Solution for the Quadrupedal Spinosaurus

I'm not too sure if SPINOSAURUS had that the right muscles and bones to allow knuckle walking. Gorillas don't have claws so they don't cound as a good comparison. Sloths are better since they that've claws but this is a mammal and that is a reptile. Sloths don't use their claws like a SPINOSAURUS.

Spinosaurus had very strong arms and hands, so I don't see why it couldn't walk like that. As far as the gorilla comparison goes, sure they don't have claws, but the general position could be the same. And dinosaurs have many things in common with mammals(upright walking positions, warm blood, etc). Why couldn't this be a similarity too?

I guess so. And I was not shouting SPINOSAURUS it just autocorrects that way.

Well, I've nver thought of it that way...

Personally, I think Spinosaurus could switch from bipedal to quadrupedal when it wanted, but it would've probably been more comfortable walking on four legs. Apes can also move on two legs, but they usually don't. Spinosaurus would've probably been like this.

I agree with what's been stated. No doubt it could be a biped when it felt like it, but it most likely took a quadrupedal stance for the most part. 

scifie king i realy like what you said ubove this comment. i actualy didnt think of that.

I agree with you. Also National Geographic agrees with you, here is a video they posted. Here is the link in case the video doesn't show.

Bigger than T-Rex Spinosaurus

REX FAN 684 - I agree whole-heartedly with the assessment you've brought forward. Spinosaurus, in my opinion, has benefited immensely fom this revision; it's a much more insteresting and fantastic animal now that it's been given a unique niche!

    As for those whom state that Spinosaurus couldn't possibly have been a functioning quadruped for fear of blunting its claws, ask them this: how did other massive quadrupeds of the past walk about and not blunt their claws? It's patently simple: the very act of walking about sharpened their claws and kept them from growing too long - much in the same way that big cats scratch upon trees and rocks to keep their talons in check. We can even look to the giant monitor lizards of today for evidence that claws don't blunt under constant stress - they might crack and wear-down, but they continuously grow. Dulled claws, indeed! What nonsense. Sounds to me as though some individuals simply can't let go of their preconceptions that had Spinosaurus running about like some giant monster and eating other theropods that were 30+ ft in length (I'll point to Monsters Resurrected for this misconception).

    Regardless, thank you ever so much for sharing this theory with us! :)

Sure thing SR and I appreciate everyone's comments. I emailed paleontologist Peter Larson about this theory too. He said and I quote...

"Nice hypothesis!"

That must be a good thing, haha

REX FAN 684 - WOW! How very neat! That definately counts for quite a bit in my book! Keep up the excellent work! :)

Thank you SR :D

REX FAN 684 - You're most welcome, sweetie! You definately earned it! :)

YAAAAAAAY!thank you rexy for showing me the truth...of the world.

No problem Indy :)

SR, your statement was the quite the insult as i may point out. And i accept the possibility of this, but there is no inevitability to this yet, so am i going to accept its fact? Hell... NO.

Little rude/aggressive there S-Rex. Mind toning it down a bit?

Aggressive... rude... two words that absolutely do not describe my personality and mood, im being straight forward, there's a difference.

There's another way to do that...

You could say...

"It's possible, but I'll wait for further evidence."

Comes out a little nicer sounding don't ya think?

My overall tone was due to SR's comment, you didnt think i was going to be all rainbows and butterflies, did ya?

Well, I can see this has ready been resolved, but just going to point this simple little fact out.

Dinosaurs have been dead for 65 million years. There is very little we know that can actually be proven to be 100% fact. 

That said, you did come across as a tad aggressive there, and believe me, Something Real is the last person here who would intentionally insult someone. 

SOOMMETHING REEEEEEEAAAALLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

would be that im working on the next episode.

SPINOSAURUS REX - It's obvious that my statement has had a negative effect with regards to your personal interests. For that, you have my most sincere apologies. My remark was meant to be a laughable pass at the overly monster-ized version of the Spinosaurus presented in Monsters Resurrected - not a critical jab at you or anyone else with a fondness for particular extinct life-forms.

    That being said, you've presented yourself in a manner that suggests extreme agitation, something which I prefer to avoid at most costs. We're all capable of polite and even-handed conversation. I implore you to utilize that mode of conversation rather than come out of your corner swinging without provocation. Life is much too precious a thing to waste on petty anger. We must all work to ameleorate our stance at times, and I am no exception to that rule. Misunderstandings and spats will arise, yet it is up to us to determine how they will progress. For my part, I hope such instances pass and are left as by-gones.

