Post by Godzillasaurus on Jan 25, 2014 9:19:35 GMT 5
Quote: The point was that regardless of whether it was particularly robust, Spinosaurus’s skull was not weak, though clearly less robust than in macrophagous theropods, especially the ones with crushing adaptions.
Ok, maybe "robust" is not really the right word to compare two different animals, as both of us have different definitions of it. Simply put, spinosaurus' snout was designed to grip large and powerful fish and be able to resist the stress found in it without fracturing, so of course there is virtually no reason to believe that it was a weak structure. But what separates it mainly from groups like allosauria and macrophagous megalosaurids and ceratosaurs is the possession of a generally denser, more heavily-constructed, and less pneumatic rostrum owing to its high capacity to grip in conjunction with its considerable width and depth (the latter of which is roughly analogous to the false gharial if anything, let alone it's greater depth allowing for increased vertical resistance). Simply, all animals are well designed to accommodate for their ecologies and respective niches (you know, like the "birds living on different parts of the same tree and eating different kinds of insects" notion), thus it is entirely logical for animals designed for gripping large prey (as opposed to killing; evident with generally inferior dimensions, conical teeth designed for stabbing and gripping instead of cutting, and a more heavily-built snout) to have stronger jaws for that specific purpose. I mean obviously it was nowhere near as large in either direction as most groups of large macropredatory theropods, but does that make it a more lightly-constructed piece as a whole? This is just one thing that bothers me; bigger dimensions =\= a more robust snout, especially when comparing things designed for gripping and those designed for killing. It is really all about a certain animal's ecology that determines how it feeds and what anatomical features it has. Just look at modern animals: most tend to prey on different things in different ways if they are coexistent with one another; this flows into the idea that having a larger skull does not necessarily merit a superior strength. Spinosaurus' jaws were not very fragile at all and were instead likely very strong to prevent injury in gripping; this is the opposite case in allosaurs.
What I am trying to say is that Dinokid's claim that spinosaurus had weak and fragile jaws were attributed to their generally slender and generally specialized build (even when the maxilla was more-so a relatively more generalized piece that would have most likely had a high capacity to kill large animals without breaking. Even though it was still specialized for theropod standards being designed for reducing drag and all, it was by-no-means a weak structure and was in fact the most robust portion of the creature's rostrum). What he said implied that it did not have a strong snout in its own regard. The best modern analogy for spinosaurus is the false gharial of course while carcharodontosaurus in general is most analogous with the Komodo dragon; one animal is designed for gripping where a generally stronger snout is more logical while the other is adapted for killing.
Ok, maybe "robust" is not really the right word to compare two different animals, as both of us have different definitions of it. Simply put, spinosaurus' snout was designed to grip large and powerful fish and be able to resist the stress found in it without fracturing, so of course there is virtually no reason to believe that it was a weak structure. But what separates it mainly from groups like allosauria and macrophagous megalosaurids and ceratosaurs is the possession of a generally denser, more heavily-constructed, and less pneumatic rostrum owing to its high capacity to grip in conjunction with its considerable width and depth (the latter of which is roughly analogous to the false gharial if anything, let alone it's greater depth allowing for increased vertical resistance). Simply, all animals are well designed to accommodate for their ecologies and respective niches (you know, like the "birds living on different parts of the same tree and eating different kinds of insects" notion), thus it is entirely logical for animals designed for gripping large prey (as opposed to killing; evident with generally inferior dimensions, conical teeth designed for stabbing and gripping instead of cutting, and a more heavily-built snout) to have stronger jaws for that specific purpose. I mean obviously it was nowhere near as large in either direction as most groups of large macropredatory theropods, but does that make it a more lightly-constructed piece as a whole? This is just one thing that bothers me; bigger dimensions =\= a more robust snout, especially when comparing things designed for gripping and those designed for killing. It is really all about a certain animal's ecology that determines how it feeds and what anatomical features it has. Just look at modern animals: most tend to prey on different things in different ways if they are coexistent with one another; this flows into the idea that having a larger skull does not necessarily merit a superior strength. Spinosaurus' jaws were not very fragile at all and were instead likely very strong to prevent injury in gripping; this is the opposite case in allosaurs.
What I am trying to say is that Dinokid's claim that spinosaurus had weak and fragile jaws were attributed to their generally slender and generally specialized build (even when the maxilla was more-so a relatively more generalized piece that would have most likely had a high capacity to kill large animals without breaking. Even though it was still specialized for theropod standards being designed for reducing drag and all, it was by-no-means a weak structure and was in fact the most robust portion of the creature's rostrum). What he said implied that it did not have a strong snout in its own regard. The best modern analogy for spinosaurus is the false gharial of course while carcharodontosaurus in general is most analogous with the Komodo dragon; one animal is designed for gripping where a generally stronger snout is more logical while the other is adapted for killing.
