Spinosaurus: Should It Count?

You've brought up a great point and I'm not really sure what the official stand point on that question is, but at the moment, I think it might be more of an aquatic animal than a terrestrial, so for now, I'm going to count it as one.

I'm with you on this one UCMP(obviously, lol) 

:D

I would call it semi-aquatic or amphibious. Due to its marine life style and it's terrestrial life style.

I'll admit it, I used to be a Spinosaurus fanboy and I viewed it as the greatest theropod ever, and I though it could beat T. Rex, though that was before the new fossil evidence was announced in September. At first I was kind of sad, but then I realized it would be better to put Spinosaurus against large carnivorous marine reptiles, like Tylosaurus. Actually, I'm planning to write a battle with Spinosaurus and Tylosaurus fighting each other, and I will likely write it and release it today on the forum, so stay tuned! Anyways, I think Spinosaurus should not count as a terrestrial animal (well sort of because it probably went on land to lay eggs and to sleep). In conclusion Spinosaurus should not be put up against large terrestrial theropods like T. Rex, its just not fair. Spinosaurus could not win because it was adapted to an aquatic lifestyle while T. Rex was not (although Spinosaurus would win in the weirdness competition, I think we can all agree on that). Anyways nice post Rexfan!

Well, considering a polar bear spends a considerable amount of time on land, I'd count Spinosaurus as a semiaquatic dinosaur, along with Koreaceratops.

In my definition, a marine creature is a creature dependent on a body of water to provide food and a good life. Technically, Spinosaurus would be at least semiaquatic.

Nice post RexFan!

REX FAN 684 - I happen to think there is a great deal of validity to your hypothesis! If Spinosaurus led a lifestyle similar to that of a crocodile, I'd certainly classify it as a marine animal. I've stated this once or twice before, but I happen to view Spinosaurus as something like the prehistoric equivalent of a duckbilled platypus - a chimera that was perfectly adapted to its unorthodox method of survival. Not only that, but I'm willing to wager that it was a terror to anything in or near the water! A 50+ foot long water beast with a loadout of natural weaponry that could both skewer and rend its prey in a multitude of gruesome fashions is nothing to sneeze at!

    This was a very interesting and insightful topic - it definately got me thinking! Thank you very much for sharing this with us! :)

Happy to see this post was so well recieved :D

Polar bears are certainly not aquatic creatures.

Yes, they show aquatic adaptations for venturing out to find food, but they don't spend a majority of their time in the water. Their paws and overall build are not suited for a aquatic predatory lifestyle. You don't see them chasing seals, sea lions, even the belugas they are known to prey on through the water. So,no,this bear isn't an aquatic creature.

"Aquatic" is baseless. Semi aquatic is the best thing we can call S. aegyptiacus, at least until a further description is released

One could make the argument that they are semi aquatic by nature, but this, again, isn't a factor in their overall lifestyle.

Using this logic,Spinosaurus can't be called a strictly aquatic creature.Firstly, the descriptive paper isn't out yet so there's absolutely no room to make an assumption based on this. The only thing we do know so far, is that its legs are packed with dense bone. We see this with ducks, and this helps keep them bouyant(or however you spell it) but are they aquatic creatures? nope.

In fact, isotopic levels taken from spinosaurus bones show that it was one of the more terrestrial spinosaurs.

he semi-aquatic hypothesis is supported by isotope analysis of the teeth and a diet that included fish and land animals. Its secondary palate allowed it to eat and breathe at the same time.

Once again, thanks for your words of knowledge Carno ;) And Rex Fan, i will once again say stop it with your unattached assumptions, as a matter of fact, what they are now are merely just your hopes and dreams because there is clearly nothing to back your statements up.

Ummmm...... Just pointing this out, but it seems that anything you disagree with automatically becomes "baseless and anti-Spino," but if you agree with it (which is nothing short of a minimum 10 tons and 55 feet long) is "speculation and educated guesses." Very interesting train of thought there, and really a fascinating thing to think about. Vaguely reminds me of how a hypocrite thinks.

