|
Post by Horridus on Mar 17, 2011 17:06:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by neovenator08 on Mar 17, 2011 17:19:44 GMT
Cool! New Spinosaur! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 17, 2011 18:55:32 GMT
Apparently they found material from two Spinosaurs..this one is the first from what I read. I also didn't see where found a lot of material, the skull looks like only a few jaw pieces :
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Mar 17, 2011 22:20:31 GMT
I've seen this guy's work before, in a book that I think was called 'The Age of Dinosaurs in South America', which was really quite interesting. And just the other day I was thinking about how few spinosaurs we knew of.
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 18, 2011 0:17:57 GMT
Yeah they're aren't a whole lot of them..but what we've found so far is pretty cool...I can't wait to see more of this one. Also from what I read they aren't sure if had a sail or not yet ..the artists might be jumping the gun a bit there.
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Mar 18, 2011 1:29:11 GMT
VERY COOL!!! Quote: "And just the other day I was thinking about how few spinosaurs we knew of." And just yesterday I was drawing my own species of spinosaur; coincidence? It looks nothing like this one though. If Oxalaia does have a sail like Spinosaurus, I guess that could make it Spino's South American cousin.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 18, 2011 2:27:13 GMT
;D And they can tell all about it's size from traces of the jaw and nose?
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 18, 2011 2:52:15 GMT
I guess.... :?
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 18, 2011 4:08:46 GMT
;D And they can tell all about it's size from traces of the jaw and nose? The right people really could...
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Mar 18, 2011 4:23:18 GMT
;D And they can tell all about it's size from traces of the jaw and nose? Yes, of course. Is that so surprising? These are people who have years of training and experience with this sort of thing. They're called paleontologists...
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 18, 2011 13:48:50 GMT
;D Are these the same Paleontologist that decided in Walking With Dinosaurs that Liopleurodon was 25 meters long? At least I believe they had the whole skull to work with. They decided that the skull was 1/7th of the whole body and now they've found out it is more like 1/5th. Suppose they found Jimmy Durante's nose, how big would he be? Yes let's just super-size everything!
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Mar 18, 2011 14:34:32 GMT
;D Are these the same Paleontologist that decided in Walking With Dinosaurs that Liopleurodon was 25 meters long? You're thinking of TV producers. Like many others they seem to think that "any random fragment of pliosaur from any time or place" = "Liopleurodon ferox". Not to mention, here's how they explain the oversized Orithocheirus: dml.cmnh.org/2000Apr/msg00446.htmlThe makers of WWD were in no way interested in accuracy. Only spectacle. Same for all dino TV shows, unfortunately. They decide what they want to show, THEN call the paleontologists, and quote-mine them until they can get them saying what the TV producers want to say.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 18, 2011 16:20:24 GMT
;D Are these the same Paleontologist that decided in Walking With Dinosaurs that Liopleurodon was 25 meters long? You're thinking of TV producers. Like many others they seem to think that "any random fragment of pliosaur from any time or place" = "Liopleurodon ferox". Not to mention, here's how they explain the oversized Orithocheirus: dml.cmnh.org/2000Apr/msg00446.htmlThe makers of WWD were in no way interested in accuracy. Only spectacle. Same for all dino TV shows, unfortunately. They decide what they want to show, THEN call the paleontologists, and quote-mine them until they can get them saying what the TV producers want to say. ;D On October 12, 1999 Darren Naish wrote to DML >> _Liopleurodon_ in the same episode is a ridiculous 25 m long.. yes, 25 m. Not even Dave Martill thinks they were that big (joke Dave:)). I think the WWD makers must have taken the maximum size, and then added about 20% (either that or they heard the measurement wrong). I respect Darren Naish but even if they didn't add 20 % it would still be over 20 meters. Still way off.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 18, 2011 17:32:26 GMT
Having spoken to Adam about it he's assured me that the WWD "Liopleurodon" is quite preposterous.
Back to the spinosaur, it is reasonable to guess the size based only on bits of the skull (I think they have quite a lot of it actually). Postcranial anatomy is known in other spinosaurs, which are quite uniform. It's unfair to bring in a sea monster from a pop science show.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 18, 2011 19:55:18 GMT
Having spoken to Adam about it he's assured me that the WWD "Liopleurodon" is quite preposterous. Back to the spinosaur, it is reasonable to guess the size based only on bits of the skull (I think they have quite a lot of it actually). Postcranial anatomy is known in other spinosaurs, which are quite uniform. It's unfair to bring in a sea monster from a pop science show. All right lets talk Spinosaurus. Size estimates are all over the place from 41 to 59 feet, 4 tons to 23 tons. And all we have is part of a skull, and no limbs. Everything is based on the size of the skull much like Liopleurodon. Even the size of the skull has been contested. Spinosaurus bones couldn't hold 20 tons, they'd break. DeSasso and Therrien & Henderson have all been criticized. I tend to think Greg Paul is the closest at 49 feet and 4 Tonnes.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 18, 2011 20:34:52 GMT
We were talking about spinosaurs, not Spinosaurus itself, but OK. 20 tonnes is an extreme estimate to say the least. Also, postcranial bones ARE known for Spinosaurus - how do you think they know about the spines? Postcranial bones are also known from other spinosaurid genera, eg. Baryonyx and Suchomimus.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Mar 18, 2011 23:08:08 GMT
We were talking about spinosaurs, not Spinosaurus itself, but OK. 20 tonnes is an extreme estimate to say the least. Also, postcranial bones ARE known for Spinosaurus - how do you think they know about the spines? Postcranial bones are also known from other spinosaurid genera, eg. Baryonyx and Suchomimus. Yes there are postcranial bones but they don't amount to much. No limbs, mostly just a few vertebrae and some ribs. Most Spinosaurs are not very well known. The ones belonging to Spinosaurinae like Spinosaurus, are Irritator known from only a skull which was originally artificially elongated and Oxalaia known from a partial skull. This doesn't tell us much. Baryonychinae are a different sub-family and Baryonyx and Suchomimus do offer fairly complete remains. But they don't have long spines on their back or the same size teeth. Plus skull shapes can vary across the spinosaurid species. So one size doesn't necessarily fit all.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 18, 2011 23:22:59 GMT
Yes you're right, which is why they can only make educated guesses! The important thing being that they are educated and not crazy extrapolations. Quite a bit of Suchomimus is known, so it's possible to make sensible guesses by comparing it with other, less complete spinosaurs. Time for that Scott Hartman image again.
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 19, 2011 1:19:49 GMT
I haven't been able to find anymore pics of the actual fossil other than the one posted above . There was this one : But it's not the Spinosaur, there was some confusion that is was Oxalaia and instead it's just a prehistoric croc.
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Mar 19, 2011 2:39:50 GMT
According to Wikipedia (not the best source, but...) the name Oxalaia isn't even official yet as the animal has yet to be formally described.
It's unfortunate that we don't have any vertebrea, but I still think we can get a rough estimate of its size; unless in life it had some abnormality, such as an extremely long tail, which would be awsome! ;D
|
|