparently no other spinosaurids do. But as J. pointed out, this wouldn't mean Spinosaurus didn't exist--it would mean we've been depicting it with the wrong head (ironically, since the head in old restorations was allosaur-like). And we'd have to give a new name to the new giant baryonychid we've been assuming was spino's head. Dinoguy2 13:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might not have been real?? 

message: just thought this was interesting   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.53.190 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty cool, even links to this article's size chart (enigmatic huh? funny coming from an article with no byline ;) ) Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: link