Open access article with Paul Sereno:

Spinosaurus is not an aquatic dinosaur

Abstract

A predominantly fish-eating diet was envisioned for the sail-backed
theropod dinosaur Spinosaurus aegyptiacus when its elongate jaws with subconical teeth were unearthed a century ago in Egypt. Recent
discovery of the high-spined tail of that skeleton, however, led to a
bolder conjecture that S. aegyptiacus was the first fully aquatic
dinosaur. The �aquatic hypothesis� posits that S. aegyptiacus was a
slow quadruped on land but a capable pursuit predator in coastal
waters, powered by an expanded tail. We test these functional claims
with skeletal and flesh models of S. aegyptiacus. We assembled a
CT-based skeletal reconstruction based on the fossils, to which we
added internal air and muscle to create a posable flesh model. That
model shows that on land S. aegyptiacus was bipedal and in deep water
was an unstable, slow-surface swimmer (<1 m/s) too buoyant to dive.
Living reptiles with similar spine-supported sails over trunk and tail
are used for display rather than aquatic propulsion, and nearly all
extant secondary swimmers have reduced limbs and fleshy tail flukes.
New fossils also show that Spinosaurus ranged far inland. Two stages
are clarified in the evolution of Spinosaurus, which is best
understood as a semiaquatic bipedal ambush piscivore that frequented
the margins of coastal and inland waterways. https://elifesciences.org/articles/80092

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:05:46 PM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:

Open access article with Paul Sereno:

Pardon my asking: does "with" mean that you are one of the co-authors?
Or is it shorthand for "by Paul Sereno and co-authors"?
Feel free not to respond to these questions. I value your privacy highly.

Spinosaurus is not an aquatic dinosaur

Abstract

A predominantly fish-eating diet was envisioned for the sail-backed
theropod dinosaur Spinosaurus aegyptiacus when its elongate jaws with subconical teeth were unearthed a century ago in Egypt. Recent
discovery of the high-spined tail of that skeleton, however, led to a
bolder conjecture that S. aegyptiacus was the first fully aquatic
dinosaur.

Yes, this is a widely popularized conjecture, but IIRC the popularizations weren't all so modest about its level of certainty.

The ‘aquatic hypothesis’ posits that S. aegyptiacus was a
slow quadruped on land but a capable pursuit predator in coastal
waters, powered by an expanded tail. We test these functional claims
with skeletal and flesh models of S. aegyptiacus. We assembled a
CT-based skeletal reconstruction based on the fossils, to which we
added internal air and muscle to create a posable flesh model. That
model shows that on land S. aegyptiacus was bipedal and in deep water
was an unstable, slow-surface swimmer (<1 m/s) too buoyant to dive.
Living reptiles with similar spine-supported sails over trunk and tail
are used for display rather than aquatic propulsion, and nearly all
extant secondary swimmers have reduced limbs and fleshy tail flukes.

That doesn't seem to be the case with mammals. More about this below.

New fossils also show that Spinosaurus ranged far inland. Two stages
are clarified in the evolution of Spinosaurus, which is best
understood as a semiaquatic bipedal ambush piscivore that frequented
the margins of coastal and inland waterways. https://elifesciences.org/articles/80092

This is a very interesting paper, and its interest is greatly increased for me because it has a supplement that gives fascinating information about
the refereeing process, showing both editors' and referee's comments,
along with replies by the authors. Thanks for showing it to us, Pandora.


About the mammals: since they lack tails, phocids obviously cannot have tail flukes,
and I don't think their hind legs function the way the flukes of cetaceans do.

A less trivial example: it is not firmly established that the archaeocete *Basilosaurus* had tail flukes.

The abstract carelessly has "swimmers" instead of "aquatic animals," thereby leaving out semiaquatic swimmers, such as beavers, muskrats, coypus, and freshwater otters.

On the other hand, sea otters qualify as fully aquatic mammals, and they don't have tail flukes.
They very seldom come out on land, and they give birth in the kelp beds.


Long ago, I found another generalization about swimming verterbrates, by Stephen Jay Gould.
In his memorable essay about *Ambulocetus* as the "smoking gun"
[his words] for a transitional animal between terrestrial mammals and
whales, he wrote that while reptiles that swim with their tails move them sideways,
while mammals that swim with their tails move them up and down.

This too has an exception, the otter shrew:

"The powerful tail is flattened and it swims by moving it from side to side." -- Collins Guide to the Rare Mammals of the World, by John A. Burton and Bruce Pearson, 1987, p. 34.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 18:31:00 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:05:46 PM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:

Open access article with Paul Sereno:

Pardon my asking: does "with" mean that you are one of the co-authors?
Or is it shorthand for "by Paul Sereno and co-authors"?

I thought I'd let you know a celebrity is throwing his weight into
this discussion, and it's not me. ;-)

Sereno's recognitions include People magazine's 50 Most Beautiful
People (1997), Esquire's 100 Best People in the World (1997). https://explorer-directory.nationalgeographic.org/paul-c-sereno

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 4:56:19 AM UTC-8, Pandora wrote:

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 18:31:00 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 12:05:46 PM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:

Open access article with Paul Sereno:

Pardon my asking: does "with" mean that you are one of the co-authors?
Or is it shorthand for "by Paul Sereno and co-authors"?

I thought I'd let you know a celebrity is throwing his weight into
this discussion, and it's not me. ;-)

Sereno's recognitions include People magazine's 50 Most Beautiful
People (1997), Esquire's 100 Best People in the World (1997). https://explorer-directory.nationalgeographic.org/paul-c-sereno

Nathan Myhrvold displays a lot of diversity himself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively short
legs!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively short

legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 7:46:48 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Yay, thanks for the reply! Sorry about that stupid “horizontal” part; that’s a pretty embarrassing misstatement (turns very red).

Anyway, what I’m utterly failing to comprehend is the “short legs” part. Even compared to Suchomimus, the hind legs of Spinosaurus are SO short! For a dinosaur that massive, wouldn’t it be difficult to turn or maneuver anywhere but forward? With
legs so short, it’s hard for me to picture how they’d get enough horizontal “torque” (if that’s the right word?) needed to change the dinosaur’s direction: I’d think movements of that massive head or tail would generate way more torque than
those little legs can handle because they’re horizontally so much farther away from the center of gravity (especially given that the dinosaur’s posture is almost totally horizontal). Another thing I’d think would be a problem is the tiny feet
compared to the body size: can those little claws generate enough traction on the ground to propel such an incredible mass abruptly enough for an ambush?

Apologies again if these questions are astoundingly stupid; once again, I’m new at this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that
the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the center
of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/18/22 10:29 PM, Sight Reader wrote:

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 7:46:48 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Yay, thanks for the reply! Sorry about that stupid “horizontal” part; that’s a pretty embarrassing misstatement (turns very red).

Anyway, what I’m utterly failing to comprehend is the “short legs” part. Even compared to Suchomimus, the hind legs of Spinosaurus are SO short! For a dinosaur that massive, wouldn’t it be difficult to turn or maneuver anywhere but forward?

With legs so short, it’s hard for me to picture how they’d get enough horizontal “torque” (if that’s the right word?) needed to change the dinosaur’s direction: I’d think movements of that massive head or tail would generate way more torque
than those little legs can handle because they’re horizontally so much farther away from the center of gravity (especially given that the dinosaur’s posture is almost totally horizontal). Another thing I’d think would be a problem is the tiny feet
compared to the body size: can those little claws generate enough traction on the ground to propel such an incredible mass abruptly enough for an ambush?

Apologies again if these questions are astoundingly stupid; once again, I’m new at this.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that
the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/19/22 6:49 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that
the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the

center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

Is this not true for all theropods?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Welcome back, Sight Reader! I'm glad you are over your final exams. Did you spend some of your Thanksgiving break
trying to get caught up?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

A little tip: don't delete so much. It's hard to know what "the rest" is when you don't leave
any of your own words in from the earlier post. [Yes, ]we all know how to scroll up, but
that interrupts the rest of the thought.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that
the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the

center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

Wait--why do you talk about the tiny little legs being directly under the center of gravity
when they aren't the ones connected to the hips?

