leo
Junior Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by leo on Jun 26, 2019 4:49:35 GMT 5
Their is a debate how large spino grew , but for now I think I will back spinosarus in the water and stegosaurus on land until we get further size estimates
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 26, 2019 9:34:43 GMT 5
Their is a debate how large spino grew I believe most recent estimates are about 7-8 tons (Henderson) |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 26, 2019 18:14:29 GMT 5
|
|
leo
Junior Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by leo on Jun 26, 2019 21:27:54 GMT 5
I don’t know weather or not that is a credible source , I would have to further investigate |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 26, 2019 21:30:28 GMT 5
I don’t know weather or not that is a credible source , I would have to further investigate Same here. rock I suggest referring to what creature386 said about the reliability of sources |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 26, 2019 21:33:35 GMT 5
While the source isn't terrible (the content is very similar to Wikipedia), I'd much rather cite on of the article's sources (which you should find on Wikipedia) for one of the many weight estimates than the article itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 26, 2019 21:37:15 GMT 5
rock
I second that! Check and see WHERE Wikipedia is getting their stuff and cite it; the info doesn't just pop out of nowhere
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jul 7, 2019 23:41:55 GMT 5
Just thought I would let you guys know Spinosaurus. marrocanus is not considered valid anymore, the material used to describe the species is now considered a Spinosaurini inet. (belonging to the tribe Spinosaurini but we don’t know the exact species) though it probably belong to either Spinosaurus aegyptiacus or Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis. qr.ae/TUvEhT |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 7, 2019 23:44:20 GMT 5
Just thought I would let you guys know Spinosaurus. marrocanus is not considered valid anymore, the material used to describe the species is now considered a Spinosaurini inet. (belonging to the tribe Spinosaurini but we don’t know the exact species) though it probably belong to either Spinosaurus aegyptiacus or Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis. qr.ae/TUvEhThello , welcome to this fourm , anyhow , i do not get what you mean , if the fossil is not real or if it is just a larger species of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus , care to explain? |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jul 7, 2019 23:47:37 GMT 5
Hey there and just read the link qr.ae/TUvEhT it explains it better than i can. |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jul 7, 2019 23:51:19 GMT 5
Hey there and just read the link qr.ae/TUvEhT it explains it better than i can. ok , understandable |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jul 8, 2019 15:15:56 GMT 5
Just thought I would let you guys know Spinosaurus. marrocanus is not considered valid anymore, the material used to describe the species is now considered a Spinosaurini inet. (belonging to the tribe Spinosaurini but we don’t know the exact species) though it probably belong to either Spinosaurus aegyptiacus or Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis. qr.ae/TUvEhTTHANK YOU so much for pointing that out! Welcome to the forum by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jul 9, 2019 1:30:00 GMT 5
Thanks matey
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 9, 2019 2:39:32 GMT 5
rock I second that! Check and see WHERE Wikipedia is getting their stuff and cite it; the info doesn't just pop out of nowhere Well, it sometimes does, and that’s exactly the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 9, 2019 2:52:30 GMT 5
Would it be best if I just turned this into S. aegyptiacus vs Stegosaurus?
|
|
