>>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.