As for "hardest to turn": I get the impression from the abominably unhelpful Wikipedia that the gluteus maximus is responsible for raising
the front of the body, and it has plenty of leverage from the attachment at the bottom of the hip.

I do believe that the non-theropod Plateosaurus was a biped that also got down on all fours a lot. Another
non-theropod, Stegosaurus looks like a quadruped that might often have reared up on its much bigger hind legs.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/19/22 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Welcome back, Sight Reader! I'm glad you are over your final exams. Did you spend some of your Thanksgiving break
trying to get caught up?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

A little tip: don't delete so much. It's hard to know what "the rest" is when you don't leave
any of your own words in from the earlier post. [Yes, ]we all know how to scroll up, but
that interrupts the rest of the thought.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that
the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the

center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

Wait--why do you talk about the tiny little legs being directly under the center of gravity
when they aren't the ones connected to the hips?

I believe the ones connected to the hips are in fact what he's talking
about.

As for "hardest to turn": I get the impression from the abominably unhelpful Wikipedia that the gluteus maximus is responsible for raising
the front of the body, and it has plenty of leverage from the attachment at the bottom of the hip.

And he's talking about turning left and right.

I do believe that the non-theropod Plateosaurus was a biped that also got down on all fours a lot. Another
non-theropod, Stegosaurus looks like a quadruped that might often have reared up on its much bigger hind legs.

And note, both of the descended from obligate bipeds. Whether any
spinosaurs ever got down on all fours is an open question.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/19/22 1:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods,

Have you learned nothing from me?

I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis,
all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception.

What about kangaroos? Check out the QANTAS logo.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods, I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis,
all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 4:12:36 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods,

Have you learned nothing from me?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to adopt the jargon "birds are dinosaurs."
They are *descended from* what you call "non-avian dinosaurs"
and I call "dinosaurs."

How would you like it if I kept calling you "a unicellular eukaryote,"
just because you are descended from them?

I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis,
all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception.

What about kangaroos?

I was thinking in terms of "vertical bipeds," and kangaroos hold
themselves at an angle, which would be closer to horizontal
if it were not for the big fleshy tails. But thanks for the reminder.

Getting back to paleontology: I've often wondered why
the pantodont *Barylambda* is shown with a long thick tail like a kangaroo. They are the only non-aquatic mammals I can think of with such big thick
tails in proportion to their bodies. [Well, OK, wallabies and other "miniature kangaroos."]

Check out the QANTAS logo.

Have you learned nothing *about* me? I've been fascinated by
marsupials (also monotremes) since before the age of 12.
As if that weren't enough, my wife grew up in Australia,
and we were married there. We even saw a dead wallaby on the road
on our honeymoon, and my wife stopped the car to get it off the road.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hey guys, thanks a ton for the feedback! Sorry about the snipping… I didn’t want to flood you guys with excess information and didn’t realize that snipping make things inconvenient (feeling embarrassed yet AGAIN). Apparently I only open my mouth
to change feet…

Anyways, regarding why I have concerns about this reconstruction of Spinosaurus but not about other theropods, I’m mostly referring to the ratio of stride length to where most of the body mass is.

I’ll give this my best shot. Let’s consider, for example, your average T-rex. Just from eyeballing it, I’d say her front foot would land roughly under her neck. Note that this means that most of her mass would be between that front foot and her
center of gravity (presumably over her hip): only her neck and head would be farther away from her center of gravity than where her foot is planted, but with such long legs, she can easily rear up and even move that mass closer to her center of mass.
Since her stride length is longer than most of her mass, she could push off of that foot, and the location her foot is planted will have a reasonably long “moment arm” that can amplify the turning force on her center of mass. This would be more like
pushing at the END of the 20-ton propeller rather than trying to twist it at its hub: you don’t need nearly as much strength to get it rotating. Now to be clear, I’m not entirely sure how ANY of these theropods turned since their hips don’t seem to
let them sprawl their legs out sideways to “cut” like we can: I would guess dinosaurs would require a certain level of “banking” (leaning left or right into a turn) before coming about, but that should be easy enough given sufficiently long legs
and I think there are plenty of animals that do that.

Let’s now look at their reconstruction of Spinosaurus. If she puts her foot forward, I’m not even sure her foot makes it to her arms, which means that there is not nearly as much of her mass between her plant foot and her center of gravity: there
still remains a LOT of mass outside of where that foot lands, including those big arms, the thick neck, and her even bigger head. Furthermore, she has very little clearance off the ground, so she can’t rear up quasi-erect to come about - she has to
hold herself horizontal to avoid bottoming out, thus keeping a significant portion of her mass outside of her stride length (all of this could be SO EASILY described in about 10 words if only I could post a picture… GAH!) Anyways, this is the problem
of trying to turn that 20-ton propeller by trying to twist it at its hub - without being able to leverage further out to the “propeller”, I just can’t see how she’s going to maneuver. Now, if she was something of a quadruped, she could plant her
arms into the ground - which are much farther away from the center of gravity and can thus exert torque without a ridiculous amount of force, but apparently her arms have no weight bearing function, so I don’t think she can do this unless she grabs a
tree or something. As far as my pet theory of “banking” before turning goes, that too would be proportionally more difficult with her short clearance from the ground.

I would finally note that older reconstructions of Spinosaurus - notably the one in Jurassic Park III but there are still quite a few others sitting around - all give her much longer legs than they’re reconstructed. However, these portrayals seem to
be getting replaced by the little-leg version, especially those that show her swimming. I have no idea which is right.

Sorry that was so long! I tried my best…

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Welcome back, Sight Reader! I'm glad you are over your final exams. Did you spend some of your Thanksgiving break
trying to get caught up?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

A little tip: don't delete so much. It's hard to know what "the rest" is when you don't leave
any of your own words in from the earlier post. [Yes, ]we all know how to scroll up, but
that interrupts the rest of the thought.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that >>> the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the

center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

Wait--why do you talk about the tiny little legs being directly under the center of gravity
when they aren't the ones connected to the hips?

I believe the ones connected to the hips are in fact what he's talking about.

As for "hardest to turn": I get the impression from the abominably unhelpful Wikipedia that the gluteus maximus is responsible for raising
the front of the body, and it has plenty of leverage from the attachment at the bottom of the hip.

And he's talking about turning left and right.

I do believe that the non-theropod Plateosaurus was a biped that also got down on all fours a lot. Another
non-theropod, Stegosaurus looks like a quadruped that might often have reared up on its much bigger hind legs.

And note, both of the descended from obligate bipeds. Whether any
spinosaurs ever got down on all fours is an open question.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hey, I thought of a better analogy! Ever try to push open the wrong side of a heavy door?

Try to push open a heavy door near it’s hinges. Much harder, which is why door knobs are on the side OPPOSITE of the hinges. Similarly, once it IS rotating, it’s hard to stop it if you can only push near the hinges.

Same with the Spinosaurus. The hinges are his center of mass. Short legs means she’s stuck exerting force too close to the hinges - her center of mass. Once she does get her body turning, the little legs will have trouble getting enough traction to
stop her from over-rotating.

T-rex has longer legs. When she plants HER foot, it’s farther from the center of mass: it’s like planting your hand more towards the middle of the door or even close to the doorknob. Much easier to turn and control the door.

Regarding horizontal versus tilted posture, it’s the same issue. Horizontal posture is like the figure skater spinning with her arms out. If a dinosaur can raise its head and neck, it’s like the figure skater pulling arms in closer to her center of
mass: she starts spinning faster.

Did that make sense at all?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Welcome back, Sight Reader! I'm glad you are over your final exams. Did you spend some of your Thanksgiving break
trying to get caught up?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

A little tip: don't delete so much. It's hard to know what "the rest" is when you don't leave
any of your own words in from the earlier post. [Yes, ]we all know how to scroll up, but
that interrupts the rest of the thought.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that >>> the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the

center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

Wait--why do you talk about the tiny little legs being directly under the center of gravity
when they aren't the ones connected to the hips?

I believe the ones connected to the hips are in fact what he's talking about.

As for "hardest to turn": I get the impression from the abominably unhelpful Wikipedia that the gluteus maximus is responsible for raising
the front of the body, and it has plenty of leverage from the attachment at the bottom of the hip.

