Ceratosaurus

-Many reconstructions point to spinosaurus being a relatively bulky animal, actually. But it is hypothetical at most, as we do not actually have that much of spinosaurus to work with. Spinosaurines seem to be particularly more heavily-built than baryonychines (which were particularly gracile animals), especially in the case with spinosaurus where a more robust build seems to be more necessary to compensate for its enlarged spinal column. Spinosaurus was likely not a very gracile animal in terms of body morphology... What you said right there is basically along the same lines as what I am saying; it is hypothetical. But I am no expert on sizes

Quote: you don't have its forearms. or anything close to arms.

We can infer this based on what we have found from other spinosaurs, particularly baryonyx. Such a lifestyle would make this completely reasonable to believe as well, as powerful forearms would be particularly useful in fishing.

it was a megalosaur. Mainstream paleontology would have to disagree with you, mate. Paul Sereno put the Spinosaurs in a different group in 98.

And what group might that be? Carnosauria? Ceratosauria? Because much of what I have read indicates that spinosauridae was included in megalosauria (spinosaurus diverged more recently from megalosaurus and its closest kin than megalosaurs did from carnosaurs). Of course, I guess your sources are more accurate just cause you said so...

Quote: The Spinosaurus in Jurassic Park III was all sorts of wrong, it wasn't long enough, nor was it high enough, but it was too muscular, the snout was too wide, the arms were too big and quite a lot of what was shown as body mass was in fact part of the sail/ridge. A couple years ago people thaught that Spinosaurus was 15-18 m long and weighed about 20 tons, the newest estimations are at 12-15 m length and 5-8 tons weight. I wouldn't say that it dwarfed Rex since it was slightly longer, but slightly lighter.

And where is your source for this? Being so much larger than genera like tyrannosaurus, it would not be affected THAT much by its proportions in terms of being comparable in weight, and even then, they are hypothetical.

Quote: reliable, unlike your wikapedia one:

So I guess that my image that I posted (which was on Wikipedia) is photoshopped? I have only been citing Wikipedia for pictures...

Quote: http://www.jurassictimes.com/spinosaurus-aegyptiacus

46 feet long, huh? Well what ever happened to the 56 foot estimate? But overall, I do agree with that source. But one thing that you guys need to realize is that, to analyze the creature's snout and dentition, we really don't need sources. The same thing goes for its entire body as well. Reconstructions are made using what evidence we already have, and theories are made from those. So if you can explain to me why that requires a source and makes you right, please explain to me the details.

you say it's a bloody MEGALOSAUR, then you go back to being a Spinosaurian? uh, alright. While in the Megalosauria family tree, they have their own group, based on obvious anatomical differences. Don't be a smart ass.

You....obviously don't get how these things work. A picture is not PROOF. at all. the 46 foot estimate is probably the more accurate one any way. 60 or even the 80 foot fanboy estimates are just B.S. and 20 tons? yeah, no biped can weigh that much if it is to remain on two legs. "it seems bulky based on reconstructions" well i have bad news for you mate, they're probably wrong. 

Just FYI, my sources have actual discoveries by paleontologists, while you've posted what? one sorce that said spinosaurus jaws were WEAKER THAN A CROCODILES and pictures of skulls? you do need its body, especially when you have 5 neural spines, a few vertabrate and parts of its jaws. good proof mate, good proof indeed. My sources don't mean i'm 100% right, as no one is in paleontology. They just make me a tad bit righter then you.

Quote: you say it's a bloody MEGALOSAUR, then you go back to being a Spinosaurian? uh, alright. While in the Megalosauria family tree, they have their own group, based on obvious anatomical differences. Don't be a smart ass.

-Uh, spinosauridae is part of megalosauria... Spinosaurids are more derived from basal megalosaurs. You are thinking of megalosaurids, which include megalosaurus and its closest relatives. Spinosauria doesn't exist

Quote: You....obviously don't get how these things work. A picture is not PROOF. at all. the 46 foot estimate is probably the more accurate one any way. 60 or even the 80 foot fanboy estimates are just B.S. and 20 tons? yeah, no biped can weigh that much if it is to remain on two legs. "it seems bulky based on reconstructions" well i have bad news for you mate, they're probably wrong. 

-Where did I ever say 20 tons? I admit that claiming that it appears bulky based on reconstructions is probably inaccurate, but is there any real reaso nto believe that spinosaurines were all that slender (as in, as slender as baryonychines)? A bulkier body shape would be logical considering spinosaurus' enlarged spinal column, in which case a gracile body would likely not sustain it very well. You are theorizing right there buddy, using baryonyx and its closest kin as comparisons for what we don't know of spinosaurus. But yet you still criticize me of being wrong when my theories are completely logical. Man you are one stubborn asshole...

Quote: Just FYI, my sources have actual discoveries by paleontologists, while you've posted what? one sorce that said spinosaurus jaws were WEAKER THAN A CROCODILES and pictures of skulls? you do need its body, especially when you have 5 neural spines, a few vertabrate and parts of its jaws. good proof mate, good proof indeed. My sources don't mean i'm 100% right, as no one is in paleontology. They just make me a tad bit righter then you.

-Ok, so using fossil evidence to make theories is only "accurate" if you are a paleontologist? What? Ok... There you go again, claiming that the sources that I post are always wrong and yours are right (not to mention the reconstructions, which are all drawn by skilled paleontologists...). Numbers do not lie buddy... The majority of that post just killed a few of my brain cells

Oh shit, not the two brain cells you had left. What ever happened to "I'm not coming back here, you're all thick headed hypocrits, blah blah blah" bullshit? If you don't like it here, you don't have to stay. You and FACT DUDE might get along.

Starting post: Ceratosurous.

Ending post: Another fucking fight over spino.

 Back then, yeah, douchebags would bring Rex or Spino into a debate because f*ck you all, that's why. We could be talking about, I dunno, Parasaurolophus, and someone would say Rex is bigger than Spino, or vice versa. It seems to have died down again though, fortunately. This time around, the douche was Zillasaurus.

Me Happy, I am not always true to my word. Sometimes I just feel as if I need to come back, because I know this shitcake of a forum still exists. Impulsions

If YOU GUYS weren't so damn sensitive, none of this wouldn't have happened. I did nothing wrong in the first place, you guys just fucking flipped out over nothing. 

Me Happy? I don't see anyone called "Me Happy" around here. Is that what you six year olds say? 

We flipped out because....... Why exactly? You're the one who gets pissed the f*ck off because we say stuff is our opinion, and it would appear as though that hasnt changed. Just saying. Don't piss me off. 

i guess you're back huh? fine. There's no use in flipping out over the past. LEt it go, and there shouldn't be a problem

and after reading your recent post, can you provide proof that spinosaurs were bulky animals? Or is it just spinosaurus? in that case, that's a laughable argument.

The  baryonychines were slender animals, i don't think any of them peaked 3 tons. They bones are just too light weight to support a mass of 4 tons or more..

I will admit, some of my arguments were pisss poor. That, was due to my hotheadedness flairing up over this stupid rex vs spino thing.

Whoa guys, things are getting a little heated on this thread.  What needs to be remembered here, is that most of the things we "know" about these dinos are purely theoretical.  No matter how ridiculous a theory is, people are entitled to that theory.  And if you do not like it or disagree, just refuse to comment.

Lets try to keep the name calling and attacks off of these threads.  SciFied is here for fun, not stress.

Haha, don't you just love it when people have to go and drag things back up from months ago? And don't you love it when people take a post about one thing and turn it right around to something else just to suit their need for a fight? Haha, I love it(that's all sarcasm right there).

You know, just fuck it. I'm not going to read any of your responses because I know it is going to be some half-assed rehashed insult from back in December when you guys decided to flip shit over next-to-nothing. Call me a wuss how ever much you want, but your logic and insults kill some of my brain cells so I decided not to.

You've gotta have some brain cells to kill first bud. That said, bye, have a good time, we won't miss you. 

We flipped shit? I guess what actually happened died with your last brain cell. I wish every asshole was as easy to get rid of as you.

he'll be back. In a couple months, he'll be back to insult us...it's whatever! ignore the troll.

Oh well, it's not like he doesn't rage quit quickly. When he (attempts) to post images to try and insult us, it would make it a tad more effective (and easier to respond to) if he could post images. It took him how many months to come up with a response. Like I said earlier, him and FACT DUDE would get along.

*Deleted Post*