[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Suchomimus vs Baryonyx: Dare to Compare

Betty Cunningham wrote:
> Have Suchomimus' feet been found?
> Did it show any special adaptations such as a wideing of the foot base?
> I ask becasue if this was piscivorus and lived in a sort of "crocodilian
> niche" it seems awful heavy to go wandering around in mud on a mere two
> feet and I'm wondering if it's feet were either hippo-like in being big
> broad blunt shapes, or if they seemed like they were possibly webbed
> like modern waterfowl.  We've seen that the skin on the HANDS of
> hadrosaurs could modify skin around the fingers to some sort of knobby
> walking mitt, and I'm wondering if the skin on the FEET could have been
> as specialized.
> Has it's tail been found?
> If it were as much a swimmer as a crocodile is, wouldn't we find the
> tendon fusion  of the tail reduced from the conditions of say,
> Deinonychus so the tail would not be as rigid right at the base of the
> spine.   The 'wave' that goes through the body of a swimming animal
> would be greatly reduced if the tail were as immobile for a section as
> seen in  Deinonychus.  (picture of the 'wave' of the spine of a swimming
> lizard here: I used it as reference for a swimming crocodile I've just
> completed:  http://faculty.vassar.edu/~jolong/swimming.html )
> Here's a great article on dolphin spine flexibility when considered as a
> swimming locomotor:
> http://faculty.vassar.edu/~jolong/discsum.html   So if we got fused
> tendons in the tail for any great length it wasn't no natural
> swimmer......

A few other things to consider.

Some say Suchomimus/baryonyx caught fish like a bear, using it's large
thumb claw. Why? When the head has a longer reach, the claw would be
inefective. Then it caught fish with his mouth.

Lets examine this. We have to play the picture all the way through. Sure
it has a skull that looks similar to that of a ghavial. But the nostrals
are still on the side of the skull and not the top, so it didn't float
like a ghavial. It couldn't swim like a ghavial. The whole body
ungulates, not just the tail. So we rule out swimming to catch a fish
(it would have to have been a deep river, lake, to begin with). So it
stood up to it's belly in a river. The rivers bottom would have to have
been hard or it would have sunk into the mud. IT would have to have fast
reflexes to catch the fish. The water would have to have been clear for
it to see the fish. A 6 foot fish swiming in 6 feet of water is awfully
shallow for it. The biggest fish usually are at the deepest part of the

So I say no fish eater. What did it eat then? Terrestrial animals of

I did get a copy of the Science on line from George.

So, no complete hand. So the claws, other than the thumb, is smaller
than the thumb claw. The skeleton dosen't show this. Why? 

I can't see Torvosaurs being close to Spinosaurs. I think Brooks Britt
is right. The hole animal needs to be looked at, not just parts of it.

Why, oh why, is the back of Spinosaurus drawn that way? There is no way
it looked like that. Now artist will use that incorrect drawing to draw

Why ignore Dilophosaurus? It has a premaxilla very similar, though fewer
teeth, to Baryonyx. The maxilla is long, and could easly be streatched
to that of Baryonyx or Suchomimus.

A long skull, big claw, a fish eater dosen't make. The WHOLE animal
needs to be looked at.