• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Journal Science: Study reveals Spinosaurus far more aquatic than previously known

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grym

Member
sn-underwaterH.jpg


Spinosaurus. The name is nothing new. We've had fossils discovered in the early 1900 and destroyed during World War II. We've even seen one fight on screen vs. a T Rex (Jurassic Park III).

Well they found new skeletons. Mostly complete off of Morocco and the aquatic nature of the dinosaur was described today in the Journal Science.

In the film Jurassic Park III, a giant sail-backed dinosaur called Spinosaurus fights a terrestrial Tyrannosaurus—and wins. But a study published online today in Science shows that the 15-meter-long Spinosaurus (shown in this artist’s reconstruction) had adaptations to life both in the water and on land, suggesting that the fierce beast was more of a danger to fish than to any terrestrial creature. In 97-million-year-old freshwater sediments in eastern Morocco, researchers discovered new Spinosaurus fossils, including parts of the skull, vertebral column, pelvis, and limb bones. The researchers were able to see signs of watery adaptation not seen in other dinosaurs: a small nostril located far back on the head, apparently to limit water intake; relatively long forelimbs; big flat feet suitable for paddling as well as walking on muddy ground; and very dense limb bones, which would have allowed Spinosaurus to submerge itself rather than float at the surface. The adaptations resemble those of early whales and today’s hippopotamus, and make Spinosaurus the only dinosaur known to swim, the researchers say.

Read the full story in this week’s issue of Science.



I don't have a subscription to view the whole study. So I looked for other stories

http://woodtv.com/2014/09/11/alien-like-giant-water-living-dinosaur-unveiled/

WASHINGTON (AP) — Picture the fearsome creatures of “Jurassic Park” crossed with the shark from “Jaws.” Then super-size to the biggest predator ever to roam Earth. Now add a crocodile snout as big as a person and feet like a duck’s.

The result gives you some idea of a bizarre dinosaur scientists unveiled Thursday.

This patchwork of critters, a 50-foot predator, is the only known dinosaur to live much of its life in the water.

The beast, called Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, was already known to scientists from a long-ago fossil discovery, but most of those bones were destroyed during World War II. Now, 70 years later, a new skeleton found in Morocco reveals that the beast was far more aquatic than originally thought.

Spinosaurus had a long neck, strong clawed forearms, powerful jaws and the dense bones of a penguin. It propelled itself in water with flat feet that were probably webbed, according to a study released Thursday by the journal Science. The beast sported a spiny sail on its back that was 7 feet tall when it lived 95 million years ago.

“It’s like working on an extraterrestrial or an alien,” study lead author Nizar Ibrahim of the University of Chicago said, while standing in front of a room-sized reconstruction of the skeleton at the National Geographic Society. “It’s so different than anything else around.”

Ibrahim described the creature as “so bizarre it’s going to force dinosaur experts to rethink many things they thought they knew about dinosaurs.”

Scientists had thought that all dinosaurs stuck to the land, with occasional brief trips into the water. But the new skeleton shows clear evidence of river and lake living: hip bones like a whale’s, dense bones that allowed it to dive for food, and nostrils positioned high on the skull, allowing Spinosaurus to mostly submerge.

<snip> more at link


Come on science. Like feathers aren't enough...why do you hate Jurassic Park so much?!? ;)
 
Fuck you, Spinosaurus. If Jurassic Park 3 were real, the T-Rex would have fucked you up and you know it. You only won for shock value. So fuck you. I don't give a fuck if you could swim or not.
 
Pliosaurs are technically aquatic reptiles :-/

pliosaur-funkei.jpg

I remember having a dinosaur book with one of those ugly fuckers in it, it's probably one of my earliest memories of fear. I used to skip past that page because of how terrifying it was. It's probably responsible for my fear of being in/under the ocean.
 

Grym

Member
Pliosaurs are technically aquatic reptiles :-/

yeah, I found the quote odd too since there were other aquatic reptiles of the time. I guess they meant more in terms of what the general public envisions - a bipedal dinosaur - that also was predominantly aquatic...
 
Picture the fearsome creatures of &#8220;Jurassic Park&#8221; crossed with the shark from &#8220;Jaws.&#8221; Then super-size to the biggest predator ever to roam Earth. Now add a crocodile snout as big as a person and feet like a duck&#8217;s.

Where do they get these writers?

yeah, I found the quote odd too since there were other aquatic reptiles of the time. I guess they meant more in terms of what the general public envisions - a bipedal dinosaur - that also was predominantly aquatic...

Aren't they technically--as in, scientifically--not dinosaurs, though?
 
Picture the fearsome creatures of “Jurassic Park” crossed with the shark from “Jaws.” Then super-size to the biggest predator ever to roam Earth. Now add a crocodile snout as big as a person and feet like a duck’s.

The result gives you some idea of a bizarre dinosaur scientists unveiled Thursday.

This is so stupid, can't be real, sounds like something in some kind of dumb Syfi original.
 

Snuggles

erotic butter maelstrom
Aren't crocodiles and turtles basically just tiny dinosaurs though

EDIT - and water snakes.

PS That shark with the saw nose is sick.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
What's funny is iirc the spinosaurus submerged itself under water to attack the main characters in JP3
 

happypup

Member
yeah, I found the quote odd too since there were other aquatic reptiles of the time. I guess they meant more in terms of what the general public envisions - a bipedal dinosaur - that also was predominantly aquatic...

Not all reptiles at the time were dinosaurs, it has nothing to do with perception and everything to do with appropriate classification. the term dinosaur only belongs to a subset of archosaurs (which includes birds). A major character that define a dinosaur (I could be messing this up it is not my specialty) is an erect and bipedal posture. Now you may say, "well what about triceratops?" Although the late sauropods and many ornithischian dinosaurs (like the triceratops) are quadrupeds they evolved from bipedal ancestors (that of course evolved from quadrupeds). If it diverged from the group of archosaurs earlier (like crocodiles and pterodactyls) or if it diverged earlier still (like the well known prehistoric aquatic reptiles) then the term dinosaur is not correct.
 
That title is kind of misleading since a lot of dinosaurs can swim, including T.rex. What Spinosaurus is is an animal that lives in the water as oppose to being able to swim in the water. While Spinosaurus is long (still doubtful about the numbers if you look at the tail), it's probably not even close to being as heavy as T.rex. It's definitely not as tall.

 

Grym

Member
Not all reptiles at the time were dinosaurs, it has nothing to do with perception and everything to do with appropriate classification. the term dinosaur only belongs to a subset of archosaurs (which includes birds). A major character that define a dinosaur (I could be messing this up it is not my specialty) is an erect and bipedal posture. Now you may say, "well what about triceratops?" Although the late sauropods and many ornithischian dinosaurs (like the triceratops) are quadrupeds they evolved from bipedal ancestors (that of course evolved from quadrupeds). If it diverged from the group of archosaurs earlier (like crocodiles and pterodactyls) or if it diverged earlier still (like the well known prehistoric aquatic reptiles) then the term dinosaur is not correct.

I was gonna ask what exactly classifies a dinosaur as a dinosaur but assumed the answer would be too confusing and convoluted to a layperson. I was right on that but still appreciate the description because it still does clarify it a bit to me
 

happypup

Member
Lies. Giant reptiles in the age of dinosoars should be considered dinosoars. Fucking asshole science always going back and changing shit.

this isn't new, it has been this way for a long time. It is pretty easy really, dinosaur was at one point a single species (sometime well before the Triassic most likely) If the organism can trace its lineage back to that species it is a dinosaur, if it comes from a cousin of that species then it isn't a dinosaur. If we make a categorical system that mirrors evolutionary history the categories will tell us way more about the organism then just what it looks like. Linnaeus stumbled upon the truth of evolution well before Darwin If you share a feature with another organism you will likely share many features with that organism. This is primarily do to inheriting these features, but sometimes it isn't, we have adopted a system that places organisms into smaller and smaller groups based on the increased numbers of shared similarities as a result of inheritance. In that system dinosaurs are archosaurs that adopted an erect and bipedal posture (like I said in an earlier post it doesn't matter if they were currently bipedal, just that they shared the effects of at one time inheriting a bipedal posture)
 

Ecotic

Member
Correcto-mundo. It seems that more and more evidence is in the camp that Dinosaurs were much more like birds and not reptiles. Dinosaurs are not reptiles.

This is an incorrect way to look at this. Rather than saying dinosaurs are not reptiles because of their similarity to birds, I would rather say that birds should have never been considered as not being reptiles.

What is a reptile? It certainly has nothing to do with being cold-blooded (a useless term now), since many ancient reptiles that are now extinct were not cold-blooded. Reptiles are amniotes, or egg layers, that are not mammals (to separate out the platypus anomaly). Birds are egg laying amniotes, have scutes on their feet like other reptiles, and are only considered as not being reptiles because we didn't know they had descended from dinosaurs when we first found and classified them.
 

Raonak

Banned
It swam in JP3, so this is hardly surprising.

I always liked the spino for it's more exotic look compared to the T-Rex which has lots of similarities to other short armed, bipedal dinos.
 
This is an incorrect way to look at this. Rather than saying dinosaurs are not reptiles because of their similarity to birds, I would rather say that birds should have never been considered as not being reptiles.

What is a reptile? It certainly has nothing to do with being cold-blooded (a useless term now), since many ancient reptiles that are now extinct were not cold-blooded. Reptiles are amniotes, or egg layers, that are not mammals (to separate out the platypus anomaly). Birds are egg laying amniotes, have scutes on their feet like other reptiles, and are only considered as not being reptiles because we didn't know they had descended from dinosaurs when we first found and classified them.