Here's what it essentially boils down to:

Spino Fans:

over 10+ tons = reasonable.

under 10 tons = ????????

Rex Fans:

over 10+ tons = "Hey, I like this guy. He thinks rationally and isn't like those Rex Fanboys.

under 10 tons = "Rex Fanboy Spino Hating jackass who's out to get me banned again because I'm calling them out and proving they aren't who people think they are."

Just sayin'. Also, yes, I did read this prior to commenting, and I'd advise you do same. While you're at it, read some of your older posts as well. You just might see what I mean.

Simply an observation. Nothing more, nothing less. 

I was under the notion you were gone... But i figured youd come back. How many more times must i stress? I have realized everytime there is a speculation from a paleontologist that downgrades spino in any way, you guys milk the absolute shit outta it, and it gets annoying. Im completely certain of this as you guys get hostile about the speculation on T-Rex being a scavenger.

And the size thing? I dont get hostile about it being that light, but of course i challenge the idea of it to a high extent. Youve seen my estimations, you know where i stand, so theres no need for me to speak my mind on size.

I see. We speculate the crap out of it. You'd do the same if there were more Spino fans. 

I've actually said this before in different situations, so here we go. It's the "what if?" factor that everyone likes to talk about. Is this new Spino design the real deal? Maybe, maybe not. Can we discuss it? Of course we can. 

Now then, if you were to post something that came across as "anti-Rex," you would obviously be disagreed with and someone would try to debate about it. It's inevitable. 

Oyyyy..... not this "idea" again... Come on, guys. This dinosaur had dense bones all around and has little resemblance to any aquatic animal. And you're compairing it to a polar bear, an animal that snags rather than swims after prey? The only marine animals it kills and eats are the ones that poke their heads through breathing holes and in large groups on the ice, ex. walruses.

No mr. happy, its the fact that you provide these ideas with no scientific backing. Oh poor, misled mr. happy. Have i stated anything in this thread is anti spino? nope. So don't put words in my mouth.

Mad, brah?

Point me in the direction of a paper that says spinosaurus was aquatic, rexfan and mr. happy. Until then,this bit of conjecture is in fact, baseless.

Cheers.

Carno, nothing I said was directed at you. 

Nice chip in Carno, rediculous, huh? I for one hate it when i get words put in my mouth, makes you want to grink a gallon of Listerine lol.

You should learn to direct your posts then, because that certainly felt like it was directed towards me.

My points still stand.

@FDyes....it grates the nerves....I apologize for doing that months ago to you by the way....my posts were...shall we say below par? Good to see you back

Anywho. *sighs* you do something nice for someone and comes back to bite you in the ass. Over. And over. Again. 

The only thing that "bit you in the ass" was your aggressive attitude towards select members. When there was absolutely no room for it.

End the conversation there, if you want to address me do it via PM.

On topic, it's safe to say that S.aegyptiacus wasn't a fully aquatic animal.

Making ammends is a rather extraordinary feeling, i accept your appology Carno, i realized back a few months ago we had more in common with our mentality than differances ;)

I see you are no longer a MOD anymore Happy, curious, very curious...

Okay, Fact Dude, let's try not to bring things up that might get people angry.

I ain't even mad about that. Let's face it, there are people better suited for the job than I am. 

Glad to see your back Mr. Happy:) Anyways I do not think Spinosaurus should count, as I stated in my post earlier.

I was just curious is all, but i dont need a reply back as to why if he doesnt want to tell me.

Lovely.... Since you guys can't seem stop fighting with each over these posts, I am going to have to ban them for awhile. I am dead serious too, any Spino vs Rex posts will be deleted on sight. You guys want to act like children then you will be treated like children.

Gman warned you guys to cut the crap, *AL* warned you guys to stop fighting, now I am stepping in. Seriously, I can't believe it's come to this, is it so hard to be civil with one another???

Locking this and don't bother PM'ing me, my decision is made.