Spinosaurus News ~

[GuateGojira]

(09-09-2020, 02:30 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: I think a few things should be noted regarding Donald Henderson's model:

-It had assumed that Spinosaurus was pneumatic when it was in fact not; Ibrahim et al. 2014 even stated the bones to be of very high density and with no pneumaticity whatsoever. So not only is the theory about Spinosaurus being highly terrestrial most likely bunk, the wrongly assumed pneumaticity underscores the mass of the animal quite unnecessarily.

-The ribcage on Henderson's model is apparently way too narrow given the known material. This is what SpinoInWonderland has told me, and given what the dorsal view from Ibrahim et al. 2020 looks like compared to Henderson's model I am inclined to agree with him. I apologize if the resolution on this is too low but here are the dorsal views compared from Ibrahim (2020) and Henderson (2018):

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
It should be beyond clear that judging from Ibrahim's model, Henderson's model is SUBSTANTIALLY too narrow - it's literally about 1/2 the width at the torso and this underscores the mass of the animal quite a bit.

-I would not consider Henderson's model to be as accurate as Ibrahim et al. 2020 in terms of its overall anatomy. In addition too the very narrow torso and the unnecessary pneumaticity, the torso on the model from Henderson is much shallower than the new model from Ibrahim, nor does it have the new tail added onto it. All of this is underscoring the model's mass. 
By the way, even if we take Henderson's estimation of 7 tonnes for MSNM v4047 at face value (which is a poor choice when Ibrahim's model is available considering what I went over above), it still does not factor in NHMUK R-16421 nor NMC 41852, both of which are most likely larger. Using the discrepancies in my above post on Spinosaurus' size, NHMUK would be about 8.12 tonnes, and NMC (although tentative until we find more Spinosaurus humeri) would be 10.55 tonnes.

As for that National Geographic article you linked, I am afraid that when I clicked on it the page said it no longer existed. However I suspect they are referring to the outdated model from Ibrahim (2014) that suggested 6 to 7 tonnes instead of the new model from the 2020 study in their article.
By the way, if you didn't already see this, there is something to consider:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
Nizar Ibrahim himself supports masses of 10-12 tonnes for Spinosaurus in light of the new and more accurate model, and these sizes are easily replicated when scaling NHMUK R-16421 and NMC 41852. The old 6 to 7 tonne estimations are outdated.

So if you want to stick with the old 7 tonne estimations I suppose I can't stop you, but considering everything above the double digit tonnage is almost certainly more accurate.

What are you talking about, all models of Spinosaurus, all the draws and reconstructions, all aknowledge that Spinosaurus was thin, it was slender and do not had a large ribcage, is not near the large Carcharodontosaurids and definitelly not as large as T. rex.

I was about to discuss the details but when you mentioned Spinoinwonderland again I saw that all this will be just a joke. I think that is futile to discuss the outdated and weird conclutions of a "Spino-fan" that constantly reject all the information in favor of the T. rex. 

The opinion of Ibrahim is just that, an opinion, so while he know the fossils of the Spinosaurus, we need a good and accurate study about its body mass to take his word. Let's remember that his conclution of the cuadruped was not quite correct, so he is good but not perfect.

And the link of National Geographic works perfectly fine, it is the article of April 20, 2020, here is the link again: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scien...-swimming/

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply