Talk:Spinosaurus/Archive 2

complete skull?
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200701/06/57/e0064457_12314216.jpg that's what spino's complete skull is thought to look like right?130.207.180.41 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite--the upper jaw looks too broad. This is a more precise reconstruction based on the newest, more complete skull described by dal Sasso.

It looks like a 5% difference at best in my opinion.The shape and structure are the same basically. I think its good because slight skull variations are a common occurence in individual creatures, theropods included.DinoJones 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a lovely sketch, but the snaot is too bulky. The dentry is too far forward in relation to the upperjaw. When the jaw is closed the 3 most massive teeth on the lower jaw should interlock with the narrower part of the upper jaw. If this were corrected it would further squash the the back of the lower jaw which, although not impossible as it not known, seems too squashed as it is. For me at least it's just not close anough to the published reconstruction to be used.Steveoc 86 10:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well to be fair I wasn't suggesting it for use.:)I've seen a picture of a seemingly unfinished cast of the upper jaw that looks similar I'll have to find the picture. Perhaps you can tell me of its veracity? DinoJones 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys look what I found on Robert Gay's website dinodomain.com. http://dinodomain.com/spinosaursnout.html Looks pretty cool huh?DinoJones (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, very cool. If I remember correctly from when Rob first posted that several years ago, I think the first specimen (the "saber tooth" one) was from South America, so probably not Spinosaurus. I bet the second one is though. Neither have been published, and I'm not sure how big they are... would be interesting to compare to the dal Sasso specimen. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I don't think I ever saw the mention of where it was found. I do remember reading from him that he saw it at some mineral show I think? Tucson Gem and Mineral show yeah that was the name of the event.DinoJones (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

da big guy?
According to this article the Spinosaur is the biggest predator that have ever lived on land, wich i see really wierd, the Giganatosaurus have been claimed by many scientists to the biggest therropod. I see it really wierd that the Spinosaur is the biggest off the hunter dinosaurs it and by 5 sources i read the Giganatousaurus was bigger than the spinosaurus, the t.rex was also claimed to be heavier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Those are probably old sources. Good studies on the size of Spinosaurus didn't come out until last year. Any popular books, etc. containing the new info would likely not have gotten to store shelves yet. Wikipedia works way, way faster than the popular press or the media ;) Dinoguy2 11:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

JP3
Just to let everyone know that I have added one of those invisible requests that can only be seen when you try to edit the section (cant remember the proper name at the moment) to the JP3 section, seeing as the old "the Rex should have won" debate seems to be rearing it's ugly head again. Hopefully that might help. Regards.SMegatron 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, do we have a source for this Spino in JP4 thing? Its the first Ive heard of it.SMegatron 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Size?
According to this [] and this [], the size of spinosaurus is overexaggerated. The only evidence, according to this source and various others, for an 80 foot long spinosaurus is from an 8-foot long skull, which could belong to something else. Also, as mentioned in the first source, Half of Spinosaurus's length was its tail. Really, I think this should be taken into consideration. The article makes it sound like a whale. Any thoughts?--DeadGuy 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a way this could possibly be more false. The tail of Spinosaurus has never even been found, and the tails of baryonychines are roughly the same proportions as in other theropods. Same for Allosaurus. The extremely long tails illustrated on that site are hilarious. In fact, the (normally proportioned) skeletal diagram in the second link directly contradicts this idea and proves the tail to be conjectural.Dinoguy2 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From the second link: "A large Spinosaurus skull, rumoured to be eight feet long, has turned up more recently. If the measurement is correct, this would suggest that the complete animal was longer than any known Giganotosaurus or T. rex, but there are no reliable sources yet." This is the skull described by dal Sasso. The site is out of date.Dinoguy2 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only agree with Dinoguy; no site which illustrates theropod tails that long can be taken seriously. The Allosaurus and Spinosaurus illustrated there are extremely ridiculous, and the last four theropod illistrations look like they are about to topple over! I'll also note the incorrect hand position on nearly every one of those illustrations. This is not a reputable (or remotely believeable) source. Let's stick with published papers, if possible. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry this may come of as an angry lecture it isn’t meant to be. Also I’m not very good at getting my thoughts on to the page, so it may not make sense. Why do people keep constantly changing this article. Why do they feel the need to change the size estimates, do they just get board of the old ones. What was wrong with the dal Sasso estimates, the dorsal vertebra of the holotype ranged from 19 to 21cm in length. The 21 cm vertebra, I think belongs near the sacral region were the dorsals are at their largest. The 19 cm vertebra was probably located between the middle dorsal region and the cervical vertebra. What this shows is that the vertebra aren’t going to be much bigger than the 21 cm and on average will be smaller. Assuming that on average the vertebra were 20 cm, (the average will probably be smaller) and that there’s about 19 to 20 dorsal+sacral vertebra then that whole region will be around 4m. Then you add the head which is estimated at 1.45m and the neck which is probably a similar length, you get nearly 7 m from the snout to the back of the hip. The tail is most probably half or more the total body length which gives the holotype a length roughly around 14m in length. Then direct scaling form the 998cm snout you get an animal around 16-17 m in length. In no way can I get 17.4m for the holotype, even though the vertebra are almost twice the size of baryonyx walkeri (the largest being 11cm ). Also has any one tried to draw it, it looks ridiculous as well. Also I am not sure but isn’t the fragmentary snout from MNHN SAM 124 comparable in size to MSNM V4047, I could be wrong. thanks. steceoc_86
 * If you manage to publish the above in a peer-reviewd journal, or provide us with a published citation that repeats this information, then it can be included. As of right now, dal Sasso is just about the only current published source on this topic, and so it's the "official" last word.Dinoguy2 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply. I may have confused you, I was ‘agreeing’ with the dal Sasso estimate, I wasn’t agreeing with the 17.4m holotype  estimates.  Thanks Steveoc_86  19 November 2006
 * Ah, I see. My bad. I'm so used to defending the dal Sasso size, this sort of thing has become a reflex ;)Dinoguy2 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Who changed the estimate for MSNM V4047 (the del sasso skull) to 13m, thats the one he estimated between 16-18m with a skull about 1.75m. if it was the comment about MNHN SAM 124 'Possibly' being comarible in size to the del sasso skull, i saw a skeletel drawing by scott hartman in which he used SAM 124. i got the impression he scalled the holotype material to it. Other than that i have no idea how large MNHN SAM 124 is. I prefere the other estimates though. steveoc_86 21 november 06
 * Im really confused... i looked at the spinosaurus page and the estimated were all different like the holotype being 15m, i write the paragraph above, i go back and the estimates are back to normal? what happend???? im so confused. :0 Steveoc_86 21 nov 06
 * People frequently alter this article with false or outdated information. With luck, it is quickly corrected.Dinoguy2 01:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your objections to Mortimer's 17.4 m estimate for the holotype, I think I might perhaps make it more acceptable to you. Firstly your neck estimate is a bit on the low side. The problem with the holotype is precisely that the skull seems to be rather small for the rest of the body. Should they belong together however, the total neck-skull length would, when using Baryonyx as a model and bringing the dimensions of the neck in proportion to the thorax instead of the skull, be above 3.5 m, perhaps approaching 4 m. This is in a stretched position; Spinosaurus might obviously habitually have held it in a strong S-curve. So we now have a total length of about 15-16 m. Secondly the estimate includes the intervertebral discs, giving it an extra 10% or so. This would bring total length to 16.5-17.6 m.--MWAK 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I hadn’t thought of the discs. It would be nice to know how much cartilage is actually needed based on other animals. Scaling a Scott Hartman skeletal drawing of Baryonyx Walkeri to have ‘approximately’ a 21cm vertebra (were that vertebra is thought to have come from) gives an animal closer to the dal Sasso estimate. My neck estimate was based of doing that, its not the most scientific method. He draws the arms further down the body than in other reconstructions giving the illusion of a longer neck, I’m specifically counting cervical vertebra. Also I think other spinosaur reconstructions show their neck ‘approximately’ being similar in length to the head. I still think that 17m for the holotype seems a bit big, how long a tail is Mortimer giving it. I've read Mortimer's posts on the 'Dino mailing list' he seems to be good with measurments. Oh well, who knows I'm probably wrong. As rational scientifically minded people lets pray to the Dinosaur God that a complete spinosaurus skeleton will be found to resolve this. Amen. :) thanks Steveoc_86 02 December 2006
 * I’ve just quickly tried to draw it with a longer neck and it still looks wrong to me. I’ve also checked the measurements that are on Stromers’ paper. The two cervical vertebra in the paper included the first cervical (that joins the skull) (which had no measurement in length but looks shorter than the second) and the second was 18.5cm and I'm not sure were that goes. Scaling a complete baryonyx drawing the vertebra can fit nicely in place of any of the last four cervicals. How many cervicals have you given it? I think theres 8. It would be nice if someone could tell me (based of bary suchomimus, and other relatives) how many vertebra generally there should be in each region of its body (cervical, dorasl, sacral, caudal). The problem I get with the 17.4 holotype is that for me, even with 10% extra for discs, it requires extra vertebra. Also it is such a specific measurement and spinosaur tails are fragmentry. You have succeeded in lengthing it for me a bit, a 'little' closer to 15m. Thanks steveoc_86 21:34  02 December 2006


 * Well, there are nine cervicals, fourteen dorsals and five sacrals. Indeed the first cervical is very short. However, confusingly, the first dorsal is really part of the neck (Gregory S. Paul always used to maintain that, ergo, it really was a cervical :o), so we still have to count nine vertebrae to estimate neck length. You have probably included two caudals between the posterior ilium blades in your count of twenty for the "trunk" length. Now it is very, very tricky to estimate the length of the cervicals extrapolating from that of the dorsals. Some theropods have very short cervicals, others very long ones. It seems however that having rather long cervicals is the "primitive" state for Tetanurae, and the fact the second cervical has a length of 18.5 cm seems to confirm Spinosaurus wasn't much derived on this point: it indicates the longest cervicals would be well over 25 cm. Taking a conservative 22.5 cm as an average for the nine vertebrae determining neck length, we get, including the first cervical, about 3.6 m for the head-neck total; 7.6 m adding the twenty vertebrae up till the point of the ischium; 15.2 metres for total axial bone length; 16.7 metres adding the intervertebral discs. Keep in mind that, when looking at a drawing, the curvature would make the neck seem shorter. Using pieces of string to measure the real length is always advisable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MWAK (talk • contribs).
 * Are you placing the 18.5 vertebra as the second cervical? Is it acually known to have come from there? Again I'm useing direct scaling from baryonyx, which isn't perfect i know, but that vertebra can fit in so many places and not increase its neck length much. Could you give some exarmples of the primtive Tetanurae that your thinking of. i want to upload a drawing to demonstrate, its far from perfect but i hope it will give an idea of what im getting at, even if im wrong. Im trying to get permision from Scott Hartman site to use their baryonyx. thanks Steveoc_86 12:43 3 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveoc 86 (talk • contribs).
 * ive change my mind i can't be bothered to put an image up its too complicated. :) Steveoc 86 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Consulting Stromer made it clear to me my memory failed me: what you called the first cervical is the second and the other cervical Stromer indicated as the sixth. Even though the four more posterior vertebrae would be probably a lot bigger, this brings down the head-neck estimate quite a bit, to a probable 3.2 - 3.3 m. Total length would still be 15.8 - 16 metres, but I have to admit this is a serious change :o). However Markgraf apparently didn't provide any data considering the exact position the rather damaged fragments were found in, so any identification is tenuous. --MWAK 09:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read that CMN 50791, the holotype of S. maroccanus, consists of a 195 mm mid-cervical. Giving "primitive" Tetanurae to compare spinosaurids against is rather difficult as they might themselves well be derived from the most basal known split within Tetanurae :o). It's just that all neotheropod small forms don't have the relatively short cervicals of e.g. T. rex.--MWAK 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also took a closer look on the drawings of Hartmann. It seems to me the reason why his Baryonyx is so large in comparison to his Spinosaurus lies in two facts: firstly the way he draws the vertebrae gives a 25% extra for the intervertebral discs for the smaller species, but a shorter ratio for the larger; secondly the trunk section of his Spinosaurus is too short: the last vertebra he illustrates is the 16th so the tail base should only begin two or three more vertebral lengths to the right. As the tail section is kept in proportion, this mistake alone reduces total lenght by 1-1.5 m. If you limit yourself to a 10% intervertebral disc ratio, Baryonyx is merely about eight metres long. This explains why Mortimer has such a high estimation as he based himself on the common 9-9.5 m estimate for Baryonyx. His 17.4 m estimate is simply 14.5 m axial column bone length plus 20% for the intervertebral discs. I should have understood that earlier :oS.--MWAK 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When i emailed him he said he'd get wrking on an update with the new skull material. I asked about the number of vertebra he used in a seconed email and i haven't got a reply yet. Thats why i didn't want to use it. Overall i feel the best reconstruction to date is the del Sasso one, he doesn't give a really specific measurement. Are you shure that stromer thought the vertebra i called the first was the second (c2)? Were does he say that? Interesting what you say about baryonyx. I got a similar arnswer when did my dodgy maths technique on it(like what i used above in my initial spinosaurus rant :). I had thoutht that Mortimer might have done somthing thing like that. Its quite usful that the spinosaur holotype is nearly twice the size of baryonyx as it keeps things reasonably simple. I know that baryonyx and sucho are not its 'closest' known reletives, but they are its closest 'resonably complete' reletives, so i'd rather use them as comparison.I also know that skeletal drawings arn't perfect but its the best i can do. thanks Steveoc 86 12:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dal Sasso paper is very careful in not making any claims that can't be substantiated. It's always best to err on the side of caution. As regards the cervical number, keep in mind the first cervical is the atlas!--MWAK 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And Mortimer has recently revised his holotype estimate, back to 14 m :o).--MWAK 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I independently discovered that today,I also only found out today that site was Mortimer’s. I was wondering whether it was an old site or something. (is there a home page?) I think Mortimer assumed that the 21cm vert corresponds to a ‘known’ vertebra on baryonyx? also using suchomimus for comparison gives a slightly smaller size. Scott Hartman has sent me is version with new skull and with all the bones shown. You and I thought that he had only put in 16 dorsals, he hadn’t, it had the correct number of vertebra. He had however placed the 21cm (1.65m spine) vertebra as a sacral. Stromer said it was a dorsal, looking at the photos I think so too, I think Hartman going to change it. It doesn’t effect the length much though . His reconstruction is about 13.5m at the moment. He has also ignored the (proximal?) caudal Stromer described. He may include it, but some question its affinity (its half the length of the sacrals and really short, however if you were to find a diplodocus proximal caudal, and you had never herd of a sauropod, you might not guess it had a ridiculously long tail). In a later paper (1936?  I cant find it) stomer did a drawn reconstruction, I think I have a low res version. He changes the order of the vertebra as reconstructed in the photos. He also gives it more cauduls (8?) he may have had more material he hadn’t described before it was destroyed. Something interesting about the skull, reading the paper the mandible fragments stromer found were about 75cm, scaling his drawings of the left and right fragments all the measurements add up. Recently I found the photograph of the holotype lower jaw and its has some minor differences, its slightly more crooked. If you go here [] you will find the del Sasso paper and Josh Smiths photograph paper. (whose site I don’t know) But on the photograph Stromer writes two measurements one says ‘95cm long’ quite clearly and the other says or could be interrupted, and rather faintly 75cm. I think Stromer just wanted to confuse people :). Hartman has given a 1.68 skull for the holotype because of this (assuming its 95cm) I’m convinced that all the measurements say its 75cm. Scaling four slightly different skull reconstructions based of del Sassos (and including his) I get a holotpe skull of between 1.30 -1.37ish. I’m going to raise this issue in my next email to Hartman. About the del Sasso estimate. In his paper he says 1.75m for MSNM V4047 and he says that the holotype is apprcx 20% smaller but doesn’t give a measurement for the skull. 1.45m is 20% of 1.75. But direct scaling his skull reconstruction to match Stromers material (so all the teeth line up) gives 1.30ish. Also I think that the skeletal reconstuction for MSNM V4047 he published in his paper is slightly conservative. Direct scaling Hartmans reconstruction with a 1.35m skull to be the size of MSNM V4047 you get an almost 18m long animal. (it looks awesome) But that’s not going to be its size because as theropods grow their heads get proportionally larger to their body.(ive seen it in tyrannosaurus)I think del Sasso has taken this into account. Its hard to exactly say how much the proportions change for the average theropod I don’t know of any papers that talk about this. but I think del Sassos lower estimate 16m is too small and 18m most probably too big. Asuming the reconstruction is correct. ThanksSteveoc 86 13:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ive written a comment but its invisable! it keeps disapearing?? you can read it on the edit page??Steveoc 86 13:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mortimer is a member of university staff, so the site hasn't got a real home page. It would be most interesting to see a new, completely filled in, skeletal restoration by Hartman, as I still feel the proportions aren't quite right presently. As regards the length of the skull, I find your remarks very insightful. There is no doubt that the skull fragment of the holotype is 75 cm long. The "95 cm" reading is probably a misinterpretation of the italic writing which tends to make the "7" seem like a "9". The picture where all vertebrae and the skull are shown together proofs that the length is indeed 75 cm. If so, a total skull length of about 1.45 m is admittedly hard to maintain and seems a 10% exaggeration at least, even quite a bit more if we compare the lower rosette elements. So this leaves us two options. On the one hand we could argue that the Dal Sasso spinosaur is therefore at least about 10% larger than 17 metres. This would then have to be added to other minimal adjustments necessary, as Dal Sasso's estimate of 14 metres for the holotype is based on an average vertebrae length of 18.5 cm and 0% intervertebral disc correction, both of which assumptions cannot be correct. Assuming a minimal 5% extra length, the Dal Sasso spinosaur would be 15% longer than 17 metres, or about 19.5 m long. The other option would be to decide that a 130 cm skull is a bit short for a 15 metres theropod and that, as there are no good data supporting their connection anyway, that skull belongs to another individual. If so, a 1.7 m skull might well be typical for a full-grown Spinosaurus, which then might have a length of no longer than 15 metres.--MWAK 11:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * " It would be most interesting to see a new, completely filled in, skeletal restoration by Hartman, as I still feel the proportions aren't quite right presently" Do you mean the proportions in this skeletal? (link removed, see below) Dinoguy2 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for the reply, i dont think that the del sasso spino would get to 19m. I was trying to rise the problem with direct scaling. As Animals grow there proportions change so its exact size is hard to calculate. Dinoguy how did you get that page, its not on his normal site? That skeletal is the one I’m talking about. Hartman said he will email me after Christmas, he hasn't. I may email him, but i don’t want to bother him. As Hartman placed the 21cm dorsal as a sacral that may have shrunk the holotype length a bit but i don't think the holotype will be much longer than 14m. If you look at the completed recontruction, you’ll see what I mean. There are places were he has put two vertebra in some of the gaps were he could put one for example and this would allow for the 21cm vert to be a dorsal. Thats the problem with spino there are so many variations you could try. If you look at the skull size you see that he has given it a 95cm mandible fragment. He has also ignored the holotype caudal stromer found. Del sasso didn't give any reconstuction for the holotype, his statement of about 20% smaller than his specimen might be taking all parts of the body into account not just the skull. Again he may have adjusted certain proportions due to the older age of the his spino. I don’t think that spinosaurus is a chimera, if you look at photos of spinosaurus‘s, suchomimus’s and baryonyx’s dorsal centrum that they have a ‘similar’ shape. A sort of hourglass shape? (sorry I cant describe it better than that.) Other theropods have more squashed centrums. Steveoc 86 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hartman posted the image on a bulletin board I frequent--I wasn't aware he hasn't included it on his main site. I'm removing the link in case it's something he doesn't want spread around, message me privately if you want to look :) Dinoguy2 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having taken a sneak preview nevertheless :o), it's now obvious to me that I misinterpreted the earlier silhouette drawing. Hartman's restoration — as I measure it about 14.1-14.2 metres in length — is quite accurate, only I would give the tail two feet extra. Taking into account the S-curve of the neck (compare with the image in Dal Sasso), we are then close to 15 metres, even if we shorten the skull. It also struck me how disproportionate a 1.3 m skull would look. Probably the holotype is not a chimaera, but it could well be composed of material from several individuals. It is of course true that Dal Sasso might have assumed allometry to account for the corrections, but neither his 20% number being close to the skulls' ratio nor Mortimer giving a new fourteen metres estimate after discussion with one of the authors support this.--MWAK 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, i have many skull reconstructions in a photoshop file all similar to the del Sasso reconstruction scaled to mach the holotype material (both photograph and drawings of the mandible)  two come out at 1.37ish one of which is Hartmans, scale Hartmans skull to be closer to that measurment. I dont think it looks too bad. also if the caudal stromer found does belong to the animal then the sail in hartmans reconstruction would end sooner which would make the animals boddy 'apear' smaller. This specimin CMN 50791 (Russell, 1996) Material: mid cervical vertebra (195 mm), anterior dorsal neural arch, anterior dentary, mid dentary. That specimin comes with a vertebra (195mm) and a two dentary fragment, if anyone could find the paper we could compare the holotype skull size to this specimin, if the dentry is complete anough. To see the what size the skull is to the vertebra to see his the holotype is mutiple individuals. It could also be that the skull reconstuction isn't 100% correct. What would be usful is to talk to Mortimer ask for his opinion about this animal, about the skull size, its length, and to see what the authors of MSNM V4047 think. Steveoc 86 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reading a post on the dinosaur mailing lists about the spinosaurus marrocanus holotype (i cant find the papers)and it said this  'Spinosaurus maroccanus n. sp.,known from three median cervical vertebrae, two dentary fragments, and a dorsal neural arch.  Dentary seems to have been only 3/4 the size of the type of S. aegyptiacus, but cervicals are longer.'    This to me seems to sugest that the skull of spinosaurus is just small. Most people think that spino.marrocanus is the same as spino. Aegjypticus and if the denrty is ment to be smaller than the holotype and the cervicals proportionaly longer which are now though to be later in the sequence maybe spinosaurus just has a small skull for its size. im finding it hard to describe the idea? do any of you have the papers for both spino marrocanus specimins? thanksSteveoc 86 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

isn't there a living reptile with a sailback?
I think that there's a living reptile with a smaller sail back, I do not know if also made of vertebral extensions, but perhaps it would be could be mentioned if someone knows which animal is it and it would really serve as an example of something. I think it is one lizard of galapagos, but could be from anywere really. I think it resembled a bit more the sail of sailfishes, however. --Extremophile 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you mean the Sailfin lizard; the Marine Iguana would be the Galápagos one, but he hasn't got a real sail. It could of course serve as an example of a sail, but such references are a bit confusing. I personally feel it would be best to avoid suggesting any strong connection between dinosaurs and lizards :o).--MWAK 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At least one paper has pointed out that the best modern comparison for a Spinosaurus sail are the tall, "sail"-like vertebrae of buffalo and other bovids .Dinoguy2 14:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another good comparison would be Arizonasaurus or Lotosaurus, both have very enlongated vertebral spines, which are very similar to those of Spinosaurus, as they are not round in diameter, but much longer than wide, similar to those of bison. As this animals are also extinct, we also don´t know how their backs actually looked, sadly.

proof
Would someone please give me some god damn proof about spinosaurus being 16-20ft. And please give me proof before you revert it. I say if there isn't any proof for spinosaurus being 16-20ft, We might as well put it at 16-22ft in height or randomly puting it a unreasonable 30ft tall. My point is PLEASE PUT SOME PROOF IN THE ARTICLE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.23.65.113 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Why are you so angry about it? Benosaurus 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "proof" is already in the article, and has been there for some time. At the bottom, where it says "References", is dal Sasso, C., S. Maganuco, E. Buffetaut and M. A. Mendez (2006). "New information on the skull of the enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with remarks on its sizes and affinities.". Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25(4): 888-896.  Firsfron of Ronchester  03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats hardly proof for the height of the animal (And might I add was it realy neccesary to block me from editing? I put down information on a page that is just as likly as the previous info and I get blocked for it. Next time how about a warning insted of being selfish and blocking me from editing.) 69.23.65.113 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of proof; in principle Wikipedia merely reflects the existing literature on a subject. Of course, if you haven't read the paper it's difficult to know what's in it and what information in the article it is supposed to support. Nevertheless, when a certain paper should be considered authoritative, the burden of proof is on you to show a certain claim isn't supported by it. Editing without meeting that requirement is seen as dysfuntional and leads to a block. Nothing personal; just how the system works.--MWAK 08:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * lmao, you people always talk about sources being included in the article but now your trying to defend what you've been repeating over and over angin. Now dont lie to me, I know your just trying to make up excuses for not having a reasonable explanation. What was just stated above is a perfect example. What was stated above is not proof but a cowardly excuse. Wikipedia is not what is once was, I should know, I was once a member. 69.23.65.113 02:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell, but I think he's talking about height, rather than length and mass. As far as I nkow, dal Sasso doesn't address the height of the animal. I'll remove it until a source can be found, though I doubt one exists.Dinoguy2 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats exactly what im talking about. Thank you much. :) 69.23.65.113 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So why are you so furiously arguing about the height of Spinosaurus? Why does it matter that much to you? Benosaurus 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well why do you ask? 69.23.65.113 21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because if you say, "Would someone please give me some god damn proof about Spinosaurus being 16-20ft" then I kinda get the idea you're mad about this. Why? Benosaurus 00:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I see lol. I guess I am kinda made because It seemed to me that it was just randomly put in the article, being that there where no sources ect. Maybe a estimate would be fine but other then that I say there needs to be some strong evidence to sapport this. 69.23.65.113 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this link to a page that does mention the height of the animal

I know it is only a guess but are there any thoughts of adding it to the article? 24.208.55.168 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If know body is going to say anything then I guess I will put it in my self.24.208.55.168 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass
In the Specimens section, mass estimates are given that are far higher than those listed elsewhere in the article, as well as in the sources given. Why is this? - Dotdotdotdash 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mass estimates vary quite a bit depending on the meathod used, those 12-19tons estimates are Micky Mortimers, . This paper NEW INFORMATION ON THE SKULL OF THE ENIGMATIC THEROPOD SPINOSAURUS, WITH REMARKS ON ITS SIZE AND AFFINITIES says a 16 -18m spino using 'Seebacher’s (2001) method' (dont ask me what that entails) comes out at 7-9tons. Also considering Mortimers changed his size and mass estimates can we do the same. '(MSNM V4047) (~17 m, ~8 tons)' . On the DML he said 'Spinosaurus size was reconsidered (it's smaller; due to discussions with an author of the new snout).' Also about spinos diet the Del sasso paper says 'An isolated fish vertebra associated with the specimen is embedded between the right second premaxillary alveolus and its erupting tooth and can be tentatively referred to ?Onchopristis sp. (Stromer, 1926:taf I, fig. 7), a sawfish that is very abundant in the Kem Kem beds.' thanks Steveoc 86 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hay, sorry to keep this going.... but he lengths stated in the artical....considering that micky has revised his estimates can we change them to. Theres a line in the artical 'At least one survey, as-yet unpublished, suggest that Spinosaurus reached sizes of 12 - 19 tons in weight.'  Can we change it to somthing like   'At least one survey, unpublished, suggested that Spinosaurus reached sizes of 12 - 19 tons in weight. However the authur of these estimates has recently changed these figures to the size of the dal Sasso et al. estimates.' or somthing along those lines...oh and change the sizes in the species and specimins section...even if del Sasso size estimates turn out wrong, there the only recent published figures. the artical does makes it clear that they are estimates. :) thanksSteveoc 86 10:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Recent developments have complicated matters; see: http://dml.cmnh.org/2007Mar/msg00292.html :o).--MWAK 05:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting…. ..I never realised that the suchomimus was headless .... ‘Even worse, the incomplete skeleton of Suchomimus is headless! The snout and other cranial elements (quadrates and dentaries) are referred specimens with unknown scaling relative to the postcrania! So we don't know the skull length of either taxon or the skeletal length relative to skull length in Suchomimus, making it impossible to confirm their method works on spinosaurids.’...  Its interesting as Micky has picked so many holes in it… I still think that the estimates the del sasso estimates are some of the best. A roughly 14-15m(depending on unknown tail lengths) holotype  fit’s the known material quite nicely.....   ‘Then they estimate Spinosaurus' length and mass based on their equations and Dal Sasso et al.'s 1.75 meter skull length estimate. They get a much shorter (14.34 m) and heavier (20.9 tons) animal than Dal Sasso et al. did. Why? I'd say because of what I wrote above regarding their biased sample of large theropods. The large theropods are mostly short-tailed and massive tyrannosaurids, and the largest are especially massive tyrannosaurines. Spinosaurus probably had a much longer tail than tyrannosaurids and was more lightly built, yet because it's skull is longer than any theropod used in the model, it will be forced into the trendline formed by the largest tyrannosaurids.’ I’d love to get my hands on this paper. Sound like an interesting read..... Once again im sorry but......Please can we change the estimates in the artical to the del sasso ones. If we make it clear in the artical that they are estimates and may be wrong, there the only Recent Published estimates.....please with cherries on top :) Steveoc 86 10:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition 1.5m skull????  It looks ridiculous.  They couldn’t have even tested that measurment shurly, assuming that the rear half of the skull is similar to irritator. Which the shape of the lower jaw would suggest .  The snout is nearly a meter long.  The antorbital fenestra, eye and temporal fenestra have to be really squashed  into the last 50cm.Steveoc 86 10:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sooo....does this mean that the length and height of Spinosaurus has changed?
 * hay.. i havn't read the paper but Micky's post seens to suggest no. Their method is based on skull to body ratios of incomplete theropods (bary sucho) or theropods that are too different (tyrannosaurs), not the actual known material....... the weight however, i dont know. Weight estimates are always changing. :) Steveoc 86 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

S. marocannus
Does anybody know if there is a reference to the size of Spinosaurus marocannus? Atroposs 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * hi i think that most people think that Spino. marocannus is the same animal as spino.aegyptiacus. I think that MNHN SAM 124 is similar in size to the holotype. We're currently struggling with the holotypes size. Some have reconstructed the holotype at 14 and the recent paper by Del Sasso, some more towards 15m (read above). Its not the most complete animal :) hope that helpsSteveoc 86 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that S. marocannus and S. aegyptiacus are probably the same animal but I just wanted to know if there is difference in size between the two. Atroposs 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

the picture of Jurassic Parck III
Idont think the picture of Jurassic parck III are a spinosaureus because I think is a picture of veloceraptor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.176.72 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


 * what makes you say that? 24.208.43.203 21:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Spinosaurus. JP Velociraptor's head is significantly different, and you can see the sail on the right-hand side. J. Spencer 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Spinosaurus (8 votes) wins collaboration for May
Nominated April 13th, 2007;

Support: Comments:
 * 1) . cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Dropzink 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) ArthurWeasley 06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Astrowob 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Benosaurus 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Mgiganteus1 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) J. Spencer 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Dinoguy2 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Though this is a late nomination I feel it has alot of the groundwork already done; it is an African dinosaur; lots of interesting anatomy; WWII issue is fascinating; gondwana origin. Even if not an offical collaboration per se, could be worked up at least to GA status readily. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering when this one will be nominated. ArthurWeasley 06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Spinosaurus needs to be more understood; lots of people hate it because of Jurassic Park III. Benosaurus 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Article with a lot of info that needs a lot of work done in temrs of cleaning up, writing, cites, etc. If somebody could do a new drawing based on the dal Sasso skull, that would be really cool... Dinoguy2 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spinosaurus photo
I've got a photo of the original Spinosaurus material on my hard drive. I seem to recall there was a (fairly recent?) paper or article announcing the "re-discovery" of this image. While I'm thinking the original may be public domain, I'm not so sure if it was re-published. Does anyone have the cites for either the original photo or the recent papaer? Dinoguy2 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * hay, this site has a the Josh smith paper (it shows the photo of the lower jaw as well), I could do a spino skull drawing if you'd like.Steveoc 86 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Smith et al. 2006 is the one I was thinking of. If you want to try doing a skull drawing, here's a good one to go by, based on the Dal Sasso specimen and related species . Dinoguy2 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like the jawbone photo/drawing from the article in question was actually produced in 1912, and so is probably out of copyright... njan 09:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * would you like it drawn as bones or fleshed out (or both), i'll post it on the image review pageSteveoc 86 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be cool to have a close-up shot of the head based on the new finds, as in a life restoration (especially if we can just use the skeletal from the paper).Dinoguy2 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

--Nubula 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
Let's see if we can't kick-start this collaboration.

First, bulleted lists should be reworked into prose, and references should be converted to the "cite journal"/etc. templates. The intro is a bit too detailed. Description: actually, all we have are skull/jaws and vertebrae, so those should be the focus. Limb material doesn't appear to be known for Spino. Classification: none yet, but this would be a quick paragraph (maybe include Rauhut's chimera hypothesis here); perhaps take the last intro paragraph for a base? Discovery and species: reformatting is needed here more than anything else. Paleobiology: a description of the habitat would be nice, and I think there may be bite-force estimation out there somewhere. In popular culture: just add citations, I suppose.

