If you are not aware, the Spinosaurus debate has become one of the most heated debates in modern paleontology.

Starting in the 2010's and still going to this very day, a series of papers have been published leading to the creation of 2 hypothesis that are dividing the paleontology world (or more specifically the Spino nerds which are a specific kind of paleonerds that often get bullied by other people in the field)

Its not really debated now a days that the Spino was a bipedal animal (cope and seethe quadrupedal-cels), and that he was a semi aquatic predator, but here is where the war begins.

Hypothesis A
The Spinosaurus was a heron like hunter, meaning that it stuck to shallow waters and the shore lines of lakes and rivers and it would catch its pray by using his head to poke underwater, again, like modern day herons. It did not have the capacity to dive, it was not good swimmer and its massive tail was used for attracting a mate.

Hypothesis B
The Spinosaurus did NOT hunt like a heron. The spino had the capacity to fully dive and chase its prey underwater. It was a great swimmer and its massive tail was used much like we see in modern crocodiles. (this still in rivers and lakes, sorry but ocean Spinosaurus aren't real)

>Hmmm anon what if it used both ways of hunting? What if it was capable of diving and chasing underwater but it sometimes also hunted like a heron?
kill yourself, this is not a position any respected person in the field (currently) defends, stop being a centrist and pick your side, the papers published since the 2010's directly contradict each other, there is currently no room for both hypothesis to coexist.

(and no a Spino could not snap a T-Rex's neck like in Jurassic Park 3, its jaw was literally not built for that)

Now that you are aware of this make sure to check once in a while on the current state of this debate because one side will come out on top and the other will be absolutely humiliated

>>16715336 (OP)
I'm unsure why it couldn't have been an underwater "snapping" predator.
This method of hunting for amphibious tetrapods already exists and is highly effective.

>>16715336 (OP)
Herons are known to swim into deeper waters to hunt or pursue prey on occasion.

>>16715336 (OP)
you know the best part? I don't give a fuck

>>16715338
well people that support hypothesis A argue that the spino did not have the capacity to dive and remain underwater
its bone density and air sacs made it impossible to do so
people that support hypothesis B could probably entertain that idea but they would probably make the point that its tail indicates that it was an active hunter that would chase its prey underwater, unlike ambush predators
>but anon, people often use the tail of crocodiles when discussing the Spinosaurus, and crocodiles are ambush predators.
True but crocodiles are aquatic ambush predators that hunt land animals (for the most part). I don't think Spinosaurus could do that with its massive sail sticking out of the water. The current position by people that are on the side of hypothesis B is that the tail was used in swimming and chasing down prey.
>>16715349
really? i actually didn't know that

>>16715336 (OP)
Who cares? It's extinct.

>>16715362
It's worth pointing out a sail like that would also be a huge pain in the ass if you were trying to quickly maneuver under water, just a ton of drag while trying to turn.

>>16715491
>>16715362
>>16715336 (OP)
i thought everyone agreed that they used the sail like a marlin/sailfish to herd schools of fish into a tight space to eat easier
i mean they even look like a sailfish with legs

>>16715336 (OP)
>>16715362

I'm not married to any one hypothesis since it's an extinct animal and I'm not sure how many bones we have of the creature yet, but: I think I lean more towards Hypothesis B, assuming it does indeed have stubby legs.
In that I would perhaps compare the Spinosaurus to a Cormorant: stubby legs, diving, they even share the same hooked snout. The tail is also far too 'flippy' for it to be a mostly land creature.

