Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Extinct Animal Questions
Topic Started: Nov 26 2013, 10:24 PM (193,249 Views)
TheToastinator
Member Avatar
A piece of toast and a terminator.

Was the quadruped Spinosaurus theory ever officially debunked? I read that it was, but I'm not entirely sure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheNotFakeDK
Member Avatar
200% Authentic

If by "officially debunked" you mean that it was tested and proven to be biomechanically implausible with a formal publication declaring it as such, no.

But the original paper didn't really prove it was a quadruped in the first place, the authors just assumed so without looking into it any further and never did any tests to see if it would actually work at all.

All the arguments for them (North African spinosaurs) being quadrupedal have been countered, and seeing as how we still have barely any arm material from them, we can't really check for any adaptations for standing and moving quadrupedally. It is more parsimonious then to assume they weren't quadrupeds, in the absence of any good, damning reason to think so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


has the sinking of Oxalaia into Spinosaurus been proposed officially yet? I know it's been suggested multiple times but just curious if there's been anything else on it as of late.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinoBear
Member Avatar


To my knowledge, it hasn't yet. Given its fragmentary nature and the Spinosaurus situation being what it is, probably going to take some time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

From what I can read all the Oxalaia material is just a few pieces of jaw bone so how the idea it had a spinosaurus like sail in the first place strikes me as odd and rushed at most. I understand speciesism but still it seems like quite a stretch. So you'd be better off considering them both separate genuses unless more material from Oxalaia would turn up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

BossMan, Jake
Jan 17 2017, 12:03 AM
From what I can read all the Oxalaia material is just a few pieces of jaw bone so how the idea it had a spinosaurus like sail in the first place strikes me as odd and rushed at most. I understand speciesism but still it seems like quite a stretch. So you'd be better off considering them both separate genuses unless more material from Oxalaia would turn up
That's silly.

I have a snout from a housecat and a snout from a bobcat, and I can tell them apart. There is no difference at all between Spinosaurus and Oxalaia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossAggron
Member Avatar
Formerly Dilophoraptor

This states a good argument for "Spinosaurus quilombensis"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheNotFakeDK
Member Avatar
200% Authentic

Given the current state of spinosaurs in North Africa, I think it's best to avoid formally synonymising Oxalaia with any thing for the time being (it could be a South American Sigilmassasaurus for all we know).
Edited by TheNotFakeDK, Jan 17 2017, 08:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinoBear
Member Avatar


Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the go to snout for Spinosaurus, MSNM v4047, doesn't actually belong to Spinosaurus at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

At this point it feels like the only reason Sigilmassasaurus hasn't even been sunk is just so people can use it to argue against things they don't want to be a part of Spinosaurus. The two animals are so ridiculously similar it's silly to have them in separate genera.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

Characteristics of the vertebrae suggest Sigilmassasaurus is more closely related to Ichthyovenator than it is to Spinosaurus.

That's why it's not been sunk.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Incinerox
Jan 17 2017, 04:35 PM
Characteristics of the vertebrae suggest Sigilmassasaurus is more closely related to Ichthyovenator than it is to Spinosaurus.

That's why it's not been sunk.
This is news to me to say the least.

So a lot of the proportional similarities between them are more likely convergence because of genetically similar creatures attaining similar niches?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireplume
Member Avatar
Snok Snok Snerson

Probably stupid question, but keratin/another horn-like material likely covered the spikes on Stegosauridae, right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


yes. Stegosaur plates are derived from modified scales, and I'm willing to bet their spikes are as well, so it would make sense for them to be covered in keratin like regular scales.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireplume
Member Avatar
Snok Snok Snerson

Alright, wanted to make sure before I coloured it hahaha
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply