The Spinosaurs

To prove to you that they found more than just a dentary fragment of spinosaurus? Yes, yes I did

Quote: For the last time :WE DON'T know the body plan of spinosaurus! allosaurus is a terrible anology. two COMPLETELY different animals. Allosaurus wasn't a specialized fish eater, so OF COURSE it wasn't good at gripping. it's teeth weren't meant for that. Why? because....as i've stated...it wasn't designed for it. point blank period.

My point exactly...

Quote: You haven't explained anything! all you have done is state your opinions. that is all, anything else you claim is just B.S. The only source you have given is wikipedia...also, no mention of a rostra in it whatsoever, only teeth and the vague phrase 'possible material'

Sigh, you people never learn do you? THIS ISN'T A FUCKING OPINION! How many times do I have to tell you that!? In case you don't know how to read or use Wikipedia, I will tell you how to find information about rostra: 1) go to the article, 2) click on "discovery and naming", 3) read

Quote: P.S. i use suchomimus because that's what ole' spiny has it's body plan based off of XD

Based on the snout evidence that we have, it is not...

Quote: Your opinion belongs to you and I'm not about to let you force it upon everyone else by stating that it's the absolute truth.

And I have come here to tell you that this is not an opinion... The fact that spinosaurus was well adapted for gripping and is in possession of a more heavily-constructed snout than you guys make it out to be is, well, a fact. Claiming that allosaurus was more heavily-built in that realm is just plain wrong, especially when the evidence is right thee in front of you. Now I do not know how to post pictures here, so I cannot show anything to you.

Quote: It's pretty funny that the same WIKIPEDIA article which you used also states that the skull of Spinosaurus had poor resistance in comparison to other Spinosaurids like Baryonyx

Because that is demonstrably wrong. The writer took the results from a resistance test that was used to determine snout strength in spinosaurus. Spinosaurus actually did horribly on the test, but that was because they did not size-correct the respective rostra well. The calculations were way off, and they only tested the most gracile region of the spinosaurus' rostrum (the premaxilla. They did not even attempt at testing the resistance of the maxilla, which was a considerably more robust piece of its rostrum due to its remaining impressive build and greater depth/width): http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065295

Quote: Even though i don't think that the jaws of Spinosaurus were as robust as you make them out to be,

Really? A snout that is represented by a particularly greater robusticity and overall density than non-piscivorous genera (like allosaurus and carcharodontosaurus) that was a clear adaptation (in heavy correspondence with the animal's enlarged forearms and conical teeth) for gripping large fish is not robust?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Spinocombo.jpg

whatever dude. take your B.S. Info else where. You make no sense at all. and i'm not about to listen to this crap any more.

i'm 22 broski. i never once said i was 'right' only that your 'facts' were B.S. Show me the studies. Show me the research you have done to back up your claims. as far as pictures go, copy and paste them. simple as that. You might want to do Ctrl V though, as your computer might not allow the copy and paste. simply click copy, then ctrl v on your response. i'd love to see this.

Stop arguing. I'm just as annoyed by the constant "lateral pressure" this, and the "dentition" that, as the next guy, so please stop. Like Rex Fan said, you are NOT changing ANYONE'S opinion anytime soon, and that will NOT change.

I'm more than annoyed by this whole thing right now. You do realize that most of these topics are from mid-summer and older, right? 

If we say something is not our opinion, but fact, people get pissed off, and now you're saying that it is not wise to say stuff is out opinion. You sound just like the next biased as **** Spino fan.

Godzillasaurus, you're telling me that you know facts, undeniable facts, about an animal that has been dead for 100 million years? NO BODY knows any "facts" about these animals except that they existed on our planet. No facts at all! Just theories and opinions!

Spino had conical teeth, there's on fact we know about it. That's all I can think of.

So having conical teeth and a very slender snout is an opinion???

Quote: Spino had conical teeth, there's on fact we know about it. That's all I can think of.

That and a couple of other factors contribute to our knowledge of spinosaurus predation. Spinosaurus was in possession of a very narrow and relatively shallow rostrum that was yet MORE HEAVILY CONSTRUCTED AND MORE ROBUST than an animal that did not kill by gripping such as allosaurus or carcharodontosaurus. It was in possession of a much less gracile and sparse build than the other two genera as evidenced by its overall greater density (which is entirely evident in its lack of similarly-sized fenestrae that make up a good portion of allosaur rostra. It was simply a generally more solid piece of bone) and was in fact at a much lessened risk of fracturing in breaking.

All of these factors seem to point to a high capacity to grip and kill LARGE FISH SUCH AS ONCHOPRISTIS AND MAWSONIA without injury. The more gracile and less heavily-constructed build of allosaur rostra simply do not indicate such high reliance on gripping and would instead be particularly vulnerable to injury.