Also, birds are now recognized as reptiles. Or at least a branch from reptilia.
 

happypup

Member
I guess. All this "striving for accuracy" really makes shit complicated. Too complicated.

I will admit it takes a little more understanding to initially grasp the naming system, but once you put in that little bit of initial investment if you look at the long name of an organism you are not just getting some arbitrary list of words but the entire evolutionary history of that organism.
 
Thread title should indicate the Dinosaur being the Spinosaurus.

The most fascinating part of this is that the study suggests the Spinosaur was a quadruped on land, and not bipedal as originally thought. The new reconstruction makes the Dinosaur all the more bizarre:

6hBSaeg.jpg



It is straight up BS. Because Triceratops was named first so even IF that study is correct, it's Torosaurus that's disappearing, and NOT Triceratops.

100% this, and on that note, I am still not entirely convinced they are the same species.
 
Thread title should indicate the Dinosaur being the Spinosaurus.

The most fascinating part of this is that the study suggests the Spinosaur was a quadruped on land, and not bipedal as originally thought. The new reconstruction makes the Dinosaur all the more bizarre:

6hBSaeg.jpg

I'm not entirely convinced that's how long the tail is. The paper does should they have a lot of material, but the tail is very fragmented.

Being able to walk on its knuckles is pretty damn cool. When I saw the tiny thumbnail, I thought now way it could walk on land because its wrists wouldn't allow the hands to bend in a way that allows it to walk on all fours, but never thought about walking on its knuckles.

This is basically how Spinosaurus compares among the big 3.

EXrKMpm.jpg
 
straight up bs.



I guess. All this "striving for accuracy" really makes shit complicated. Too complicated.

It keeps science from being at the whim of the kind of people who watch recent Discovery channel.

I'm not entirely convinced that's how long the tail is. The paper does should they have a lot of material, but the tail is very fragmented.

Being able to walk on its knuckles is pretty damn cool. When I saw the tiny thumbnail, I thought now way it could walk on land because its wrists wouldn't allow the hands to bend in a way that allows it to walk on all fours, but never thought about walking on its knuckles.

This is basically how Spinosaurus compares among the big 3.

EXrKMpm.jpg

Huh. Neat. The crocodyliform feel is even stronger after this.
 

Christine

Member
This is an incorrect way to look at this. Rather than saying dinosaurs are not reptiles because of their similarity to birds, I would rather say that birds should have never been considered as not being reptiles.

What is a reptile? It certainly has nothing to do with being cold-blooded (a useless term now), since many ancient reptiles that are now extinct were not cold-blooded. Reptiles are amniotes, or egg layers, that are not mammals (to separate out the platypus anomaly). Birds are egg laying amniotes, have scutes on their feet like other reptiles, and are only considered as not being reptiles because we didn't know they had descended from dinosaurs when we first found and classified them.

Amniote doesn't mean egg-layer, it means that the eggs have an amnion and can thus grow to maturity without being immersed in water. All mammals are amniotes, not just the monotremes. Excluding the mammals from Reptilia isn't done for the sake of the platypus, which has every characteristic shared by all mammals: hair, milk producing glands, three middle ear bones, and a neocortex.

Reptile just isn't a well defined term in cladistics, so I don't really think it's that necessary to include birds in it, any more than we need to include them as "fish".

To put it another way, the definition of reptile is currently "amniotes that aren't mammals and aren't birds". Changing it to "Amniotes that aren't mammals" isn't changing the subtractive nature of the definition.
 

Bitanator

Member
"Picture the fearsome creatures of “Jurassic Park” crossed with the shark from “Jaws.” Then super-size to the biggest predator ever to roam Earth. Now add a CROCODILE snout as big as a person and feet like a DUCK'S"

So the Crocoduck, Ray Comfort must be shitting his pants sipping on a soda while opening a banana the wrong way right about now.
 
Fuck you, Spinosaurus. If Jurassic Park 3 were real, the T-Rex would have fucked you up and you know it. You only won for shock value. So fuck you. I don't give a fuck if you could swim or not.

If JP3 were real the T-Rex would have feathers. :O

Also, there is no way I'm going in the water if I'm ever stranded in the Jurassic period.
 
I'm not entirely convinced that's how long the tail is. The paper does should they have a lot of material, but the tail is very fragmented.

Being able to walk on its knuckles is pretty damn cool. When I saw the tiny thumbnail, I thought now way it could walk on land because its wrists wouldn't allow the hands to bend in a way that allows it to walk on all fours, but never thought about walking on its knuckles.

This is basically how Spinosaurus compares among the big 3.

EXrKMpm.jpg

Love that artist/artwork.

Spinosaurus reminds me of a dachshund now. :lol

Can't unsee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom