Some told me it looked "whale-like", others found it too bulky. So what?
There's a base for that, and that's the fact Spinosaurus had damn vertebrae, indicating a very long and deep body.
I used my skull reconstruction to fit IPHG 1912 VIII 19's postcrania and dentary together with MSNM V4047's rostrum and filled in what was left with the proportions of Cristatusaurus/Suchomimus and Baryonyx. Due to the much longer vertebrae seen in the holotype, I increased the torso's lenght a bit. I could have done the same with the tail, but I left it like it was.
In the end, the whole thing ended up at ~15m in tip-to-tip lenght, which means in axial lenght as usually given it would be ~16m or more (for comparison, sue the T. rex gets about 70cm shorter than fully stretched if it is in a normal pose).
For mass, my guess would be 12t+
This is not overly liberal but it is a different approach to the far too common reconstruction of an elongate, long-necked animal, contrary to what the remains indicate.
It’s of course outdated now, and sorry for the sensationalism in the title (because that’s also outdated). Consider it a snapshot of what _Spinosaurus_ had to be considered to be a year ago.
I don't see this model was that outdated; because of many reasons.
Like new models legs are a bit too much short; ı've seen the Fossil and the legs aren't that short.
I can give you links İF you want
Clearly the so-called 'short' legs are taller than an avarage man; althrought The skeleton actually İS from a juvenile !
You can see its isn't reached its prime adul size yer; its tail & spine is too small for an adult.
And; of course; there is always The possiblity of the leg fossil might belong to a different animal while spine is from a Spinosaurus; ı don't know.
Currently ı wait for further Fossil discoveres; judging The ENTİRE spinosaurus species from only one (unclear) Fossil specimen seems wrong.
The new reconstriction isn't seem entirely accurate :
Actually most semi aquatic birds walk perfectly with short limbs by The way
I’m well aware that the neotype is a sub-adult. Absolute size of these legs isn’t what matters, it’s relative size that is important (beside, that thing has a 61cm femur, that would rather correspond to small or sub-adult Allosaurus than a sub-adult Spinosaurus, and this trend is apparent throughout the entire hindlimb and pelvic girdle). You just need to look at the skeletal models and measurements in Ibrahim et al.’s paper. There were initial doubts about the reconstruction’s accuracy (but even following those proposals, mine would still be too long-legged), but they were ruled out by a detailed response of the authors on one of the relevant blogs (Mark Witton’s to be exact).
A possible status as a chimaera has also been made unlikely by the fact that another specimen, originally described by Stromer as "Spinosaurus B" shows similar proportions.
This isn’t just a matter of short legs though, it’s a matter of the position of the center of mass, which Ibrahim et al. found to be more anterior than the feet could realistically reach in a normal theropod posture. That means it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for their model to stand on two legs.
They used that as evidence for suggesting that Spinosaurus was a quadruped. An alternative has been proposed by Cau, which has Spinosaurus with a strongly S-curved, retracted neck and a more upright torso to shift more of its body weight backwards and be able to stand on two legs.
Sadly; ı never will be lucky enough to see a real dinosaur Fossil
(Since ı live in turkey; which it was in the middle of Tethys in the Crateceous period; Sadly)
But ı am lucky enough to learn about english & research about prehistoric life.
I know the detailed response; ı read it too. İts still doubt an full grown spinosaurus legs could be very short. İnfant dinosaur limbs always be Odd; since they grow into normal proportions when they grew adults.
(A good example is Dryosaurus - even Nanotyrannus if you considering those infant Rex'es)
Personally ı simply wait for further Fossil discoveries; hope they will found a new specimen; that eventually clear things up
I know the ''CrocoPelican'' model; it seems more pleasurable than the Quedrupedal 'knuckle walking' model as the Claws (however how much they advanced) probably broke\crush under that weight.
But it was their model; İF the proportions are entirely correct; the animal might get help from its tail. (Which seems Very long & muscular at new model)
Or the S-curved neck pose could be the possible case; as the new model's Neck look very Long; pelican like
The general trend among dinosaurs would appear to be young specimens having proportionately longer, not shorter legs ("Nanotyrannus" is a nice example of that, but basically it’s the case in pretty much every theropod I know a growth series of). Also, while the Spinosaurus neotype is certainly not fully grown, it’s also not an infant. It’s not likely it’s proportions would have changed massively.
Yes, I also prefer the pelican-necked model. There wasn’t anything in the description of the forelimb that pointed to the sort of structural modifications needed to be used for quadrupedal walking, on the contrary, everything there is seems to closely match other spinosaurs. An unmodified theropod forelimb is unsuitable for walking on it, at least in an animal this large. That’s why I consider a sort of "modified bipedality" the most parsimonious explanation.
i like it
Finally a realistic looking Spinosaurus!
But I prefer more feathers...
It is actually about 30% heavier than I usually though, and a lot more similar to my first guess.
What images did you use for it?
Also, my estimate for MUCPv-CH1 varied from 6,590 to 6,813 kg, the first one was incredibly similar to the figure Seebacher gave (6,594 kg) and the second one was surprisingly similar to the figure Hartman gave (6800 kg).
I just did three drawings from different views, I just did the drawings section by section and estimated the weight of each section, I had to separate the spines from the torso to give a good estimate, I precisely used the same dorsal views as in the Article: A Computational Analysis of limb and body dimensions with implications for locomotion.
But instead of using 3D models based on mounted skeletons I used 2D models based on the Hartmans skeletals.
And they were surprisingly accurate, I gave 3900 kg for the holotype of Suchomimus tenerensis, Which matches almost perfectly with the estimation Seebacher gave in 2001 of 3816 kg.
What I meant was: Where did you take the data you needed to make a dorsal or anterior view from? I don't recall any rigorous spinosaur-dorsal-view skeletal existing.
I mean, I just imagined how would spinosaurus look dorsaly based on Acrcoanthosaurus spines, but I had to reduce the ribcage.
I used the 3D Acrocanthosaurus as a basis of how much flesh could have been attached to the spines, then scaled to Spinosaurus.
That Acrocanthosaurus is probably a good base for the dorsal view.
Have I ever suggested you to join at World Of Animals (theworldofanimals.proboards.co...? You should really share your results on that forum, the community there would be very interested!
You may be right. 12t is just my lower bound to its weight, that's why I wrote "12t+"
I fear if I wrote 14t, I would soon get tons of comments saying how ridiculously high my figure was. Anyway, 14t is reasonable.
"it had a sail!"
"there´s no reason to suspect this, the spines are more similar to non-sailbacked animals"
"it had a sai, end of debate"
What does this guy think is the natural purpose of the spinosus process? Certainly not spanning skin.