    As a final aside, it's obvious that you much prefer the more bipedal iteration of the Spinosaurus rather than the one paleontologists have begun to discover. Is this due to the manner in which it hunts? Or do you prefer the physiology due to its viability as a super-predator? :)

good comeback something real.

INDIANA JONES - I appreciate your support, I really do; but my statement was not meant as a comeback. I want to understand SPINOSAURUS REX's point of view so that I can better see the persepective from which he/she stands. If I angered him/her, that is the last thing I wanted to do. I much prefer serenity to conflict - it's much more agreeable. Of course, aggression has its value as well, but only to a certain degree. If we can not settle a difference with diplomacy that functions in the absense of violence and inflamatory language, then we've failed on a fundamental level. I refuse to allow a conversation to degrade in such a fashion. That being said, I also refuse to have words placed in my mouth by individuals interested in conflict for its own sake. It's a tenuous and unfortunate situation - one which I greatly abhor.

    Regardless, I greatly appreciate your confidence in me. It means more than i can place into words. :)

i was kidding around knowing YOU something real! your a good person, stay gold.

INDIANA JONES - Hahaha! Anything for you, sweetie! ;)

SPINOSAURUS REX - After having taken a look back at multiple other posts regarding the revision to Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus' physiology, I've come to notice a trend in the manner by which you choose to address the topic. It seems as though you've a proclivity for reacting in a rather standoffish and aggressive manner - as if you feel the need to defend a standpoint or take personal offense when others suggest something about the theropod you so enjoy. What an interesting manner of reaction. This suggests to me that you hold this animal in extremely high regard and have, as a result, developed strong emotional ties to it. Is there a reason for such a powerful draw to this animal? I only posit this question because, from my observations, you seem extraordinarily opposed to the prospect of a change in Spinosaurus' physical scheme. May I ask what is so very wrong with the new revision? I believe it makes the animal that much more amazing and terrifying - much like an ancient sea serpent or dragon! Naturally, your opinion in the manner is just as important as everyone else's. However, it would seem as if you are generally unwilling to accept the opinions of others when it comes to the physiological alteration Spinosaurus has undergone. Are you privy to information the rest of us have not yet viewed? If so, I ask that you please present it so that we can amend our points of view; the last thing we want is to base our statements upon flawed supposition and conjecture. :)

of course the spinosaurus fan comes under attack for what he says.

S-rex has had"issues" with the way others present information regarding spinosaurus, He's only "agitated" because he has been provoked time and time again by other users. The newrevision has provided fodder, if you will, for some to provoke the aggression of other users. I've noticed it multpiple times, and not only one person is at fault. Multiple are. There's absolutely no need to target one individual.

The statements made by some users in direct response to others views is one of a negative nature, and it most certainly isn't ok. 

For the record, Spinosaurus was not 4 tons in weight.Something i've noticed one or two particular people are clearly intent on pursuing without any tangible evidence; other then the new finds which doesn't constitute a...weight loss program for the giant theropod, this kind of crap needs to end. Point. Blank. Period. Provocation of other members is not okay. and some seem to use their...status in continuing in this behavior. I for one, will not sit idly by while it occurs. Enough is enough. Knock it off.

~Carno out.

HAHA you said fodder!

Well said Carno. I do apologize if I have said anything (recently, I know I've said crap in the past) that pissed him off. It's unintentional, I try to be nice, but I'm a teenager, and honestly I dint even realize I'm being an ass half the time. 

Carno, if you're referring to me about the whole "4 ton weight," I'd just like to state, for the record, I lean more toward the 5-7 ton range based on what was said here...

http://events.nationalgeographic.com/events/exhibits/2014/09/12/spinosaurus-lost-giant-cretaceous/

Here(in the second sentence) it says 15 meters and 6 tons. I figured it should be given a bit of a buffer going both ways(hence 5-7 tons).

