There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
I think to avoid getting into another debate which you proposed we should drop, I'll finally make an response and I'll let you be, I've only made this response and comment because of the new paper that I didn't bare in mind previously.
Not necessarily, 0.99 is the upper range, Larramendi proposes a lower 0.95 too, we do not know exactly the density of general theropods, so therefore a density of 0.99 for Spinosaurus is perfectly fine, as mentioned to you several times Spinosaurus was almost certainly post cranial pneumatic also just because the direct evidence is limited in the neck does not mean the other part of body wasn't pneumatic, in fact, it the dorsal vertebra described by Rauhut 2003, MAY be pneumatic however not to the extent of other spinosaurids.
Since generic reptiles have a density of 1.0 while having no pneumaticity, crocodilians have no pneumaticity too, therefore I can only imagine a density of 0.05 being from the osteoderms alone, the air sacs do exist despite me telling you, and just because the direct evidence indicates they are sparse doesn't mean they only belong in the cervical vertebrae only.For certain, a density of 1.05 is way too much.
Alexander 2006, states organisms with airsacs are less than than 1000kg/m3, diving birds are solely have higher specific gravities because of the dense plumage , removing the plumage the bird is pneumatic, because it has airsacs (even by not being pneumatic) check Larrimendi et al 2020.
''For example surface swimming anhinga are waterlogged, with only the neck and head above
water, so their NSGs are about 1.0. But the situation is more complicated. Surface floating
boobies, gannets, pelicans, diving ducks, grebes, loons, auks and penguins float with
considerable freeboard, so their SGs, at least in part because of their feather shells, are below 1.0,
in some cases significantly so. This is confirmed by the need of these birds including penguins
(Sato et al., 2002) to propel their dives underwater, and their lesser need for active propulsion
while returning to the surface. This is true even if the feather shell is collapsed due to water
pressure at depth. At this time, it can only be said that the NSGs of diving birds excluding any feather shells, are probably in the area of 0.95.''
Also just a reminder, from Ibrahim et al 2020, a density for a neotype, without the certain cervical pneumaticity (and potential dorsal) with the already dense bones have a 1000kg/m3, therefore with the airspaces in mind I would expect <1000kg/m3, this is very consistent with what I already stated against Larremendi et al 2020.
Despite most tissues being denser than water, the low density of fat neutralises this making flesh have a specific gravity of 1.0, flesh in itself is the same as water.
I never even said having osteoderms mean a density less than water, what I did say was Larrimendi et al overestimated density based on niche and not the biology of the animals, because of the assumption of Spinosaurus having osteroderms and no air sacs and pneumaticity is a far cry from what we do know.
Yes it really is, basing a 13.6 metre long MSMN V4047 with a 3.8 m3 volume individual
I have already discussed, the problems of page 7 (lack of sources/poor sources), overestimating length ect (the size comparison of Carcharodontosaurus to Spinosaurus is ridiculously overexaggerated in favour of Spinosaurus) in fact theres really no need correcting Hendersons model just follow square cube law for FSAC KK 18888.
