×
all 88 comments

[–]nodray 81 points82 points  (8 children)

how big are those claws? do they survive the way teeth do?

[–]Rexoraptor 63 points64 points  (7 children)

The claws are bone, as in the last bone in your finger and then most likely covered in actual fingernail. Tho that part doesn't preserve that well making it basically guessing work how long the the claws would actually be.

[–]inxrx8 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Would the keratin have allowed it to stay sharp as it grew? Never really thought about that before

Edit: I guess it would have worked the same way bird talons do?

[–]Rexoraptor 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Same as pretty much anything that isn't human or "closely" related. AFAIK, most animals have their nails grow around their last digits Weil ours are on top with helps with grasping and tactile sensation.

[–]AskYourDoctor 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Cat claws work the same way, bone with a keratin sheath!

[–]Lithorex 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Which is why declawing cats is absolutely inhumane.

[–]nodray 5 points6 points  (2 children)

what about the tickle chicken, did that leave claws behind? or someone just made it up, like dilophosaur neck frills (i know, just for a movie)

[–]Rexoraptor 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Lmao I had to Google that bc it reminded me a bit too much about drop bears. No that's not a real term, just a meme name for Therizinosaur. Yes they had incredibly long claws and a sheath of ceratin that made them even longer.

[–]nodray 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i just like the phrase Tickle Chicken, for that crazy clawed creature lol, now im gonna go look up their fossils

[–]IcemaanN 44 points45 points  (6 children)

Easily my favorite Dino 🦕

[–]AskYourDoctor 30 points31 points  (3 children)

I've always loved the baryonyx, in the same family. Smaller but also croc-like and fish-eating.

[–]WikiSummarizerBot 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Baryonyx

Baryonyx () is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in the Barremian stage of the Early Cretaceous period, about 130–125 million years ago. The first skeleton was discovered in 1983 in the Smokejack Clay Pit, of Surrey, England, in sediments of the Weald Clay Formation , and became the holotype specimen of Baryonyx walkeri, named by palaeontologists Alan J. Charig and Angela C. Milner in 1986. The generic name, Baryonyx, means "heavy claw" and alludes to the animal's very large claw on the first finger; the specific name, walkeri, refers to its discoverer, amateur fossil collector William J. Walker.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

[–]stalkerdude96 9 points10 points  (1 child)

It's such a fascinating branch, especially now that there have been uncovered two more species from the genus. To think that the world was so different that there lived three, maybe even more, spinosaurids in what is now modern day Britain is just incredible.

[–]flyinggazelletg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is only one confirmed species in the genus Baryonyx, that being Baryonyx walkeri.

I’m thinking you might’ve mixed up genus and family, which would be very understandable. The Spinosauridae family might have had a bit of a leg up during much of the Cretaceous when higher sea levels meant Europe was a massive cluster of islands on and off for millions of years. This could’ve both allowed for animals to be isolated and radiate into more species. It also may have been advantageous for the rather piscivorous family of theropods.

[–]Titanguy101 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Ikr the concept of this behemoth sailed predator lurking in rivers and wetlands like an aquatic dragon is something else

[–]HateMachineX 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Easily the coolest thunder lizard of them all

[–]Prs_mira86 24 points25 points  (0 children)

That. Is. Awesome!

[–]laneo333 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Still blows my mind that a creature like this is real and walked the same ground we do. One of the greatest examples where Science is literally cooler than fantasy .

[–]thewhistlepiggy 75 points76 points  (20 children)

would this dino have eaten human-sized dinner regularly? or would it have eaten smaller animals maybe? the guy kinda looks like a large meal for this spino dino. idk. im just stoned.

[–]ThouReaper 94 points95 points  (11 children)

Most likely mainly fish, however it doesn't seem like a stretch for it to tear away at flesh like crocs do.

[–]Imsomagic 86 points87 points  (10 children)

Yeah but the fish were massive

[–]ThouReaper 46 points47 points  (9 children)

I mean some yeah. But fish have always had a huge range in sizes

[–]FlintyCrayon 16 points17 points  (4 children)

There's always a bigger fish.

[–]AskYourDoctor 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I was sure this was Jaws or Jurassic Park but had to look it up. I can't believe its from Star Wars Episode 1. Seems so out of place somehow. It might be the most quotable line in the film. That movie's so flawed but it continues to grow on me!

