Close
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
  1. #16
    Philosoraptor ReddyUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Houston, the place of no snow...
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinoraptyrex View Post
    I just hope they find a complete skeleton one day so this back-and-forth with the spinosaurus can stop.
    Exactly my hopes!

  2. #17
    Good god, you guys are just as bad as Buzzfeed was after archaeologists found a viking grave where the women were buried with swords. You don't understand how scientific discovery and peer review works; nothing of the sort has been proven yet, and it was never proven or even widely accepted that Spinosaurus was quadrupedal in the first place.

    As Albertonykus pointed out, and you would know from reading the paragraph under the neato little word "CONCLUSION", the paper argues that some of the material used in the new Spinosaurus reconstruction, more specifically some of the the vertebra (the bones of the spine, not the legs) may belong to a more distantly related species of spinosaur called Sigilmassasaurus. The paper is mainly devoted to arguing that Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus maroccanus are both too similar to each other, and distinct enough from Spinosaurus aegypticus, to be a species of Spinosaurus, and warrant their own distinct genus rank.

    Whether or not Spinosaurus was a quadruped is not at all addressed or even really hinted at by this paper, and the implications of this paper do not lead one way or the other on this dispute beyond that the size of certain vertebra in Spinsoaurus reconstructions may be inaccurate. Assuming the paper is accurate (again, not yet "proven, or fully subjected to extensive peer review) the reclassified material would reflect some scaling and morphology differences in the dorsal and cervical vertebrae of Spinosaurus reconstructions. Once again, nothing has been proven; that isn't how science works, especially with paleontology and phylogenetics. There's so little material known for all these proposed taxa, and it could still be that they're all from the same species displaying great morphological variance over either geography or chronology (differences in the same species from time or placement), and even just great individual variance within a population, or from age, sex, ect.

    The current facts are that Spinosaurus had very short legs in proportion to its body, an elongated torso, and a long and highly muscular tail, but it also stands that no other (known) large therapod has assumed quadrupedal motion, the limited forearm material we do have from Spinosaurus does not suggest quadrupedal motion, and the issue of the animal's center of gravity does not convincingly lead to assumptions of quadrupedal motion, or rule out bipedal motion. Thus, the most likely explanation is the default assumption for any large therapod; Spinosaurus most likely walked on its hind legs. Its hind legs were almost certainly very short though, as the new paper suggests; that is no longer under real dispute, so don't expect to see a revival of paleoart showing Spinosaurus with long, Baryonyx limb proportions.

    Also, it's frightening me how much I'm seeing people arguing that contestable facts, assertions, or scientific theories fall under the banner of protected opinions, or that they "feel" that the new reconstruction was wrong, but don't actually understand any of the facts, or reasoning as to why it is right or wrong. None of your opinions and feelings matter on what anyone perceives as accurate, and in science (arguably most things in life) they should also not matter to you either.

    I'm not saying that having an opinion on what looks cooler for Spinosaurus is in any way wrong, but conflating that with the actual science, making arguments based on opinions, and jumping on anything that may possibly vindicate your opinions is quite plainly wrong and anti-science.
    System Specs: Kick Ass

  3. #18
    Super Moderator JediSpectre117's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Zillatamer View Post
    so don't expect to see a revival of paleoart showing Spinosaurus with long, Baryonyx limb proportions .
    Then explain my drawings I'm currently doing with what is basically JP's Spinosaurus.

    LoL sorry couldn't resist xD

  4. #19
    Philosoraptor Toametru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Preparing for cringe.
    Posts
    1,023
    And it was on that day, that diehard Rex fanboys were given a grim reminder....

    JP3 IS NOW PARTIALLY ACCURATE

    except for, you know, Spino surviving a Rex bite directly to the neck

    and like, the rest of the fight.

    And movie.

    (FLoFF) Floofie: I fear that person with my life

  5. #20
    I STRONGLY suggest that you guys read Zillatamer's post. The bones that the paper is talking about are vertebrae, not the legs. Even if they did come from a different animal, it has no impact on Spinosaurus' legs.

  6. #21
    The focus of the paper is on vertebrae, but it does have some commentary on the legs:

    The proportions of the new remains, specifically the disproportionally small pelvic and hindlimb remains, were used by Ibrahim et al. (2014a) to suggest very unusual leg proportions in Spinosaurus, noting that these unusual proportions are also found in the material of “Spinosaurus B,” thus allegedly supporting the association. As outlined below, however, there are significant anatomical differences between the appendicular remains of the ‘neotype’ of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and the remains described as “Spinosaurus B,” so unless one assumes that these specimens represent closely related taxa with very similar proportions, but differences in limbbone morphology (for which there is no independent evidence), this coincidence in proportions is of doubtful value to prove association. As noted above, Stromer (1934) did not provide any evidence for original association of the remains described as “Spinosaurus B,” other than that they were found at the same spot (which would also be the case for non-associated materials resulting from a bone bed). However, it is striking that in both cases there is a set of matching vertebrae on the one hand, and a set of matching limb elements on the other hand.
    While by no means falsifying Ibrahim et al.'s proposed limb proportions, these authors do take a somewhat skeptical view of them. Mark Witton has a blog post summarizing their main points, a good alternative to reading a one-hundred-page paper if one is short on time.

  7. #22
    Tea Rex Bordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Republic Of Turkey
    Posts
    378
    Poor Ark Survival Evolved...
    I wish i could save you again, Al Mir...

  8. #23
    Philosoraptor War Bear 112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,762
    Soooo, what did I say all this time? :]

    Chimera.


    Seriously tho. We cant know whats right until they actually find a complete one, simple as that. ._.
    I like both "versions" of the spino, it's the fact that everyone jumps on new discoveries like starving dogs that is bugging me.

  9. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Waiting to be banned
    Posts
    489
    Edit* Nevermind, the article talks about vertebra and not legs, Thus quadrupedal Spino is still plausible.

  10. #25
    Gold Member Flishster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Cryolophosaurus's digestive tract
    Posts
    1,597
    Congrats on not reading the article to the vast majority of the people in this thread.

    The Article is about vertebra, not its legs. Please stop drawing assumptions.
    I want a strong independent tranq rifle that don't need no scope #AntiDolt

  11. #26
    Philosoraptor Toametru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Preparing for cringe.
    Posts
    1,023
    Next thing you know, we will find out that Spino's sail vertebrae could shoot out like a porcupine.

    (FLoFF) Floofie: I fear that person with my life

  12. #27
    Philosoraptor _MaxPlays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    In the Better Days
    Posts
    1,299

    lol


  13. #28
    Pretzelcoatlus ShadeOfEclipse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    The Island
    Posts
    215
    Hahaha that's so funny since last night or this morning(can't remember) I was wondering about if the 2014 skeletal reconstruction were truly correct while playing some JPOG. XD

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Flishster View Post
    Congrats on not reading the article to the vast majority of the people in this thread.

    The Article is about vertebra, not its legs. Please stop drawing assumptions.
    I'm gonna keep quoting this until people get the message.

  15. #30
    Hail Denmark! Bartbrink1996's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Almere, The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Flishster View Post
    Congrats on not reading the article to the vast majority of the people in this thread.

    The Article is about vertebra, not its legs. Please stop drawing assumptions.
    That's some serious misleading title then...
    "No matter what the future may bring, some things will never change! Like the courage and daring of true heroes!" RIP Bionicle.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •