[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Spinosaurus Question
John Hunt wrote:
Your information is correct and what little was found was destroyed in WW2
leaving just photos of the mounted bones and the published description.
But related species have been found and have much more of the bones
preserved. These have been described as facultive bipeds but there was
doubt about Baryonyx when it was first described. No such doubts about
Suchomimus afaik. These may be synonymous. There are other spinosaurs
have been described since.
That's exactly what I would have said.
One potential 'fly-in-the-ointment' is that there is a possibility that the
type for _Spinosaurus aegyptiacus_ is a composite: the cranial material and
dorsal vertebrae might each come from a different animal. (This has
happened with other North African dinosaurs.) The _Spinosaurus_ snout is
certainly like that of _Baryonyx_ and _Suchomimus_, but the dorsal vertebrae
may belong to a different taxon. Still, the snout and dorsals all come from
a VERY large theropod, which provides some evidence that they come from the
Rauhut, O. W. M. (2003). The interrelationships and evolution of basal
theropod dinosaurs. Special Papers in Palaeontology 69: 1-213.
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.