Thoughts? J. Spencer 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with those, the artical talks about the limb material to confindendily, and (sorry to keep going on about this),im still not keen on the size. I know of no recent references to 17.4- 21m lengths. Those were Mortimers and he has now changed them. They could be mentioned, but not stated as fact, like they are in the species and specimins section.Steveoc 86 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to write a bit about the habitat, but where should it be placed in the article? in Feeding ecology or in its own section? Nubula 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for adding the stromer drawing, ive been looking for that pic for ages, the info says its a book cover, which book?, It also says the image was scanned, looks abit distorted and wonky is it possible to rescan it to be closer to the origanl? thanksSteveoc 86 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current image is the best I can manage, unfortunatly. The picture came from the corner of a small paperback book simply called Dinosaurs! I Purchased in a Florida supermarket as a kid (Its very old and outdated now.) Although I belive their to be a better version in the book, The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt. Nubula 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope nobody mines me asking but I think there should be a updated size comparison of Spinosaurus and a Human. Other dinosaur articles have one, why not give Spinosaurus one? 24.208.55.168 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not shown as a size comparison to begin with: it's a 1915 drawing of the reconstitution. A proper size comparison will probably be added in time (i.e. before a GA or FA nomination).Circeus 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The section on the function of the sail desperately needs cites, and needs to be cleaned up to follow whatever they may be closely--I have a feeling much of it is original research or hearsay type stuff. Dinoguy2 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Bob Bakker mentioned the theory that the sail was for display though I'll need to go through my books to verify that. Nubula 11:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The artical could talk about the hump therory a little. I don't know what current thinking about this is. 'Neural Spine Elongation in Dinosaurs: Sailbacks or Buffalo-Backs? Jack Bowman Bailey, Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 71, No. 6 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1124-1146' Steveoc 86 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't Stromer himself consider and reject that idea in his 1915 paper on IPHG 1912 VIII 19? Nubula 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i just read the 1915 paper, your right he does reject the idea. Still maybe the artical could meantion it. Steveoc 86 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

With the collaboration period over, I think that the state of the article is much improved. I think the writing is the main area remaining for improvement (flow, that sort of thing), although I would like to see a paleoecological paragraph somewhere, with contemporaries and habitat. Paralititan was a contemporary, so we can go off of its mangrove forests for some of it. J. Spencer 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tooth length
Some one added a bit about spinosaurus teeth being 2-4 inches, from what ive seen, the largest teeth on MSNM V4047 would reach about 15cm (about 6 inches) excluding root. but i cant find a reference to this sort of size. Steveoc 86 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

accurate picture
Found this image on the web. Is it accurate at all? 
 * It was made before the new skull was known, so the shape of the snout is wrong. Otherwise it seems ok. Dinoguy2 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

fish diet
Spinosaurus is known to have had a diet of mostely fish. Fish isn't really considered meat, is it? If its not considered meat would that mean that Spinosaurus is not a meat-eater? 24.208.55.168 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fish is certainly meat... and there's no direct evidence concerning what spino ate. Its close relatives are known to have eaten everything from fish to young Iguanodon to pterosaurs! Dinoguy2 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The del Sasso paper mentioned a fish scale lodged in one of the tooth sockets...

'MSNM V4047—Specimen MSNM V4047,......The specimen was reported to have been found east of the town of Taouz, within the red beds underlying the Hammada du Guir plateau, and more precisely in the area called Kem Kem. More specific field data were not recorded but sediment adhering to the bone is closely consistent with the Kem Kem red sandstone both in colour, composition, and texture. An isolated fish vertebra associated with the specimen is embedded between the right second premaxillary alveolus and its erupting tooth and can be tentatively referred to ?Onchopristis sp. (Stromer, 1926:taf I, fig. 7), a sawfish that is very abundant in the Kem Kem beds.' Steveoc 86 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
The bottom copyrighted image needs a fair use rationale for the GA to pass; please address this before somebody reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone around here know how to work the rationales? I'm also worried about when the Theropod Database will reappear. J. Spencer 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use rationale provided. As for the Theropod Database, didn't Dinoguy or Sheep say Mickey Mortimer was putting it back up in August? If it's really a worry, we can always link the cached version from Google or the Internet Archive. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okie-dokie. There should be another source on the S. marocannus=S. aegyptiacus anyway.  I just remembered that we forgot to cover the briefly fashionable quadrupedal Spinosaurus ('80s-'90s fad, if I recall correctly, but it may not be in the lit [it might have just been something someone said that caught on in the semi-popular books]). J. Spencer 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The quadrupedality was, incorrectly, ascribed to Baryonyx.--MWAK 12:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, going back through, it was Spino as well - Glut '82, before Bary had been published, mentioned this, and Glut '00 discusses it in connection with Bailey's work and has a photo of a Spino sculpture that is a quadruped. J. Spencer 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A few comments about the GA nomination: Hope these are helpful pointers for improving the article. Thanks Suicidalhamster 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the classification section the article talks about Stromer's spinosaurus, however who stromer was and what he did is first mentioned in the discovery of species section. This makes the reference to stromer in the classification section hard to understand.
 * External link 4 at the end of the size section does not seem to work. Additionaly could the 5 or so external links be converted to normal references (ie. using ) so that it is consistant throughout the article.
 * Although analogous is linked at the start of the Sail section would it be possible to define it in the sentence (only briefly!) otherwise the whole sentence is hard to understand if you don't know what it means.
 * The lead goes into considerable detail about the 2001 paper, more information that the whole section on size. Does the lead need the name Dal Sasso and Civic National History Museum? could they not be moved to the size section?
 * They are helpful. The external link has just moved to a new permanent location, which will require a lot of link fixes in WP: The Theropod Database. J. Spencer 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Got the external link issues. J. Spencer 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I went through the other suggested fixes. The one I'm not sure about is the definitions of analogy and homology; I don't think the sentence reads that well anymore. J. Spencer 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes, I agree that the extra bit about analogous probably isn't necessary and broke up the flow so I have removed it. I also adjusted the bit you added to the lead as the two different species had been mentioned just before. I hope it is still accurate and makes sense! Suicidalhamster 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reread it, and the species clause looked redundant, so I cut it out. I don't know why I missed that there was already a sentence about that in the lead before! J. Spencer 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA
I've promoted it to GA status. I think that each section should be expanded more, but it all checks out with GA criteria.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I've been bold and semi-protected this article, as well as Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. I'm tired of seeing the already well-sourced size numbers for these animals changing on a daily basis, and I know that first thing in the morning, some IP is going to change the information without changing the reference. I understand that fanboy-types want their favorite to be the largest, meanest, baddest ones, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is ridiculous to add a few feet in length just to make your favorite the largest. Since the disruption is limited almost entirely to IPs, semi-protection should work fine. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More Accurate Jurassic Park Picture
Shouldn't a picture of spinosaurus actually have its spine in it? Just a thought, but that would much better depict it in my opinion, since the spine is one of its most distinguished features DallasOConner 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Might not have been real??
Look, I know it sounds a little far-fetched, but might we all agree to at least explore the possibility that the Spinosaurus may not have exsisted? Not everything adds up and I'm not the only one who thinks so. -Dr. John P. Windsor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.59.106 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then where did the fossils come from? Firsfron of Ronchester  02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, if Spinosaurus isn't real, then what are those fossils of?--Mr Fink 02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hee! Also: if Spinosaurus didn't exist, what does that say about all the other dinosaur fossils discovered? Did they also not exist? At least a thousand genera, all non-existant? Firsfron of Ronchester  02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have mentioned this point before, judging by the IP. While Rauhut did suggest that there were multiple animals in Stromer's original remains, this has not been followed up by anyone, and if Rauhut was right, there would be a giant Acrocanthosaurus-like carcharodontosaurid with tall spines, and a giant croc-snouted baryonychid ("two weird giant dinosaurs instead of one", not "no weird giant dinosaurs instead of one"). J. Spencer 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A recent blog post by Darren Naish again mentions the old chesnut that Spinosaurus could be a chimera. There's no way to prove or disprove it without new remains. It is true and a bit odd that several allosauroids have tall spines (Acrocanthosaurus, Altispinax) while apparently no other spinosaurids do. But as J. pointed out, this wouldn't mean Spinosaurus didn't exist--it would mean we've been depicting it with the wrong head (ironically, since the head in old restorations was allosaur-like). And we'd have to give a new name to the new giant baryonychid we've been assuming was spino's head. Dinoguy2 13:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

