Dinosaur experts of /an/... ...is this Spinosaurus reconstruction

>>2173151
And so it came to pass that this thread will still be here in august.

>>2173155
I know, I know, but like I said, I've been taking a break.

shameless self bump

>>2173151
there were some scaling problems with the hips not to mention the reconstruction was made of two different aged Spinosaurus.a apparently Sigilmassasaurus was found mixed up in there too

>>2173167
So...it's still a biped?

yea, still a biped
https://peerj. com/articles/1323/
warning, long paper

There's not really a broad consensus on it yet, probably won't be until someone finds a more complete skeleton.

>>2173170
Probably. At the very least it's doubtful as fuck that it's legs were THAT thin.

>>2174645
maybe those found so far are juveniles though.

humans don't walk on 2 feet from birth either.

>>2174646
That makes absolutely no sense at all. IIRC the spinosaurus in question was adult size anyway, and even if it wasn't dinosaurs didn't hatch out with tiny useless legs because dinosaurs aren't mammals and an animal like that can't afford to be immobile as a baby, especially not for long.

inb4 you try to reference nestling birds

>>2174655
> adult size
no one knows what an adult sized spinosaurus is to begin with.

>b-but-but my nestling birds?

>>2173151
it's a chimaera.

see: >>2174308

It's been reassigned to three different species in two different genera.

>>2174656
We don't know the max size and I get that you're trying to be the devils advocate here, but you're extremely bad at it and what you're saying is still retarded.
An animal that large is clearly not an infant because without any evidence at all it's pretty safe to say a 30-60 foot or however big it was spinosaurus wasn't a fucking hatchling.

>>2174681
this might blow your mind, but we don't actually know that Spinosaurus laid eggs.

>>2174689
That's true, but my point still stands even if it gave live birth.

>>2173151
its legs were small for a theropod its size, and it walked low slung, but it was still a biped, its legs weren't as small as initially thought.

Imagine a pangolin
https://i.4cdn.org/an/1469170599412.jpg

>>2176311
dammit wrong link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz4HXyxcess

>>2176311
>its legs weren't as small as initially thought.
as it currently stands the legs of Spinosaurus aren't known.

>>2174694
I'd point out that no known archaeosaur uses viviparity and it would require substantial burden of proof to even make such a claim.

Spamming "we don't know" over and over again in underexplored fields doesn't even win you arguments on 4chan much less progress our scientific knowledge in any way.

Certain anons care more about being right than the truth however.

>>2176321
>it would require substantial burden of proof to even make such a claim.
the claim is that we don't know.
that doesn't require any "burden of proof."

>A final question is whether the sauropods laid eggs or brought forth live young.

McIntosh, Brett-Surman, and Farlow, "Sauropods" in "The Complete Dinosaur," 1997 Indiana University Press, page 285.

>To date, there have been only three occurrences of identifiable embryos within eggs and one of hatchlings and eggshells in a nest documented in the literature:
>For these specimens we are able to relate the oospecies to the egg-layer.

Hirsch and Zelenitsky, "Dinosaur Eggs," ibid, page 401.

File: dinosaur no feathers.jpg (65KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 480x640px

>>2176332
>To date, there have been only three occurrences
For the record, that number has increased by two since 1997.

meaning there are now six non-avian dinosaur species known to have laid eggs out of approximately 1000 valid non-avian dinosaur species.

we know that less than 1% of dinosaurs laid eggs. The remaining 99.4% we simply don't know.

The reason all birds are oviparous is because of weight adaptations to flight, something which undoubtedly evolved before flight was a thing, but isn't exactly a problem for most non-avian dinosaurs. Also bracketing in the Archosauria doesn't work on dinosaurs since bird eggs are markedly different from crocodile eggs, meaning the egg evolved considerably and possibly independently in dinosaurs.

>>2176344
>that number has increased by two since 1997
three if we count the indirect evidence of medullary bone in Tyrannosaurus rex.

which is pretty compelling evidence of egg laying. Unfortunately medullary bone has only been identified in two other non-avian dinosaur species, both of which were already known to have laid eggs by direct evidence.

which is perhaps an indication that other dinosaurs didn't lay eggs because medullary bone hasn't been found for them just as eggs with their embryos haven't been found.

The huge overlap between dinosaurs known to lay eggs and dinosaurs known to have medullary bone would seem to indicate that dinosaurs not known to have either may in fact have not laid eggs. Though it may just be a collection bias- people have looked for medullary bone in dinosaurs known to have laid eggs just because that's the easiest place to find it.

>>2176357
though others have suggested that medullary bone in archosaurs wasn't related to egg laying.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep06253

>>2173151
in fairness, that graphic misrepresents the size of the legs, what with being a profile shot of a 3D model.

Because the legs project laterally the the femurs and tibiotarsuseses and whatnot look shorter than they should.

>>2176311
nice man my friend told me the same thing about pangolins and it seemed plausible. I for one like to imagine them walking upright like godzilla though

File: day_1___favorite_theropod_by_dontknowwhattodraw94-da8pioi.jpg (69KB, 1024x529px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x529px

>>2173151
There have been varying opinions on the matter, but nothing that truly debunk spinosaurus having a short leg ratio.

If anything, the discussions are really either about how short were the legs compared to the body or how did it walk.