Spinosaurus: Evidence For A Sail, Not A Hump

It's been stated once and a while that Spinosaurus had a hump rather than a sail. However, I have been doing some digging and came up with three points that support the sail theory.

1. It would slow down the animal. Being that big already would have made Spinosaurus pretty slow(20 mph or so). Add a massive, fatty hump, and suddenly he's even heavier, and therefore, slower.

2. Spinosaurus lived in the wet, humid environs of middle Cretaceous Africa, not the water-parched deserts inhabited by modern camels. (Ironically, the jungle-like region of northern Africa inhabited by Spinosaurus 100 million years ago is today mostly covered by the Sahara Desert, one of the driest places on earth.) It's hard to imagine that a hump would have been a favored evolutionary adaptation in a place where food (and water) was relatively plentiful.

3. A Spinosaurus "spine" was recovered(in 2008 I believe) and it was bitten in half. It's been assumed that the injury was caused by a Carcharodontosaurus. If Spinosaurus had a hump, it would have been very difficult for a Carcharodontosaurus to bite through that thick layer of fat and muscle to reach the bone below(keep in mind Carcharodontosaurus had a pretty weak bite). The only way it could have bitten the spine in half would be if it was relatively exposed with only a thin layer of skin protecting it.

So, all in all there seems to be some good evidence supporting the sail theory. However, nothing is certain. I just felt like sharing this with you all. As far as the sail/hump debate, the jury is still out.