CARNOSAUR - I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment. However, becoming irate over a topic as subjective as paleontology is anathema to the process of debate. Anger within the course of expounding portrays an existing agenda that can do only one thing to healthy discourse, poison it. What good does it do to show aggression in the midst of conversation? None. Such reaction serves only to break down the chain of dialogue into a meaningless quibble. Behaving in such a manner completely destroys any credibility you've established within the context of the subject in question and results in others choosing - more often than not - to avoid you in favor of more polite conversation. Thus, we move into the process of alienation and the sort of social discord that arises from its inception. If in the process of extolling a notion, one must always remember to leave room for other possibilities and place emotion firmly where it belongs, away from the established dialogue. Responding to a notion that goes against what you hold as truth with anger or resentment is the root to the vast majority of the problems that have plagued mankind since he arose upon this world. Only through introspection and intellectual honesty can we move beyond petty and menial arguments in favor of stimulating conversation that breeds new ideas and ways of thinking. To do otherwise is to stagnate - a process that undermines everything one has toiled to achieve.

    Regardless of everything I've hitherto stated, I'll be the first to champion your statement that we might as well get along here! Wiser words have rarely been spoken, and I thank you ever so much for having presented them! :)

Cranky and tired I can understand ;)

Fuck the knuckle-walking idea! That sounds like regressive devolution to me! Ibrahim should burn in hell for ruining my childhood.

Here is what it should look like, if there was actually an adult Spinosaurus skeleton, and not the chimera-ass monstrosity and mockery of paleontology we see today with its half gorilla, half crocodile, half duck ugliness. Spinosaurus was NOT a quadrapedal creature and anyone who says otherwise is T-Rex fanboy who falsely accuse one my childhood favorites as an evolutionary deadend or a myth, which I hardly find anything of the sort to make me not love this dinosaur. Its a shame that Ibrahim was lucky to have huge flocks of ignorant people supporting his theory.

Calm down there man. Here, have a waffle: (>'.')>#

^^ this guys...

I swear man..

There's not a whole lot of evidence saying its a quadrupedal animal.Look at the facts first before you go off on another rant.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/09/10/science.1258750.DC1/Ibrahim.SM.pdf

^ read it.

S. aegyptiacus is aunique theropod in several important aspects and will likely remain a taxon of intenseinterest for its size, adaptations, and life habits. There is no question that the holotypeand referred fossils from Egypt collected by Stromer have been destroyed. Returnexpeditions to Stromer’s localities in Egypt have failed to discover substantial additional material of S. aegyptiacus

"...Emended Diagnosis: Spinosaurid with adult body length ~15 m characterized by the
following cranial features: external naris and narial fossa small and retracted near the
orbit on the side of the posterior snout; premaxilla excluded from the border of the
external naris. Distinguishing postcranial features include strongly constricted
hourglass-shaped and elongated dorsal centra; dorsal neural spine height up to ten
times greater than centrum height; greatest anteroposterior dorsal neural spine width
below spine apex; dorsal neural spines composed of dense bone with a narrow central
zone of cancellous bone; proximal one-third of dorsal neural spines textured
externally by vertical striae; long bones lack open medullary cavity; length of ilium
larger than dorsoventral length of femur; femur strongly bowed anteriorly with fourth
trochanter hypertrophied, extending along ~25% of the femoral shaft; pedal digit I
long, digit I-1 phalanx longest nonungual phalanx in the pes; pedal unguals broader
than deep with length almost four times proximal depth; pedal unguals with flat
ventral surface."

"Referred Material, Junior Synonym
Although hundreds of isolated bones and teeth of S. aegyptiacus are in collections around
the world, a few specimens are more complete and thus have garnered attention.
“Spinosaurus B”. Stromer designated bones found in close association as “Spinosaurus
B” (2), a partial skeleton that was entirely destroyed in WWII. The unusual proportions
of the neotype (reduced pelvis size and short hind limb length compared to the axial 10
column) are also present (and nearly identical) in this specimen (fig. S2), suggesting that
it composed a second associated individual of S. aegyptiacus."

^ there in that last paragraph they're referring to Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis, "Spinosaurus B" in other words. If Ibrahim is correct, S. brevicolis is a junior synonym( in other words the same animal) as S. aegyptiacus.

Spinosaurus maroccanus. This species was based on a single supposed proportional
difference using measurements given by Stromer (11). We regard this difference as an
artifact of differing ways to measure opisthocoelous vertebrae. Following the conclusions
of previous studies (6, 13). We regard this species as a nomen dubium

No where in this paper does it say Spinosaurus is a quadrupedal animal. Merely that it was adapted for a semi-aquatic life style(if you didn't figure this much out, then i just don't know man. 

Anyways, cheers.