And he's talking about turning left and right.

I do believe that the non-theropod Plateosaurus was a biped that also got down on all fours a lot. Another
non-theropod, Stegosaurus looks like a quadruped that might often have reared up on its much bigger hind legs.

And note, both of the descended from obligate bipeds. Whether any
spinosaurs ever got down on all fours is an open question.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/19/22 1:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 4:12:36 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods,

Have you learned nothing from me?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to adopt the jargon "birds are dinosaurs."
They are *descended from* what you call "non-avian dinosaurs"
and I call "dinosaurs."

How would you like it if I kept calling you "a unicellular eukaryote,"
just because you are descended from them?

Wrong comparison. How would you like if I kept calling you a mammal,
just because you are descended from them? In your comparison, it's "unicellular" that's doing the work. I presume you're fine with being a eukaryote. But of course "unicellular eukaryote" isn't a group.

I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis,
all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception.

What about kangaroos?

I was thinking in terms of "vertical bipeds," and kangaroos hold
themselves at an angle, which would be closer to horizontal
if it were not for the big fleshy tails. But thanks for the reminder.

No, it's horizontal precisely because of the big fleshy tail. When
moving fast they are indeed horizontal, balanced over the hind legs.
Like a theropod.

Getting back to paleontology: I've often wondered why
the pantodont *Barylambda* is shown with a long thick tail like a kangaroo. They are the only non-aquatic mammals I can think of with such big thick tails in proportion to their bodies. [Well, OK, wallabies and other "miniature kangaroos."]

Check out the QANTAS logo.

Have you learned nothing *about* me? I've been fascinated by
marsupials (also monotremes) since before the age of 12.
As if that weren't enough, my wife grew up in Australia,
and we were married there. We even saw a dead wallaby on the road
on our honeymoon, and my wife stopped the car to get it off the road.

So you have no excuse for forgetting about them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:26:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 4:12:36 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods,

Have you learned nothing from me?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to adopt the jargon "birds are dinosaurs."
They are *descended from* what you call "non-avian dinosaurs"
and I call "dinosaurs."

How would you like it if I kept calling you "a unicellular eukaryote," just because you are descended from them?

Wrong comparison. How would you like if I kept calling you a mammal,
just because you are descended from them? In your comparison, it's "unicellular" that's doing the work. I presume you're fine with being a eukaryote. But of course "unicellular eukaryote" isn't a group.

I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis, >>> all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception.

What about kangaroos?

I was thinking in terms of "vertical bipeds," and kangaroos hold themselves at an angle, which would be closer to horizontal
if it were not for the big fleshy tails. But thanks for the reminder.

No, it's horizontal precisely because of the big fleshy tail. When
moving fast they are indeed horizontal, balanced over the hind legs.
Like a theropod.

Getting back to paleontology: I've often wondered why
the pantodont *Barylambda* is shown with a long thick tail like a kangaroo.
They are the only non-aquatic mammals I can think of with such big thick tails in proportion to their bodies. [Well, OK, wallabies and other "miniature kangaroos."]

Check out the QANTAS logo.

Have you learned nothing *about* me? I've been fascinated by
marsupials (also monotremes) since before the age of 12.
As if that weren't enough, my wife grew up in Australia,
and we were married there. We even saw a dead wallaby on the road
on our honeymoon, and my wife stopped the car to get it off the road.

So you have no excuse for forgetting about them.