>>16715336 (OP)
>kill yourself, this is not a position any respected person in the field (currently) defends, stop being a centrist and pick your side, the papers published since the 2010's directly contradict each other, there is currently no room for both hypothesis to coexist
What a retarded stance. It is not a heron or a crocodile, its behaviour would not have been an exact match of either and to say that that is unscientific fence sitting is moronic. The two papers having conflicting stances does not mean it wasn’t capable of hunting above and below the surface. Neither paper has the full picture
>The Spinosaurus was a heron like hunter, meaning that it stuck to shallow waters and the shore lines of lakes and rivers and it would catch its pray by using his head to poke underwater, again, like modern day herons. It did not have the capacity to dive
This is a massive oversimplification of how herons hunt
>The spino had the capacity to fully dive and chase its prey underwater. It was a great swimmer and its massive tail was used much like we see in modern crocodiles
Crocodilians don’t even do this

Thanks for the summary, very entertaining read.

>>16715362
>I don't think Spinosaurus could do that with its massive sail sticking out of the water.
Could be an ambush predator that hunted underwater prey. It sits by the bank and positions itself such that its fin blocks the flow of water and funnels all the prey towards its head and jaws. It just stays still until something gets close, possibly swimming into its open mouth, at which point it snaps up its prey in its large jaws. The sail fin could help regulate temperature while sitting in water, or possibly as leverage to help it make a short range very rapid bodily motion in water to rotate its body around and snap something up.
To answer this question, shouldn't paleontologists be doing fluid dynamics simulations with its body to figure out what range of motion is efficient?

>>16715336 (OP)

Dinosaurs are fake.

>>16715336 (OP)
It really hasn't. The sandnigger lied because he's butthurt about T. rex getting killed in JPIII. That's it. That's literally the entire story.

>>16715499
Except that's clearly not what its sail looks like. Why everyone keeps repeating the shape in art I have no idea.

>>16715539
>The two papers having conflicting stances does not mean it wasn’t capable of hunting above and below the surface. Neither paper has the full picture
Anon, the people that back hypothesis A literally state that the spino could NOT dive underwater, it was anatomically impossible due to bone density and buoyancy while people that back hypothesis B actually argue that its bone density did allow it to dive and remain underwater. The 2 sides directly contradict each other, there is no middle ground unless the positions defended by both sides expand.
>This is a massive oversimplification of how herons hunt
Nigga you know what I mean. I literally described how hypothesis A people compare how *some* herons hunt to how they think the spinosaurus hunted.
>Crocodilians don’t even do this
Yes you're right, crocodiles don't generally chase pray underwater but its an easy how to explain how hypothesis B people talk about the tail of the spino. There's other animals alive today that would be better comparisons to the spinosaurus it terms of their tails but everyone knows what a crocodile is so its easy for people to immediately understand.

>>16715545
I think hypothesis B people would argue that its tail is evidence that it was probably not an ambush predator and it was a more active one. The tail being used for movement and hunting is an important part of their hypothesis, at least for now. I don't think they want to accept any possibility that could lead to the tail being downplayed. You could be right tho, its just that hypothesis B doesn't seem to vibe with your idea currently.
The fact is that there's still a lot we don't know about the spino and debates over how it lived have been heated for a while.

this is clearly a swimmer

>>16716019
Reminder - there are only six partial neotype specimens for Spinosaurus. The bones from those specimens (more or less) are highlighted in red. Everything else is filled in from a bunch of bones that were blown up in WW2.

Most of the reconstruction is conjecture.

>>16716032

>>16716084
THEY'RE PUTTING EXTRA BONES IN THE SKELETONS THAT ARE MAKING THE SPINOSAURIDS GAY!!!

No but seriously, these spazes need to calm the fuck down with this fucking up dinosaur anatomy shit.

>>16715994
>The 2 sides directly contradict each other, there is no middle ground unless the positions defended by both sides expand
That’s literally the entire point of what I said. To say there’s no middle ground assumes that one of the hypotheses must be correct. More likely both are incorrect

>>16715336 (OP)
Sounds dumb. They're effectively arguing over an unknowable thing, the best they can do (and clearly what they're doing) is finding modern animals and doing a comparison between them and the "spino". This is dumb. Is this what the humanities do all day? Just argue over unprovable, unverifiable shit?