Talk:Spinosaurus/Archive 1

message: " Spinosaurus may have reached weights up to 7.5 to 9 tons." Does somebody have a published source for this? It should be in the text if so, it should be removed if not.Dinoguy2 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is simply the Dal Sasso estimate, isn't it? See: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925384.600 . Perhaps you can give a link to Mortimer's DML estimates; that should silence any opposition :o). It has been obvious for some time that Spinosaurus is not only the longest but also the largest theropod known, by a very large margin. There seem to be fragments of a skull over a quarter longer than the ones used for the paper — which would make for 15 to 20 tons.--MWAK 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not arguing with the weight, I just think it shuold be cited in the text, and I didn't know which paper that was coming from. I remember in Mortimer's ranknig of largest theropods a few years ago that the holotype Spinosaurus was the largst specimen known at *that* time, and he mentioned it was juvinile... so I think 15-20 tons for an adult is to be expected, and I bet they got ven larger than that. Dinoguy2 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mortimer indeed has often named Spinosaurus the biggest, wondering why others didn't :o). Apart from the holotype, he also referred to some fragments: http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Dec/msg00216.html. His weight estimates are of course not exactly conservative and he has in the past made some calculation errors, but if that "2.5 m" skull is really that big, it either must have belonged to a 30 ton giant or Spinosaurus suffered from severe allometry ;o).--MWAK 09:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "(MNHN SAM 124) (~28 m, ~50-80 tons, adult) (skull 2 m) partial premaxillae, partial maxillae, vomers, dentary fragment (Taquet and Russell 1998)" Wow!Dinoguy2 15:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: My *guess* is that they were big-time generalists. The grizzley bear analogy in the article is a good one. They probably ate whatever they could get, like giant maribu storks. The adaptations in the snout and teeth do seem like their *primary* source of food was fish though. The croc-like look probably isn't a coincidence. As I added to the page, other spinosaurs are known to have eaten everything from fish to ornithopods to pterosaurs.Dinoguy2 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To cover its energy expenditure, a 21 m Spinosaurus needed to consume about 150 kg meat each day. Large fish were an ideal source: they don't run away as ornithopods would — Spinosaurus wasn't a specialised pursuit predator. Perhaps an individual would defend a large territory with ponds and a river flowing through it. This scenario neatly explains the sail as a display structure: reaching a height of over seven metres (and brightly coloured?) it would make Spinosaurus into a walking warning sign, claiming occupation of the land.--MWAK 09:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonnage 

message: Mickey updated his estimates based on the new skull material:
Okay, I'm updating my website and have started incorporating the new Spinosaurus information. Thus, I'm set to explain the discrepancy between my 28 meter estimate for MNHN SAM 124 and Dal Sasso et al.'s 14 meter estimate.
Basically, one problem is that Dal Sasso et al. assumed the skull/body ratio of Spinosaurus was the same as baryonychines. However, if we use dorsal vertebral measurements compared to Baryonyx, the Spinosaurus holotype is estimated at 17.4 meters long. Spinosaurus' dorsals are over 90% longer than Baryonyx's. Yet Dal Sasso would have us believe the holotype was only ~55% longer than Baryonyx. And indeed, the skull seems to be ~60% longer using Dal Sasso et al.'s reconstruction. So Spinosaurus has a shorter skull for its body size than baryonychines. Not that surprising considering how long-snouted the latter are.
The other problem was my estimation of MNHN SAM 124's skull length, which was too high. The new material suggests it was only 1.42 meters instead of 2 meters. This brings down the length of this animal to ~17 meters, similar to the holotype. My mandibular length estimate for the holotype was also slightly too low - 1.2 meters vs. 1.34 meters.
However, now we have this new larger specimen, MSNM V4047. It had a 1.75 meter long skull, and should thus have a body length of ~21 meters.
As for mass, my ~20-32 ton estimate for the new specimen is so much higher than Dal Sasso et al.'s 7-9 ton estimate because mass scales ridiculously. For instance, if a 17 meter long spinosaur weighed 9 tons, a 21 meter one would weigh 17 tons. But it would be nice to have a good mass estimate for any spinosaurid, so that I could make these numbers more concrete.
So my new Spinosaurus entry would be-
(IPHG 1912 VIII 19, destroyed) (17.4 m, 12-19 tons, subadult) (skull ~1.45 m) maxillary fragment, incomplete dentary (mandible ~1.34 m), nineteen teeth (62, 126 mm), two incomplete cervical vertebrae, seven dorsal vertebrae (190-210 mm), dorsal ribs, gastralia, eight caudal centra
(MNHN SAM 124) (~17 m, ~11-18 tons, adult) (skull ~1.42 m) partial premaxillae, partial maxillae, vomers, dentary fragment (Taquet and Russell, 1998)
(MSNM V4047) (~21 m, ~20-32 tons) (skull ~1.75 m) premaxillae, partial maxillae, partial nasals (Dal Sasso et al., 2005)
I've added some of this info to the article.Dinoguy2 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My *guess* is that they were big-time generalists. The grizzley bear analogy in the article is a good one. They probably ate whatever they could get, like giant maribu storks. The adaptations in the snout and teeth do seem like their *primary* source of food was fish though. The croc-like look probably isn't a coincidence. As I added to the page, other spinosaurs are known to have eaten everything from fish to ornithopods to pterosaurs.Dinoguy2 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To cover its energy expenditure, a 21 m Spinosaurus needed to consume about 150 kg meat each day. Large fish were an ideal source: they don't run away as ornithopods would — Spinosaurus wasn't a specialised pursuit predator. Perhaps an individual would defend a large territory with ponds and a river flowing through it. This scenario neatly explains the sail as a display structure: reaching a height of over seven metres (and brightly coloured?) it would make Spinosaurus into a walking warning sign, claiming occupation of the land.--MWAK 09:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated Size Estimates