Credit where credit is due (at least a little credit). Peter's learned at least
two things since he was twelve. He used to bulldog for Feduccia the way he does now for Behe. Additionally, I think he accepts hippos as the sister group to
whales. Gradual evolution of his worldview; not saltation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMTIvMTkvMjIgMjoyMyBQTSwgU2lnaHQgUmVhZGVyIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBIZXkgZ3V5cywg dGhhbmtzIGEgdG9uIGZvciB0aGUgZmVlZGJhY2shICBTb3JyeSBhYm91dCB0aGUgc25pcHBp bmfigKYgSSBkaWRu4oCZdCB3YW50IHRvIGZsb29kIHlvdSBndXlzIHdpdGggZXhjZXNzIGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uIGFuZCBkaWRu4oCZdCByZWFsaXplIHRoYXQgc25pcHBpbmcgbWFrZSB0aGlu Z3MgaW5jb252ZW5pZW50IChmZWVsaW5nIGVtYmFycmFzc2VkIHlldCBBR0FJTikuICBBcHBh cmVudGx5IEkgb25seSBvcGVuIG15IG1vdXRoIHRvIGNoYW5nZSBmZWV04oCmDQo+IA0KPiBB bnl3YXlzLCByZWdhcmRpbmcgd2h5IEkgaGF2ZSBjb25jZXJucyBhYm91dCB0aGlzIHJlY29u c3RydWN0aW9uIG9mIFNwaW5vc2F1cnVzIGJ1dCBub3QgYWJvdXQgb3RoZXIgdGhlcm9wb2Rz LCBJ4oCZbSBtb3N0bHkgcmVmZXJyaW5nIHRvIHRoZSByYXRpbyBvZiBzdHJpZGUgbGVuZ3Ro IHRvIHdoZXJlIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGJvZHkgbWFzcyBpcy4NCj4gDQo+IEnigJlsbCBnaXZl IHRoaXMgbXkgYmVzdCBzaG90LiAgTGV04oCZcyBjb25zaWRlciwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHlv dXIgYXZlcmFnZSBULXJleC4gSnVzdCBmcm9tIGV5ZWJhbGxpbmcgaXQsIEnigJlkIHNheSBo ZXIgZnJvbnQgZm9vdCB3b3VsZCBsYW5kIHJvdWdobHkgdW5kZXIgaGVyIG5lY2suIE5vdGUg dGhhdCB0aGlzIG1lYW5zIHRoYXQgbW9zdCBvZiBoZXIgbWFzcyB3b3VsZCBiZSBiZXR3ZWVu IHRoYXQgZnJvbnQgZm9vdCBhbmQgaGVyIGNlbnRlciBvZiBncmF2aXR5IChwcmVzdW1hYmx5 IG92ZXIgaGVyIGhpcCk6IG9ubHkgaGVyIG5lY2sgYW5kIGhlYWQgd291bGQgYmUgZmFydGhl ciBhd2F5IGZyb20gaGVyIGNlbnRlciBvZiBncmF2aXR5IHRoYW4gd2hlcmUgaGVyIGZvb3Qg aXMgcGxhbnRlZCwgYnV0IHdpdGggc3VjaCBsb25nIGxlZ3MsIHNoZSBjYW4gZWFzaWx5IHJl YXIgdXAgYW5kIGV2ZW4gbW92ZSB0aGF0IG1hc3MgY2xvc2VyIHRvIGhlciBjZW50ZXIgb2Yg bWFzcy4gU2luY2UgaGVyIHN0cmlkZSBsZW5ndGggaXMgbG9uZ2VyIHRoYW4gbW9zdCBvZiBo ZXIgbWFzcywgc2hlIGNvdWxkIHB1c2ggb2ZmIG9mIHRoYXQgZm9vdCwgYW5kIHRoZSBsb2Nh dGlvbiBoZXIgZm9vdCBpcyBwbGFudGVkIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSBhIHJlYXNvbmFibHkgbG9uZyDi gJxtb21lbnQgYXJt4oCdIHRoYXQgY2FuIGFtcGxpZnkgdGhlIHR1cm5pbmcgZm9yY2Ugb24g aGVyIGNlbnRlciBvZiBtYXNzLiAgVGhpcyB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIGxpa2UgcHVzaGluZyBh dCB0aGUgRU5EIG9mIHRoZSAyMC10b24gcHJvcGVsbGVyIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHRyeWluZyB0 byB0d2lzdCBpdCBhdCBpdHMgaHViOiB5b3UgZG9u4oCZdCBuZWVkIG5lYXJseSBhcyBtdWNo IHN0cmVuZ3RoIHRvIGdldCBpdCByb3RhdGluZy4gTm93IHRvIGJlIGNsZWFyLCBJ4oCZbSBu b3QgZW50aXJlbHkgc3VyZSBob3cgQU5ZIG9mIHRoZXNlIHRoZXJvcG9kcyB0dXJuZWQgc2lu Y2UgdGhlaXIgaGlwcyBkb27igJl0IHNlZW0gdG8gbGV0IHRoZW0gc3ByYXdsIHRoZWlyIGxl Z3Mgb3V0IHNpZGV3YXlzIHRvIOKAnGN1dOKAnSBsaWtlIHdlIGNhbjogSSB3b3VsZCBndWVz cyBkaW5vc2F1cnMgd291bGQgcmVxdWlyZSBhIGNlcnRhaW4gbGV2ZWwgb2Yg4oCcYmFua2lu Z+KAnSAobGVhbmluZyBsZWZ0IG9yIHJpZ2h0IGludG8gYSB0dXJuKSBiZWZvcmUgY29taW5n IGFib3V0LCBidXQgdGhhdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZWFzeSBlbm91Z2ggZ2l2ZW4gc3VmZmljaWVu dGx5IGxvbmcgbGVncyBhbmQgSSB0aGluayB0aGVyZSBhcmUgcGxlbnR5IG9mIGFuaW1hbHMg dGhhdCBkbyB0aGF0Lg0KPiANCj4gTGV04oCZcyBub3cgbG9vayBhdCB0aGVpciByZWNvbnN0 cnVjdGlvbiBvZiBTcGlub3NhdXJ1cy4gSWYgc2hlIHB1dHMgaGVyIGZvb3QgZm9yd2FyZCwg SeKAmW0gbm90IGV2ZW4gc3VyZSBoZXIgZm9vdCBtYWtlcyBpdCB0byBoZXIgYXJtcywgd2hp Y2ggbWVhbnMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBub3QgbmVhcmx5IGFzIG11Y2ggb2YgaGVyIG1hc3Mg YmV0d2VlbiBoZXIgcGxhbnQgZm9vdCBhbmQgaGVyIGNlbnRlciBvZiBncmF2aXR5OiB0aGVy ZSBzdGlsbCByZW1haW5zIGEgTE9UIG9mIG1hc3Mgb3V0c2lkZSBvZiB3aGVyZSB0aGF0IGZv b3QgbGFuZHMsIGluY2x1ZGluZyB0aG9zZSBiaWcgYXJtcywgdGhlIHRoaWNrIG5lY2ssIGFu ZCBoZXIgZXZlbiBiaWdnZXIgaGVhZC4gRnVydGhlcm1vcmUsIHNoZSBoYXMgdmVyeSBsaXR0 bGUgY2xlYXJhbmNlIG9mZiB0aGUgZ3JvdW5kLCBzbyBzaGUgY2Fu4oCZdCByZWFyIHVwIHF1 YXNpLWVyZWN0IHRvIGNvbWUgYWJvdXQgLSBzaGUgaGFzIHRvIGhvbGQgaGVyc2VsZiBob3Jp em9udGFsIHRvIGF2b2lkIGJvdHRvbWluZyBvdXQsIHRodXMga2VlcGluZyBhIHNpZ25pZmlj YW50IHBvcnRpb24gb2YgaGVyIG1hc3Mgb3V0c2lkZSBvZiBoZXIgc3RyaWRlIGxlbmd0aCAo YWxsIG9mIHRoaXMgY291bGQgYmUgU08gRUFTSUxZIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiBhYm91dCAxMCB3 b3JkcyBpZiBvbmx5IEkgY291bGQgcG9zdCBhIHBpY3R1cmXigKYgR0FIISkgQW55d2F5cywg dGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBvZiB0cnlpbmcgdG8gdHVybiB0aGF0IDIwLXRvbiBwcm9w ZWxsZXIgYnkgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIHR3aXN0IGl0IGF0IGl0cyBodWIgLSB3aXRob3V0IGJlaW5n IGFibGUgdG8gbGV2ZXJhZ2UgZnVydGhlciBvdXQgdG8gdGhlIOKAnHByb3BlbGxlcuKAnSwg SSBqdXN0IGNhbuKAmXQgc2VlIGhvdyBzaGXigJlzIGdvaW5nIHRvIG1hbmV1dmVyLiBOb3cs IGlmIHNoZSB3YXMgc29tZXRoaW5nIG9mIGEgcXVhZHJ1cGVkLCBzaGUgY291bGQgcGxhbnQg aGVyIGFybXMgaW50byB0aGUgZ3JvdW5kIC0gd2hpY2ggYXJlIG11Y2ggZmFydGhlciBhd2F5 IGZyb20gdGhlIGNlbnRlciBvZiBncmF2aXR5IGFuZCBjYW4gdGh1cyBleGVydCB0b3JxdWUg d2l0aG91dCBhIHJpZGljdWxvdXMgYW1vdW50IG9mIGZvcmNlLCBidXQgYXBwYXJlbnRseSBo ZXIgYXJtcyBoYXZlIG5vIHdlaWdodCBiZWFyaW5nIGZ1bmN0aW9uLCBzbyBJIGRvbuKAmXQg dGhpbmsgc2hlIGNhbiBkbyB0aGlzIHVubGVzcyBzaGUgZ3JhYnMgYSB0cmVlIG9yIHNvbWV0 aGluZy4gQXMgZmFyIGFzIG15IHBldCB0aGVvcnkgb2Yg4oCcYmFua2luZ+KAnSBiZWZvcmUg dHVybmluZyBnb2VzLCB0aGF0IHRvbyB3b3VsZCBiZSBwcm9wb3J0aW9uYWxseSBtb3JlIGRp ZmZpY3VsdCB3aXRoIGhlciBzaG9ydCBjbGVhcmFuY2UgZnJvbSB0aGUgZ3JvdW5kLg0KPiAN Cj4gSSB3b3VsZCBmaW5hbGx5IG5vdGUgdGhhdCBvbGRlciByZWNvbnN0cnVjdGlvbnMgb2Yg U3Bpbm9zYXVydXMgLSBub3RhYmx5IHRoZSBvbmUgaW4gSnVyYXNzaWMgUGFyayBJSUkgYnV0 IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzdGlsbCBxdWl0ZSBhIGZldyBvdGhlcnMgc2l0dGluZyBhcm91bmQgLSBh bGwgZ2l2ZSBoZXIgbXVjaCBsb25nZXIgbGVncyB0aGFuIHRoZXnigJlyZSByZWNvbnN0cnVj dGVkLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgdGhlc2UgcG9ydHJheWFscyBzZWVtIHRvIGJlIGdldHRpbmcgcmVw bGFjZWQgYnkgdGhlIGxpdHRsZS1sZWcgdmVyc2lvbiwgZXNwZWNpYWxseSB0aG9zZSB0aGF0 IHNob3cgaGVyIHN3aW1taW5nLiAgSSBoYXZlIG5vIGlkZWEgd2hpY2ggaXMgcmlnaHQuDQo+ IA0KPiBTb3JyeSB0aGF0IHdhcyBzbyBsb25nISAgSSB0cmllZCBteSBiZXN04oCmDQo+IA0K PiBPbiBNb25kYXksIERlY2VtYmVyIDE5LCAyMDIyIGF0IDEyOjI2OjE5IFBNIFVUQy03LCBK b2huIEhhcnNobWFuIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gT24gMTIvMTkvMjIgMTA6NTUgQU0sIFBldGVyIE55 aWtvcyB3cm90ZToNCj4+PiBXZWxjb21lIGJhY2ssIFNpZ2h0IFJlYWRlciEgSSdtIGdsYWQg eW91IGFyZSBvdmVyIHlvdXIgZmluYWwgZXhhbXMuIERpZCB5b3Ugc3BlbmQgc29tZSBvZiB5 b3VyIFRoYW5rc2dpdmluZyBicmVhaw0KPj4+IHRyeWluZyB0byBnZXQgY2F1Z2h0IHVwPw0K Pj4+DQo+Pj4gT24gTW9uZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAxOSwgMjAyMiBhdCA5OjQ5OjA5IEFNIFVU Qy01LCB0aGVzaWdoLi4uQGdtYWlsLmNvbSB3cm90ZToNCj4+Pj4gT24gTW9uZGF5LCBEZWNl bWJlciAxOSwgMjAyMiBhdCA3OjM1OjM4IEFNIFVUQy03LCBKb2huIEhhcnNobWFuIHdyb3Rl Og0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gQSBsaXR0bGUgdGlwOiBkb24ndCBkZWxldGUgc28gbXVjaC4gSXQncyBo YXJkIHRvIGtub3cgd2hhdCAidGhlIHJlc3QiIGlzIHdoZW4geW91IGRvbid0IGxlYXZlDQo+ Pj4gYW55IG9mIHlvdXIgb3duIHdvcmRzIGluIGZyb20gdGhlIGVhcmxpZXIgcG9zdC4gW1ll cywgXXdlIGFsbCBrbm93IGhvdyB0byBzY3JvbGwgdXAsIGJ1dA0KPj4+IHRoYXQgaW50ZXJy dXB0cyB0aGUgcmVzdCBvZiB0aGUgdGhvdWdodC4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4gTm90IHN1cmUgYWJv dXQgdGhlIHJlc3QsIGJ1dCB0aGUgU2VyZW5vIGV0IGFsLiBwYXBlciBkaWQgY29uY2x1ZGUg dGhhdA0KPj4+Pj4gdGhlIGNlbnRlciBvZiBncmF2aXR5IG9mIHRoZSBiZWFzdHkgd2FzIGF0 IGl0cyBoaXBzLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4+IFByZWNpc2VseSEgV2hhdCBJ4oCZbSB0cnlpbmcgdG8g c2F5IGlzIHRoYXQgdHVybmluZyBnaWdhbnRpYyBkaW5vc2F1ciBsaWtlIHRoYXQgd2l0aCB0 aW55IGxpdHRsZSBsZWdzIGRpcmVjdGx5IHVuZGVyIHRoZSBjZW50ZXIgb2YgZ3Jhdml0eSB3 b3VsZCBiZSBsaWtlIHRyeWluZyB0byB0dXJuIGEgZ2lnYW50aWMgMjAtdG9uIHByb3BlbGxl ciBieSB0cnlpbmcgdG8gZ3JhYiB0aGUgaHViOiB0aGUgcGFydCBjbG9zZXN0IHRvIHRoZSBj ZW50ZXIgb2YgZ3Jhdml0eSBpcyB0aGUgaGFyZGVzdCB0byB0dXJuIGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IGhh dmUgbm8gbGV2ZXJhZ2Ugb3Ig4oCcbW9tZW50IGFybeKAnSwgbGlrZSB0aGUgbG9uZyBoYW5k bGUgb24gYSB3cmVuY2guDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBXYWl0LS13aHkgZG8geW91IHRhbGsgYWJvdXQg dGhlIHRpbnkgbGl0dGxlIGxlZ3MgYmVpbmcgZGlyZWN0bHkgdW5kZXIgdGhlIGNlbnRlciBv ZiBncmF2aXR5DQo+Pj4gd2hlbiB0aGV5IGFyZW4ndCB0aGUgb25lcyBjb25uZWN0ZWQgdG8g dGhlIGhpcHM/DQo+PiBJIGJlbGlldmUgdGhlIG9uZXMgY29ubmVjdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBoaXBz IGFyZSBpbiBmYWN0IHdoYXQgaGUncyB0YWxraW5nDQo+PiBhYm91dC4NCj4+PiBBcyBmb3Ig ImhhcmRlc3QgdG8gdHVybiI6IEkgZ2V0IHRoZSBpbXByZXNzaW9uIGZyb20gdGhlIGFib21p bmFibHkgdW5oZWxwZnVsIFdpa2lwZWRpYSB0aGF0IHRoZSBnbHV0ZXVzIG1heGltdXMgaXMg cmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHJhaXNpbmcNCj4+PiB0aGUgZnJvbnQgb2YgdGhlIGJvZHksIGFu ZCBpdCBoYXMgcGxlbnR5IG9mIGxldmVyYWdlIGZyb20gdGhlIGF0dGFjaG1lbnQgYXQgdGhl IGJvdHRvbSBvZiB0aGUgaGlwLg0KPj4gQW5kIGhlJ3MgdGFsa2luZyBhYm91dCB0dXJuaW5n IGxlZnQgYW5kIHJpZ2h0Lg0KPj4+IEkgZG8gYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBub24tdGhlcm9w b2QgUGxhdGVvc2F1cnVzIHdhcyBhIGJpcGVkIHRoYXQgYWxzbyBnb3QgZG93biBvbiBhbGwg Zm91cnMgYSBsb3QuIEFub3RoZXINCj4+PiBub24tdGhlcm9wb2QsIFN0ZWdvc2F1cnVzIGxv b2tzIGxpa2UgYSBxdWFkcnVwZWQgdGhhdCBtaWdodCBvZnRlbiBoYXZlIHJlYXJlZCB1cCBv biBpdHMgbXVjaCBiaWdnZXIgaGluZCBsZWdzLg0KPj4gQW5kIG5vdGUsIGJvdGggb2YgdGhl IGRlc2NlbmRlZCBmcm9tIG9ibGlnYXRlIGJpcGVkcy4gV2hldGhlciBhbnkNCj4+IHNwaW5v c2F1cnMgZXZlciBnb3QgZG93biBvbiBhbGwgZm91cnMgaXMgYW4gb3BlbiBxdWVzdGlvbi4N Cg0Kw59waW5vc2F1cnVzIGlzIHJlY29uc3RydWN0ZWQgd2l0aCBzaG9ydCBsZWdzIGJlY2F1 c2UgdGhhdCdzIHdoYXQgdGhlIA0KZm9zc2lsIG1hdGVyaWFsIGxvb2tzIGxpa2UuIEkgZG9u J3Qgc2VlIGEgd2F5IG91dCBvZiB0aGF0LiBJIHdvdWxkIA0KcHJvcG9zZSB0aGF0IHRoZWly IGZlZWRpbmcgc3RyYXRlZ3kgZGlkbid0IHJlcXVpcmUgdGhlbSB0byB0dXJuIHRoZWlyIA0K dG9yc29zIHZlcnkgZmFzdC4gUGVyaGFwcyB0aGV5IG9ubHkgbHVuZ2VkIHN0cmFpZ2h0IGZv cndhcmQsIGFuZCBhbnkgDQpjb3JlY3Rpb24gb2YgZGlyZWN0aW9uIHdhcyBkb25lIHdpdGgg dGhlIG5lY2sgb25seS4NCg==

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Pandora wrote:

Open access article with Paul Sereno:

Spinosaurus is not an aquatic dinosaur

Morons see "Aquatic" and think "Sea Monkeys."

There's actually a not very terrible argument favoring an aquatic
spinosaurus. For starters: The sail!

Sails were not the most common feature on dinosaurs, particularly
of later dinosaurs like spinosaurus. However, it would have been
extremely useful for an aquatic animal dependent upon the sun to
provide body heat. As long as the sail stuck out, it could get all the
sun it needed.

"Thermal Regulation."

Baryonyx! Spinosaurus looked like a Baryonyx that had evolved
more, adapted better to an aquatic environment.

The two animals look very much alike, at a glance, and are currently
accepted as related, with the less derived Baryonyx coming first.

Baryonyx is believed to have ate fish. So why would an animal that
didn't have a sail but did eat fish suddenly evolve a sail? Hmm. Maybe
to make it BETTER at eating fish by growing a sail that stuck out of
the water & soaked up the sun and it was mucking about under the
waves, eating fish?

The teeth are also sufficiently different from a T-Rex or even the
much earlier as allosaurus. They look much more similar to other
fish eating animals that inland predators...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Cambridge

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:47:59 -0800 (PST), erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:26:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 4:12:36 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote: >> >>>> On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such relatively

short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods,

Have you learned nothing from me?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to adopt the jargon "birds are dinosaurs."
They are *descended from* what you call "non-avian dinosaurs"
and I call "dinosaurs."

How would you like it if I kept calling you "a unicellular eukaryote,"
just because you are descended from them?

Wrong comparison. How would you like if I kept calling you a mammal,
just because you are descended from them? In your comparison, it's
"unicellular" that's doing the work. I presume you're fine with being a
eukaryote. But of course "unicellular eukaryote" isn't a group.

I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis, >> >>> all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception.

What about kangaroos?

I was thinking in terms of "vertical bipeds," and kangaroos hold
themselves at an angle, which would be closer to horizontal
if it were not for the big fleshy tails. But thanks for the reminder.

No, it's horizontal precisely because of the big fleshy tail. When
moving fast they are indeed horizontal, balanced over the hind legs.
Like a theropod.

Getting back to paleontology: I've often wondered why
the pantodont *Barylambda* is shown with a long thick tail like a kangaroo.
They are the only non-aquatic mammals I can think of with such big thick >> > tails in proportion to their bodies. [Well, OK, wallabies and other "miniature kangaroos."]

Check out the QANTAS logo.

Have you learned nothing *about* me? I've been fascinated by
marsupials (also monotremes) since before the age of 12.
As if that weren't enough, my wife grew up in Australia,
and we were married there. We even saw a dead wallaby on the road
on our honeymoon, and my wife stopped the car to get it off the road.

So you have no excuse for forgetting about them.

Credit where credit is due (at least a little credit). Peter's learned at least
two things since he was twelve. He used to bulldog for Feduccia the way he >does now for Behe. Additionally, I think he accepts hippos as the sister group to
whales. Gradual evolution of his worldview; not saltation.

Before giving credit where applicants are likely to default, you might
want to know what they mean by "gradual" more precisely than "not
saltation".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 6:52:20 AM UTC-8, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:47:59 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:26:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 4:12:36 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote: >> >> On 12/19/22 1:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such

relatively short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods,

Have you learned nothing from me?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to adopt the jargon "birds are dinosaurs."
They are *descended from* what you call "non-avian dinosaurs"
and I call "dinosaurs."

How would you like it if I kept calling you "a unicellular eukaryote," >> > just because you are descended from them?

Wrong comparison. How would you like if I kept calling you a mammal,
just because you are descended from them? In your comparison, it's
"unicellular" that's doing the work. I presume you're fine with being a >> eukaryote. But of course "unicellular eukaryote" isn't a group.

I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis,
all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception.

What about kangaroos?

I was thinking in terms of "vertical bipeds," and kangaroos hold
themselves at an angle, which would be closer to horizontal
if it were not for the big fleshy tails. But thanks for the reminder. >> No, it's horizontal precisely because of the big fleshy tail. When

moving fast they are indeed horizontal, balanced over the hind legs.
Like a theropod.

Getting back to paleontology: I've often wondered why
the pantodont *Barylambda* is shown with a long thick tail like a kangaroo.
They are the only non-aquatic mammals I can think of with such big thick
tails in proportion to their bodies. [Well, OK, wallabies and other "miniature kangaroos."]

Check out the QANTAS logo.

Have you learned nothing *about* me? I've been fascinated by
marsupials (also monotremes) since before the age of 12.
As if that weren't enough, my wife grew up in Australia,
and we were married there. We even saw a dead wallaby on the road
on our honeymoon, and my wife stopped the car to get it off the road. >> So you have no excuse for forgetting about them.

Credit where credit is due (at least a little credit). Peter's learned at least
two things since he was twelve. He used to bulldog for Feduccia the way he >does now for Behe. Additionally, I think he accepts hippos as the sister group to
whales. Gradual evolution of his worldview; not saltation.

Before giving credit where applicants are likely to default, you might
want to know what they mean by "gradual" more precisely than "not saltation".

My remarks here don't require or deserve precision or even serious attention. The words are mine, not Peter's. They simply reflect my amusement at Peter's reluctance to accept changes to what he learned in his youth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:33:54 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 2:23 PM, Sight Reader wrote:

Hey guys, thanks a ton for the feedback! Sorry about the snipping… I didn’t want to flood you guys with excess information and didn’t realize that snipping make things inconvenient (feeling embarrassed yet AGAIN). Apparently I only open my

mouth to change feet…

Anyways, regarding why I have concerns about this reconstruction of Spinosaurus but not about other theropods, I’m mostly referring to the ratio of stride length to where most of the body mass is.

I’ll give this my best shot. Let’s consider, for example, your average T-rex. Just from eyeballing it, I’d say her front foot would land roughly under her neck. Note that this means that most of her mass would be between that front foot and her

center of gravity (presumably over her hip): only her neck and head would be farther away from her center of gravity than where her foot is planted, but with such long legs, she can easily rear up and even move that mass closer to her center of mass.
Since her stride length is longer than most of her mass, she could push off of that foot, and the location her foot is planted will have a reasonably long “moment arm” that can amplify the turning force on her center of mass. This would be more like
pushing at the END of the 20-ton propeller rather than trying to twist it at its hub: you don’t need nearly as much strength to get it rotating. Now to be clear, I’m not entirely sure how ANY of these theropods turned since their hips don’t seem to
let them sprawl their legs out sideways to “cut” like we can: I would guess dinosaurs would require a certain level of “banking” (leaning left or right into a turn) before coming about, but that should be easy enough given sufficiently long legs
and I think there are plenty of animals that do that.

Let’s now look at their reconstruction of Spinosaurus. If she puts her foot forward, I’m not even sure her foot makes it to her arms, which means that there is not nearly as much of her mass between her plant foot and her center of gravity: there

still remains a LOT of mass outside of where that foot lands, including those big arms, the thick neck, and her even bigger head. Furthermore, she has very little clearance off the ground, so she can’t rear up quasi-erect to come about - she has to
hold herself horizontal to avoid bottoming out, thus keeping a significant portion of her mass outside of her stride length (all of this could be SO EASILY described in about 10 words if only I could post a picture… GAH!) Anyways, this is the problem
of trying to turn that 20-ton propeller by trying to twist it at its hub - without being able to leverage further out to the “propeller”, I just can’t see how she’s going to maneuver. Now, if she was something of a quadruped, she could plant her
arms into the ground - which are much farther away from the center of gravity and can thus exert torque without a ridiculous amount of force, but apparently her arms have no weight bearing function, so I don’t think she can do this unless she grabs a
tree or something. As far as my pet theory of “banking” before turning goes, that too would be proportionally more difficult with her short clearance from the ground.

I would finally note that older reconstructions of Spinosaurus - notably the one in Jurassic Park III but there are still quite a few others sitting around - all give her much longer legs than they’re reconstructed. However, these portrayals seem

to be getting replaced by the little-leg version, especially those that show her swimming. I have no idea which is right.

Sorry that was so long! I tried my best…

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Welcome back, Sight Reader! I'm glad you are over your final exams. Did you spend some of your Thanksgiving break
trying to get caught up?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>

A little tip: don't delete so much. It's hard to know what "the rest" is when you don't leave
any of your own words in from the earlier post. [Yes, ]we all know how to scroll up, but
that interrupts the rest of the thought.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did conclude that >>>>> the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the

center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

Wait--why do you talk about the tiny little legs being directly under the center of gravity
when they aren't the ones connected to the hips?

I believe the ones connected to the hips are in fact what he's talking
about.

As for "hardest to turn": I get the impression from the abominably unhelpful Wikipedia that the gluteus maximus is responsible for raising
the front of the body, and it has plenty of leverage from the attachment at the bottom of the hip.

And he's talking about turning left and right.

I do believe that the non-theropod Plateosaurus was a biped that also got down on all fours a lot. Another
non-theropod, Stegosaurus looks like a quadruped that might often have reared up on its much bigger hind legs.

And note, both of the descended from obligate bipeds. Whether any
spinosaurs ever got down on all fours is an open question.

ßpinosaurus is reconstructed with short legs because that's what the
fossil material looks like. I don't see a way out of that. I would
propose that their feeding strategy didn't require them to turn their
torsos very fast. Perhaps they only lunged straight forward, and any corection of direction was done with the neck only.

I agree. I wonder if those earlier reconstructions with reasonably sized legs were based on incomplete remains? If that’s the case, I wonder which discovery revealed the true leg size.

Anyway, I was also wondering about the lunging forward hypothesis. Seems like not being able to turn very well would be a serious liability - someone is always getting around behind you (“Spino, Spino! Watch your 6!”) Trying to turn by simply
redirecting your head would be frustrating because, instead of your body coming about, the rest of you simply rotates back the other way while your tiny feet are trying to keep up (Hey, everyone knows what the girls say about guys with small feet…)

Even if not completely aquatic, maybe hanging around in water habitats plays some sort of role in mitigating this vulnerability? I’m starting to think there’s a certain Murphy’s Law when it comes to interpreting dinosaurs:

“Whatever interpretation makes the MOST sense is almost certainly going to be the one interpretation that can get definitely ruled out…”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 08:37:10 -0800 (PST), erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 6:52:20 AM UTC-8, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:47:59 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:26:43 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 1:53 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 4:12:36 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote: >> >> >> On 12/19/22 1:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Thanks for the corrections, John. I have some comments below.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:46:48 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/18/22 10:06 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

FINALLY made it to Christmas break…. at last, time for another quick dip into my hobbies!

Wow, so based on the reconstructions they have, it sounds like their Spinosaurus would be a bipedal dinosaur who carries its body nearly horizontally! Have there been any other bipeds like that? It seems crazy, all that weight on such

relatively short legs!

Just about any theropod, and notably many of the living ones?

Since there are no living theropods,

Have you learned nothing from me?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to adopt the jargon "birds are dinosaurs."
They are *descended from* what you call "non-avian dinosaurs"
and I call "dinosaurs."

How would you like it if I kept calling you "a unicellular eukaryote," >> >> > just because you are descended from them?

Wrong comparison. How would you like if I kept calling you a mammal,
just because you are descended from them? In your comparison, it's
"unicellular" that's doing the work. I presume you're fine with being a >> >> eukaryote. But of course "unicellular eukaryote" isn't a group.

I take it "ones" refers to "bipeds", specifically birds.
Bipedal mammals, on the other hand, are all exceptions AFAIK.
This includes not only ourselves, but also indris, sifakas and avahis,
all of which are lemurs. I believe tarsiers are another exception. >> >> >

What about kangaroos?

I was thinking in terms of "vertical bipeds," and kangaroos hold
themselves at an angle, which would be closer to horizontal
if it were not for the big fleshy tails. But thanks for the reminder. >> >> No, it's horizontal precisely because of the big fleshy tail. When

moving fast they are indeed horizontal, balanced over the hind legs.
Like a theropod.

Getting back to paleontology: I've often wondered why
the pantodont *Barylambda* is shown with a long thick tail like a kangaroo.
They are the only non-aquatic mammals I can think of with such big thick
tails in proportion to their bodies. [Well, OK, wallabies and other "miniature kangaroos."]

Check out the QANTAS logo.

Have you learned nothing *about* me? I've been fascinated by
marsupials (also monotremes) since before the age of 12.
As if that weren't enough, my wife grew up in Australia,
and we were married there. We even saw a dead wallaby on the road
on our honeymoon, and my wife stopped the car to get it off the road. >> >> So you have no excuse for forgetting about them.

Credit where credit is due (at least a little credit). Peter's learned at least
two things since he was twelve. He used to bulldog for Feduccia the way he >> >does now for Behe. Additionally, I think he accepts hippos as the sister group to
whales. Gradual evolution of his worldview; not saltation.

Before giving credit where applicants are likely to default, you might
want to know what they mean by "gradual" more precisely than "not
saltation".

My remarks here don't require or deserve precision or even serious attention. >The words are mine, not Peter's. They simply reflect my amusement at Peter's >reluctance to accept changes to what he learned in his youth.

Suit yourself, but whenever someone gives credit to him, I am reminded
of a saying posted behind a store counter:

"In God We Trust. All others pay cash."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/20/22 10:49 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:33:54 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 2:23 PM, Sight Reader wrote:

Hey guys, thanks a ton for the feedback! Sorry about the snipping…

I didn’t want to flood you guys with excess information and didn’t
realize that snipping make things inconvenient (feeling embarrassed yet
AGAIN). Apparently I only open my mouth to change feet…

Anyways, regarding why I have concerns about this reconstruction of Spinosaurus but not about other theropods, I’m mostly referring to the

ratio of stride length to where most of the body mass is.

I’ll give this my best shot. Let’s consider, for example, your

average T-rex. Just from eyeballing it, I’d say her front foot would
land roughly under her neck. Note that this means that most of her mass
would be between that front foot and her center of gravity (presumably
over her hip): only her neck and head would be farther away from her
center of gravity than where her foot is planted, but with such long
legs, she can easily rear up and even move that mass closer to her
center of mass. Since her stride length is longer than most of her mass,
she could push off of that foot, and the location her foot is planted
will have a reasonably long “moment arm” that can amplify the turning
force on her center of mass. This would be more like pushing at the END
of the 20-ton propeller rather than trying to twist it at its hub: you
don’t need nearly as much strength to get it rotating. Now to be clear,
I’m not entirely sure how ANY of these theropods turned since their hips don’t seem to let them sprawl their legs out sideways to “cut” like we can: I would guess dinosaurs would require a certain level of “banking” (leaning left or right into a turn) before coming about, but that should
be easy enough given sufficiently long legs and I think there are plenty
of animals that do that.

Let’s now look at their reconstruction of Spinosaurus. If she puts

her foot forward, I’m not even sure her foot makes it to her arms, which means that there is not nearly as much of her mass between her plant
foot and her center of gravity: there still remains a LOT of mass
outside of where that foot lands, including those big arms, the thick
neck, and her even bigger head. Furthermore, she has very little
clearance off the ground, so she can’t rear up quasi-erect to come about
- she has to hold herself horizontal to avoid bottoming out, thus
keeping a significant portion of her mass outside of her stride length
(all of this could be SO EASILY described in about 10 words if only I
could post a picture… GAH!) Anyways, this is the problem of trying to
turn that 20-ton propeller by trying to twist it at its hub - without
being able to leverage further out to the “propeller”, I just can’t see how she’s going to maneuver. Now, if she was something of a quadruped,
she could plant her arms into the ground - which are much farther away
from the center of gravity and can thus exert torque without a
ridiculous amount of force, but apparently her arms have no weight
bearing function, so I don’t think she can do this unless she grabs a
tree or something. As far as my pet theory of “banking” before turning goes, that too would be proportionally more difficult with her short
clearance from the ground.

I would finally note that older reconstructions of Spinosaurus -

notably the one in Jurassic Park III but there are still quite a few
others sitting around - all give her much longer legs than they’re reconstructed. However, these portrayals seem to be getting replaced by
the little-leg version, especially those that show her swimming. I have
no idea which is right.

Sorry that was so long! I tried my best…

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Welcome back, Sight Reader! I'm glad you are over your final

exams. Did you spend some of your Thanksgiving break

trying to get caught up?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5,

thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman

wrote:

A little tip: don't delete so much. It's hard to know what "the

rest" is when you don't leave

any of your own words in from the earlier post. [Yes, ]we all

know how to scroll up, but

that interrupts the rest of the thought.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did

conclude that

the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic

dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of
gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by
trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the
long handle on a wrench.

Wait--why do you talk about the tiny little legs being directly

under the center of gravity

when they aren't the ones connected to the hips?

I believe the ones connected to the hips are in fact what he's talking
about.

As for "hardest to turn": I get the impression from the

abominably unhelpful Wikipedia that the gluteus maximus is responsible
for raising

the front of the body, and it has plenty of leverage from the

attachment at the bottom of the hip.

And he's talking about turning left and right.

I do believe that the non-theropod Plateosaurus was a biped that

also got down on all fours a lot. Another

non-theropod, Stegosaurus looks like a quadruped that might often

have reared up on its much bigger hind legs.

And note, both of the descended from obligate bipeds. Whether any
spinosaurs ever got down on all fours is an open question.

ßpinosaurus is reconstructed with short legs because that's what the
fossil material looks like. I don't see a way out of that. I would
propose that their feeding strategy didn't require them to turn their
torsos very fast. Perhaps they only lunged straight forward, and any
corection of direction was done with the neck only.

I agree. I wonder if those earlier reconstructions with reasonably

sized legs were based on incomplete remains? If that’s the case, I
wonder which discovery revealed the true leg size.
The Wikipedia article on Spinosaurus will provide the references.

Anyway, I was also wondering about the lunging forward hypothesis.

Seems like not being able to turn very well would be a serious liability
- someone is always getting around behind you (“Spino, Spino! Watch
your 6!”) Trying to turn by simply redirecting your head would be
frustrating because, instead of your body coming about, the rest of you
simply rotates back the other way while your tiny feet are trying to
keep up (Hey, everyone knows what the girls say about guys with small feet…)

You assume here that some animal is a threat to an adult Spinosaurus.
That seems very unlikely. And of course the body doesn't have to come
about. If necessary, the tail could rotate a bit to counter the head
movement. And this is about predation, not self-defense.

I should also point out that the article is about Spinosaurus not being
a swimmer. It says nothing about whether they were aquatic. Hippos spend
most of their time in the water but never swim at all.

Even if not completely aquatic, maybe hanging around in water

habitats plays some sort of role in mitigating this vulnerability?
You assume that an enormous theropod has any sort of vulnerability,
which I doubt.

I’m starting to think there’s a certain Murphy’s Law when it comes to

interpreting dinosaurs:

“Whatever interpretation makes the MOST sense is almost certainly

going to be the one interpretation that can get definitely ruled out…”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 8:03:32 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/20/22 10:49 AM, Sight Reader wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 10:33:54 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/19/22 2:23 PM, Sight Reader wrote:

Hey guys, thanks a ton for the feedback! Sorry about the snipping…

I didn’t want to flood you guys with excess information and didn’t realize that snipping make things inconvenient (feeling embarrassed yet AGAIN). Apparently I only open my mouth to change feet…

Anyways, regarding why I have concerns about this reconstruction of Spinosaurus but not about other theropods, I’m mostly referring to the ratio of stride length to where most of the body mass is.

I’ll give this my best shot. Let’s consider, for example, your average T-rex. Just from eyeballing it, I’d say her front foot would

land roughly under her neck. Note that this means that most of her mass would be between that front foot and her center of gravity (presumably
over her hip): only her neck and head would be farther away from her
center of gravity than where her foot is planted, but with such long
legs, she can easily rear up and even move that mass closer to her
center of mass. Since her stride length is longer than most of her mass,
she could push off of that foot, and the location her foot is planted
will have a reasonably long “moment arm” that can amplify the turning force on her center of mass. This would be more like pushing at the END
of the 20-ton propeller rather than trying to twist it at its hub: you don’t need nearly as much strength to get it rotating. Now to be clear, I’m not entirely sure how ANY of these theropods turned since their hips don’t seem to let them sprawl their legs out sideways to “cut” like we can: I would guess dinosaurs would require a certain level of “banking” (leaning left or right into a turn) before coming about, but that should
be easy enough given sufficiently long legs and I think there are plenty
of animals that do that.

Let’s now look at their reconstruction of Spinosaurus. If she puts

her foot forward, I’m not even sure her foot makes it to her arms, which means that there is not nearly as much of her mass between her plant
foot and her center of gravity: there still remains a LOT of mass
outside of where that foot lands, including those big arms, the thick
neck, and her even bigger head. Furthermore, she has very little
clearance off the ground, so she can’t rear up quasi-erect to come about
- she has to hold herself horizontal to avoid bottoming out, thus
keeping a significant portion of her mass outside of her stride length
(all of this could be SO EASILY described in about 10 words if only I
could post a picture… GAH!) Anyways, this is the problem of trying to
turn that 20-ton propeller by trying to twist it at its hub - without
being able to leverage further out to the “propeller”, I just can’t see
how she’s going to maneuver. Now, if she was something of a quadruped,
she could plant her arms into the ground - which are much farther away
from the center of gravity and can thus exert torque without a
ridiculous amount of force, but apparently her arms have no weight
bearing function, so I don’t think she can do this unless she grabs a
tree or something. As far as my pet theory of “banking” before turning goes, that too would be proportionally more difficult with her short clearance from the ground.

I would finally note that older reconstructions of Spinosaurus -

notably the one in Jurassic Park III but there are still quite a few
others sitting around - all give her much longer legs than they’re reconstructed. However, these portrayals seem to be getting replaced by
the little-leg version, especially those that show her swimming. I have
no idea which is right.

Sorry that was so long! I tried my best…

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:26:19 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 12/19/22 10:55 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Welcome back, Sight Reader! I'm glad you are over your final

exams. Did you spend some of your Thanksgiving break

trying to get caught up?

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5,

thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 7:35:38 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

A little tip: don't delete so much. It's hard to know what "the

rest" is when you don't leave

any of your own words in from the earlier post. [Yes, ]we all

know how to scroll up, but

that interrupts the rest of the thought.

Not sure about the rest, but the Sereno et al. paper did

conclude that

the center of gravity of the beasty was at its hips.

Precisely! What I’m trying to say is that turning gigantic

dinosaur like that with tiny little legs directly under the center of gravity would be like trying to turn a gigantic 20-ton propeller by
trying to grab the hub: the part closest to the center of gravity is the hardest to turn because you have no leverage or “moment arm”, like the long handle on a wrench.

Wait--why do you talk about the tiny little legs being directly

under the center of gravity

when they aren't the ones connected to the hips?

I believe the ones connected to the hips are in fact what he's talking >>>> about.

As for "hardest to turn": I get the impression from the

abominably unhelpful Wikipedia that the gluteus maximus is responsible
for raising

the front of the body, and it has plenty of leverage from the attachment at the bottom of the hip.

And he's talking about turning left and right.

I do believe that the non-theropod Plateosaurus was a biped that

also got down on all fours a lot. Another

non-theropod, Stegosaurus looks like a quadruped that might often

have reared up on its much bigger hind legs.

And note, both of the descended from obligate bipeds. Whether any
spinosaurs ever got down on all fours is an open question.

ßpinosaurus is reconstructed with short legs because that's what the
fossil material looks like. I don't see a way out of that. I would
propose that their feeding strategy didn't require them to turn their
torsos very fast. Perhaps they only lunged straight forward, and any
corection of direction was done with the neck only.

I agree. I wonder if those earlier reconstructions with reasonably

sized legs were based on incomplete remains? If that’s the case, I
wonder which discovery revealed the true leg size.
The Wikipedia article on Spinosaurus will provide the references.

Anyway, I was also wondering about the lunging forward hypothesis.

Seems like not being able to turn very well would be a serious liability
- someone is always getting around behind you (“Spino, Spino! Watch
your 6!”) Trying to turn by simply redirecting your head would be frustrating because, instead of your body coming about, the rest of you simply rotates back the other way while your tiny feet are trying to
keep up (Hey, everyone knows what the girls say about guys with small feet…)
You assume here that some animal is a threat to an adult Spinosaurus.
That seems very unlikely. And of course the body doesn't have to come
about. If necessary, the tail could rotate a bit to counter the head movement. And this is about predation, not self-defense.

Exactly! If it indeed turns out that Spinosaurus was unwieldy - and yet it still DIDN’T MATTER - I think it would bring up a lot of potentially interesting questions about Spinosaurus and its ecology.

Would its inability to maneuver rule out any sort of extended existence on dry land? If it did live in dry habitats, why weren’t territorial challenges from other large land carnivores - or even members of its own species - if maneuvering was a problem?
Would this rule out scavenging - which might bring Spinosaurus into contact with other large predators seeking the same corpse - as a lifestyle? If it did have any sort of extended presence on land, how did it capture more cursorial prey? I would think
its massive size would make it hard to conceal itself and I have trouble seeing how the little legs could generate the sort of burst of speed needed to ambush such animals.

If we rule out dry land as a habitat, then that would limit this animal to an aquatic environments in which - as described in the article - it has the disadvantage of not being able to swim. Why wasn’t it’s inability to swim a problem in an aquatic
environment? Might Spinosaurus still be more formidable in the water despite its inability to truly swim? If so, how? Perhaps it lived in some sort of twilight zone existence between land and water?

Note how many of these questions and challenges completely vanish if my physics is wrong and Spinosaurus has no problems maneuvering on land. This is why I find the combination of its small legs and an inability to swim fascinating - how and where did
this thing live?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)