displayed
I just thought this was preety cool. Mayo on Pie 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SpinoOndisplay.jpg

Edits
Ok, I’ve been acused of entering an edit war over at the giganotosaurus article. I thought I was reverting the usual vandalism these large theropods get. This line has been altered; 'Spinosaurus emerges victorious by snapping the tyrannosaur's neck' Where is the source that states that the T.rex in Jurassic park 3 is juvenile? This clearly needs to be removed because as far as it looks, it’s OR, I’d remove it but I don't want to get to get accused of being in another edit war. So apparently it needs discussing..….so who thinks it should stay?? Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's clearly OR. I've seen nowhere mentioned that the T-rex in the movie was a juvenile. ArthurWeasley (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for for imput. Cheers Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any source that actually says it's neck was snapped? How do we know it wasn't crushed, or something else? Was a forensic expert present to determine cause of death? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually is was confirmed to be a juvenile T-Rex in JP3.(It was from a legit source from one of the movie sites that's official). Some fans believe it was the infant from the 2nd movie more grown up.Mcelite (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

I call bullshit on that.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Jurassic-Park-III.html

^Here's the original script for Jurassic Park III. Scroll down to the Spino vs. T-Rex encounter...

''Our friends stop dead in their tracks. Amanda stifles a cry. Before them lies an immense unmoving SAUROPOD.''

''GRANT: Don't worry. It's dead.''

''Then a full-grown bull TYRANNOSAURUS rises up behind the carcass. It was feeding, its mouth mottled with blood and carrion.''

There ya have it- straight from the horse's mouth.

K00bine (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That script isn't accurate. When on Earth did the Spino kick the T-Rex or knock it down? Also it wasn't the Spino's foot that almost crushed Grant is was the T-Rex's foot that did.Mcelite (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Sometimes things change during the translation from script to the finished product. However, it IS accurate save for some extremely minor nitpicky insignificant details like the ones you pointed out. The T. Rex in JP3 is an adult, and to suggest it is anything otherwise is merely wishful thinking on the part of Rex fans to try and denigrate the Spino's feat... and I say this as a T. Rex fan, hater of JP3 and JP3's Spinosaurus.

I stated a fact. I backed it up with a citation from an official source (a quote from the script.) This is how wikipedia works. Until someone comes up with a citation from an official source that says the T. Rex in JP3 was a Juvinile, the script's description of the Rex as being a full-grown bull still stands.

K00bine (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the T.rex in jp3 is adult or not is not important to a encycipedia artical...I don't want any of the dinosaur articals to become one of those articals clearly written by fans. For exarmple the Venom (comics) artical with stupid lines like,
 * As with past incarnations, Venom is vulnerable to sound (though the film does not make completely clear whether it is the frequency or amplitude of sound that is damaging).......how is that important?....Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no don't take it that way K00bine. I didn't mean to make it seem like u got it from a bogus source. Also is there really a thing for haters of JP3? If so that's hilarious.... But yeah that script did have things they didn't do at all, but I also agree that this shouldn't be an issue in the articleMcelite (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

link
just thought this was interesting  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.53.190 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty cool, even links to this article's size chart (enigmatic huh? funny coming from an article with no byline ;) ) Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)