RE: Spinosaurus Question

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

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 
> some
> doubt about Baryonyx when it was first described.  No such doubts about
> Suchomimus afaik.  These may be synonymous.  There are other spinosaurs 
> that
> 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 
same critter.

Reference

Rauhut, O. W. M. (2003). The interrelationships and evolution of basal 
theropod dinosaurs.  Special Papers in Palaeontology 69: 1-213.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. 
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglinemarch07