Spinosaurus maroccanus, Sigilmassasurus brevicollis, and Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.

Hey guys! I'm not sure if this was discussed or not (and I'm really really sorry if it was), but I would like to here your thoughts on this. 

Today, I went on youtube and watched a video series called, "Your Dinosaur is Wrong." It's really fun and educational for those unaware and want to dig a little deep into dinosaurs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oCqSqY7FiI

Anyways, and I came across this comment made by Dr. Witton (blogger), "the video says Evers et al. argue for Sigilmassasaurus being synonymous with Spinosaurus. The exact opposite is true: they argue that the two are distinct taxa, and suggest the 2014 reconstruction might be a composite of an unknown number of north African spinosaurid species. 

"...we reject the recently proposed synonymy of both Spinosaurus maroccanus and Sigilmassasurus brevicollis with Spinosaurus aegyptiacus from the Cenomanian of Egypt, as there are clear differences between the vertebrae of these taxa, and they do not share any derived character that is not found in other spinosaurids. Together with a comparison with other spinosaurid vertebral material from the Kem Kem, this suggests that more than one taxon of spinosaurid was present in the Kem Kem assemblage of Morocco, so the referral of non-overlapping material from this unit to a single taxon should be regarded with caution."

I attempted to summarise what their conclusions mean for the 2014 Spinosaurus here: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-spinosaurus-saga-continues.html. The TL:DR version is that we don't yet know how all this is going to play out, as work on these animals is very much ongoing. However, we need this taxonomic stuff to be resolved before we can be confident about recent interpretations of Spinosaurus proportions and locomotion. This doesn't take away the some of the cool semi-aquatic stuff you mention about derived spinosaurids - as a group, they certainly do seem to be experimenting with aquatic life - but how much we know about Spinosaurus specifically remains a point of contention amongst researchers." 

I found the comment and blog from the link really interesting, I'd figure you guys might be interested too! I hope. Is there a chance another taxon of spinosaur was present at the time? I wouldn't be surprised if there was. It does really raise a lot questions of the spinosauridae family branch though. What about the baryonychinae? What happened to them? Like what happened to Suchomimus? It was in Africa and if not spinosaurnae, then there must've been a spinosaurnae at the time with Suchomimus right? Could the possibilty of a baryonychinae be present at the time of Spinosaurus also, perhaps relative to Suchomimus?

Do you think it doesn't matter if maroccanus's design holds for aegyptiacus too? Personally, it doesn't matter or rule out short leg spinosaurus. Let me know what you think! Also correct me too! I would really like to know, and hopefully I'm not getting the wrong interpretation or mindset. Thanks~