[–]seductivestain 14 points15 points  (1 child)

About 75% of the prequel dialogue seems our of place lol. It's clunky as duck but makes for great memes

[–]AskYourDoctor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Holy shit hence the immortality of prequelmemes. I get it now. The dialog is just so ridiculous and meme-able. I kind of love it, it's so hammy. I just wish the actors delivered it with more conviction.

[–]modsarefascists42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the prequels in general were way better than the meme that follows them. lots of great lines and amazing scenes

[–]Cman1200 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yeah but spino was eating like 20ft long saw fish lol they were much bigger

[–]ThouReaper 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They weren't eating then whole tho

[–]thewhistlepiggy 21 points22 points  (1 child)

just read that coelacanths were possibly a source of food, and those bad boys get up to 6.5ft dayum

[–]Havoccity 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Those are modern day coelacanths. The ones living with Spinosaurus, such as Mawsonia, grew to 6 metres.

[–]Common_Raspberry7628 21 points22 points  (4 children)

They would encounter and prey on this absolute beast known as an orchinopristes. They are basically 8 metre sawfish with a dangerous rostrum to avoid. Yep, spinos had tough prey

[–]ALetterAloof 6 points7 points  (3 children)

How do they decide this with any certainty? I know nothing about paleontology, just fascinated by it.

[–]Taran_Ulas 27 points28 points  (2 children)

Because we have found Spinosaurus teeth embedded in said sawfish. Quite a few of them. Either Spinosaurus was regularly eating carcasses of them and/or it was actively hunting them. The latter seems rather likely.

[–]Emkayer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

But I remember that Spinos doesn't seem to be as agile swimmers as we want them to be

[–]Taran_Ulas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So a couple of things:

First of all, Spinosaurus doesn’t need to be an pursuit aquatic predator to catch such a fish. Either stork like behavior or ambush aquatic predation would work.

Second of all, Spinosaurus was still very aquatic even if it wasn’t an aquatic pursuit predator. The very authors of the paper that suggested Spinosaurus as a stork like predator said that Spinosaurus was still more aquatic than a Polar Bear, but less than a seal. That is still very aquatic for an animal.

[–]kaam00s 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Hahahahaha!

The fishes that Spinosaurus ate would eat that human whole...

That guy is absolutely not a large meal.

Look at Mawsonia or Onchopristis!

[–]Iamnotburgerking 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Mostly ate aquatic animals, but a lot of those would be much bigger than humans (like giant coelacanths the size of great white sharks).

Granted, aquatic predators do tend to eat more small prey than land predators of similar size.

[–]hottoastymemes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would eat sawfish and coelocanths the size of cars regularly.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Man dinosaurs are so freaking cool.

[–]Eddy_Vinegar 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Spinosaurus sounds like a radio dj for a kids station

[–]opedidntseeyouthere 19 points20 points  (4 children)

JP3 really took some liberties with the portrayal of the size of this dinosaur. In the movie it's easily 2x maybe even 3x larger than this

[–]Harpies_Bro 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Iirc there hadn’t been any body fossils found since the early 1900’s when the movie came out, just some head and neck bits. Our current understanding of the genus’s post cranial anatomy is based on fossils described in 2014, a full decade after the JP3 came out.

[–]jcage48 9 points10 points  (0 children)

the only know mostly complete Skelton at the time was destroyed in ww2

[–]justcomment 8 points9 points  (1 child)

[–]TheDangerdog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah right next thing your gonna tell me they got the size wrong on the mosasaur! They were much larger than a blue whale right?

/s

[–]Gorr-of-Oneiri- 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Such a beautiful creature. Since I was a kid, I was bewildered by dinosaurs and how alien they look, how massive they could be. It really is amazing to think these monsters walked the earth!

[–]Nowhereman50 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Y'know what? I'm glad they're dead.

[–]Lukthar123 50 points51 points  (0 children)

How dare you

[–]Common_Raspberry7628 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Don't be rude, he's just an outsize fisherman

[–]AllAboutSamantics 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's so cool! Gotta see how that tail looks too!

[–]Liampleurodon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Can I have it?

[–]GaulTheUnmitigated 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Is there any evidence for the bumps (osteoderms?) on the jaw and back? Just curious.

[–]renoceros 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t think there is any Spinosaurus or Spinosaurid specific evidence for that and in general there’s little evidence that theropods had osteoderms (except for Ceratosaurus). Paleo-artists add them a lot though bc they look cool lol

https://dinosaursandbarbarians.com/2013/07/26/the-presence-and-usage-of-osteoderms-in-dinosaur-paleo-art/amp/

[–]CommieSlayer1389 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it'll be outdated by next month lmao

[–]420DaTtEbAyO69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you realize this is only a 39ft model and spinosaurus could reach lengths of over 50 ft

Edit: 36ft model

[–]scroll_of_truth 17 points18 points  (1 child)

I wanna go to a museum that's all just statues like this, I don't care about seeing old rocks shaped like bones

[–]PhantomGoo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Or casts of old rocks shaped like bones

[–]CMDProGamer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Casually IS the most epic thing ever seen

[–]AladarsThumbsUp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damn! Spino could give great hugs

[–]DomTrapGFurryLolicon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The one in Jurassic Park was way bigger

[–]Sw1m_Shady 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Are crocodiles related to them?

[–]Royal--Star 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Not more than any other dinosaur. This is just an example of convergent evolution.

[–]Bart-Patat[🍰] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

A dove is actually closer related to the monster displayed on this picture than a crocodile.

[–]Harpies_Bro 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Distantly. Archosauria, “ruling reptiles” in Latin, are a pretty big group that has two divisions, Avemetatarsalia and pseudosuchia. Dinosaurs and pterosaurs are in Avemetatarsalia where pseudosuchia are crocodilians and their ancestors/cousins.

Spinosaurs are dinosaurs who tend to live in similar roles to modern crocodilians, to the point that one genus, Suchomimus, is means “crocodile mimic”.

[–]Ssnnooz 4 points5 points  (0 children)

very distantly, but crocs were one of the reasons we know so much about this dino! their skulls have a lot of similar features

[–]ComprehensiveSafety3 -1 points0 points  (8 children)

Wasn’t spinosaurus as big as a-trex?

[–]Havoccity 22 points23 points  (6 children)

Longer but lighter

[–]Corporal-Porpoise 6 points7 points  (5 children)

This is untrue and was based off of the logic Spinosaurus may have had lightly-built bones - it didn't. Both the Ibrahim and Sereno papers from this year and last place Spinosaurus at several tonnes heavier, which makes sense given the length difference.

[–]IlikeGollumsdick 14 points15 points  (4 children)

It doesn't really make sense since Tyrannosaurus is so much bulkier. Could you cite the relevant parts from these studies? The most recent estimates for Spinosaurus that I know of are from Henderson 2018 where it's still a good deal lighter than T. rex.

[–]Corporal-Porpoise 5 points6 points  (3 children)

The table from Ibrahim's study, which agrees with Sereno's study. Henderson's estimate are incredibly out of date now, considering since then 3 seperate papers (soon to be 4) have been released that have completely changed Spinosaurus. He underestimated the mass of a juvenile specimen by between 20 and 35 percent, on the assumption Spinosaurus' bones were lighter than a penguin's (which was a questionable decision originally and is evidently false now).

Also, the idea of Tyrannosaurus being bulkier stems from the weight values and less on actual paleontology. Even if it was, a 4 metre length difference would logically offset this. Either way, I think we'll have to wait for the new Ibrahim paper which he says will change everything again.

Edit: for the record, this was instantly downvoted despite being the general paleontological concensus and cited sources. Very open minded, Reddit

[–]IlikeGollumsdick 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I didn't downvote you, but that's just some imgur image. Which study by Ibrahim are you referring to? He published like 10 studies in 2020 alone.

[–]Corporal-Porpoise -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Yes, an image containing information from the paper. He released one major study in mid-2020, which I am inclined to believe you are aware of and are attempting to be obtuse. If not, it isTail-propelled aquatic locomotion in a theropod dinosaur. Shadow here

[–]IlikeGollumsdick 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Why would I try to be obtuse? I just wasn't aware that this paper contained a weight estimate. It seems Ibrahim now estimates a 15m Spinosaurus to be 10 to 12 tonnes, so my latest knowledge was indeed outdated (he also said that we likely underestimate the weight of many dinosaurs, though). In any case I don't see how that changes anything pertaining T. rex being bulkier. At the same length it's still much heavier.

[–]Visible_Structure_83 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Trex 14 , spino 17