Spinosaurus and Oxalaia

Having pits on its snout would make more sense if it was  truly aquatic. I think it spent most of its time in land but would venture into water when it wanted to. And just explain to me how you go from 7 to 9 tons for oxalia to 11 to 12 tons.

O. quilombensis is a rather enigmatic spinosaur found in south america. Why so enigmatic? because its size is a subject of constant debate. However, i'll put some of the controversy to rest here.

The often talked about 1.35 m skull(and in turn 12+ m body length) is very dubious, and i'm 100% skeptical of it -- the premaxillae isn't that large.

Basing off of the fragments and comparing them with that of S. tenerensis, we get ~1.2 m for the skull length. Which puts it on par with Suchomimus in overall size -- 11 m and 3.5 tons

It has been suggested that O. quilombensis is just another species of Spinosaurus.

http://yutyrannus.deviantart.com/journal/Oxalaia-or-Spinosaurus-in-Cretaceous-Brazil-485191553

From this^ link:

Brown fossils = Oxalaia

Grey background fossils = Spinosaurus

Coincidence they align? i think not. And at the very least, Oxalaia is a very close relative of S. aegyptiacus.

Using the new basis for the S. aegyptiacus finds, downscaling S. aegyptiacus to 11m gives a weight of 3-4  tons. 

In conclusion, Oxalaia was a Suchomimus sized Spinosaur at 11 m, 3.5-4 tons in weight.

Personally I think that having less pits in your snout and having your nostrils moved towards the end of your snout (though this isn't comfirmed) would not be very helpful if Oxalaia was a more aquatic and qudruped dinosaur like Spinosaurus

 To begin with, The nostrils aren't any farther back then those of spinosaurus. I dunno who said that, but yeah. Also, Spinosaurus wasn't fully aquatic and certainly wasn't quadrupedal. There's no evidence of this, and personally i go with AndreaCau's "semi-horizontal" stance

From cau himself:

"What can be the meaning of such a posture? One effect of this posture is that, compared to the "sub-horizontal" (followed by many reconstructions), the center of gravity of Spinosaurus would be much lower moved posteriorly. This result is very interesting, because it might imply that, despite the elongate dorsal and legs reduced, the center of gravity of Spinosaurus was not very "abnormal". This is crucial in solving the heated discussion that concerns around the new study, since Ibrahim et al. (2014), however, propose that, according to their model, the center of gravity of Spinosaurus was so as to impose a front posture quadruped. [Since I do not have the means to test the computer center of gravity in a reconstruction (including the one I propose here), the question of the center of gravity remains pending. Nevertheless, regardless of bipedia or fours, it is very likely that a posture "by pelican" can compensate (even in part) a potential imbalance front of the center of mass, and therefore should be considered by anyone who wants to quantify the center of gravity of Spinosaurus"

"Returning to the posture "by pelican", for it to be effective in an animal like Spinosaurus , much bigger than any pelican, with a skull over a meter and a half and relatively compact in the front, it must be that the head is held in suspension by passive some system of nuchal ligaments well developed. This ligament, inevitably, must be anchored to the dorsal neural spines, in analogy with what we observe today with large mammals with large skulls.A system of ligaments passive is much more useful to the less muscle work requires. For example, an elastic ligament which offsets the force of gravity automatically generates a stable system that requires no muscular effort. This strategy would be very advantageous for an animal like Spinosaurus , given the size of his skull.How to combine this interpretation with the posture of the neck suggested by Russell? A passive ligament to maintain erect neck (thus, overcome the force of gravity) probably requires a relatively high rear anchor on the dorsal region, in order to exploit in some way linked to the resultant force of gravity. We observe this adaptation in mammals grazers, in which the head tends to be positioned ventral to the chest, and this last port of the neural spines relatively elongated. Returning to our theropode, as we can anchor an elastic ligament to a head which in turn is suspended on a vertical neck? We could do it by lifting the anchoring of the ligaments to the level of the head. That is, we could develop the neural spines very high, as much as the high position of the head.And it is precisely what we observe in Spinosaurus when we articulate the neck with the posture of Russell!"

http://theropoda.blogspot.com/2014/09/spinosaurus-revolution-episodio-iv-una.html

Fantastic work, imo.

Also, I am going to say something else too. A lot of you guys put T-Rexat 8-10 tons (I personally think it is 8 tons) while most sites and some Paleontologists put estimates at about 5-6 tons. 

Doesn't make what you say here any more valid. 5-6 tons is outdated, btw, Most Tyrannosaurus individuals we have Weigh ~6 tons. Sue, the largest, has been estimated by Scott Hartman at ~8.4 tons.

So....yeah.

I just want to state what I think the evidence WE HAVE is pointing to

...which is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting in this thread.

don't expect to be getting positive feedback, though try to stay kind and not be rude, especially some of you...

 Dunno if that was a shot at me, but i don't really care either way.

It was shot at you in sure. 

Ok, so we have some skull fragments and a vertebrae... not much.

Let's look at the skull fragments then.

Wow, that was helpful. So, what can we determine from this? ABSOLTE F*** ALL, THAT'S WHAT! Well, I actually found this helpful little comparison between these, and a spinosaurus snout:

Wow, that's a hell of a lot smaller! 

So, yet again I reiterte that based off of what we have, this thing is in no way larger than spinosaurus. Heck, even most paleontologists agree that at most this animal weighed 9 tons! And that was before we found out what spinosaurus really is.

Yes, what we have of oxalia is similar to spino but slot smaller so I am not sure how you say 12 tons.

Actually, is it possible that O. quilombensis is actually a juvenile Spinosaurus?

We really have no way to tell. Premaxillae and dentary bones have no descriptive features in them to even tell, and the initial  description paper on this thing says nothing on it being a juvenile. However, this is where the 12-14 meter, 6+ ton estimates originated.

No. Oxalia was found in South America while spinosaurus is in Africa.

Tyrant king, have you ever heard of a thing called continental drift? Or looked at a map of the cretaceous?

I do know about that. I just forgot. Sorry.

Ok, I was just checking. No hard feelings.

Well it is plaudible but not likely.

eh,it's really not even likely looking at what we have

Ya there is no fused bones.

Ok. I still view it as a possibility though.

Ya I have some hope for it.

The reason why 8-10 estimates for T.rex(7-10 for me, I'll admit some were likely lighter than 8 tons) are thrown around is because there are so many specimens of T.rex. There are a ton that all measure roughly 12 meters long and weighed around 7-8 tons(CM 9380, Scotty, King Kong, Stan, etc) with Sue being slightly bigger(12.8 meters and ~9 tons). What's this mean? It means the average is around 12 meters and 7-8 tons, but not the max. Sue represents the lower limit for max size in Tyrannosaurus. Therefore, it's possible that T.rex got bigger than what Sue indicates(perhaps Celeste indicates the max size).

Anyways, onto Oxalaia. It's too fragmentary to be sure of anything. That said, it's generally estimated at around 12 meter mark and 5 tons in weight(based on the more complete Suchomimus and such). It would be smart to give a range rather than a specific size, but that range would be something like 11-13 meters long and 4-6 tons(not 15 meters and 11 tons).

But, that's just me.

kk lets get the facts

Spinosaurus was Spinosaurus 

Oxalilia was Oxalilia

Spinosaurus bigger

Oxalilia Bipeadal?