message: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060405175650.htm
Seems something survived the bombing.--Technosphere83 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost photos found

message: I keep on hearing that Spinosaurus just eats fish. I think Spinosaurus is way to large just to eat fish. I bet it prayed on large dinosaurs like Ourannosaurus and Paralittian. I don't know, I'm confused.
:There's no evidence of Spinosaurus diet. a close relative, Baryonyx, was found with fish scales and Iguanodon bones in its stomach, so it's safe to assume Spinosaurus ate both fish and other dinosaurs.Dinoguy2 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd sat its *certain* that all theropods were partly scavengers. No animal is going to pass up a free meal. But the idea that any giant theropod could be an exclusive scaveneger, as Horner suggests, is pretty rediculous.Dinoguy2 16:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diet

message: Hi folks.
Seems we're getting into editorial 'ping-pong', over the hypothetical battle between Spinosaurus & Tyrannosaurus, which ain't good for the Dinosaur Project. Is there any way this can be resolved by discussion? Can any other editors help? No good can come from 'see-saw' editing battles. - Ballista 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion would be better sutied for the JP3 page. Anything that comes down to "fanwanking" should be removed. anything that has a scientific source should be included, and that source listed.Dinoguy2 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I Agree_Dragon Helm 16:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a minor edit war (series of additions and revisions of the smae content) going on here over a paragraph discussing whether or not a Tyrannosaurus would have lost a fight with a Spinosaurus, as depicted in Jurassic Park 3. In my opinion, the whole question is silly and unscientific. If it were changed to something more fact based, it mgiht be ok. There *are* studies on the bite force of T. rex, and as I recall the T.rex *did* bite the neck of the Spinosaurus in the movie. That's only half the story though--there are *no* studies on the neck strength of spinosaurs or on their relative bite force, that I know of. For all we know, spinosauurus could have had ten times the bite force of T. rex (highly unlikely, but this is all speculation anyway).Dinoguy2 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems like a good plan all round - leave it up to you folks, whether something like it goes in Jurassic Park III article but it's certainly better left out of here. - Ballista 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ping-Pong 

message: Should we even have a paleo template? I don't think this article needs one or any other articles for that matter.
:It already has a paleobox, if that's what you mean, but Wikiproject:Dinosaurs is starting to eliminate these, since they just repeat info from the text in a more vague and possibly misleading fashion.Dinoguy2 01:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleo template?

message: I've semi-protected this page for now, which means only established editors may add or remove content. I was originally reluctant to do so, but I feel we can't keep reverting this unverified material, most of which appears to be speculation/cruft from Jurassic Park III. Too strong of an action? Thoughts? --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's a good idea for the short term. There have always been people adding bollocks about how T. rex got shafted in JP3, but it really seems to have picked up this week.Dinoguy2 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feeling paranoid?__Dragon Helm 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I used to post on that site (as Thagomizer). One day it stopped letting me log in. Probably a good thing, I was starting to feel like Sisyphus...Dinoguy2 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Isn't that supposed to be Giganotosaurus? Dora Nichov 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giganotosaurus should never have been considered largest. I've found a couple cites from all the way back to the discovery of Spinosaurus that show it to be as large or larger than the first Giganotosaurus estimates. Even Greg Paul in PDW lists it as the longest theropod. For some reason its massive size was simply ignored during the '90s...Dinoguy2 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest Carnivorous Dinosaur