|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 18, 2014 1:02:05 GMT 5
More than the snout, that's the depth of Spinosaurus mandible that makes me think this guy may have had a bite force to be reckoned with.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 18, 2014 3:45:28 GMT 5
It isn’t so much a matter of any individual feature, because every individual feature can be ambiguous.
It’s the combination;
• a highly compacted rostrum with a well-developed secondary palate and thick walls,
• sturdy, conical teeth designed for gripping, some of the teeth very large,
• a deep mandible
• overall large size
Of course this animal had to have a strong bite, though not for its size.
Its prey items show what puncturing (strong dermal armour, think elasmobranch, coelacanth and basal actinopterygian hides) and seizing (sheer size, think Mawsonia and Onchopristis) capabilities it must have had, which would simply not work without the ability to excert certain not-so-laughable amounts of force.
In general it seems piscivory requires a certain amount of jaw strenght, not necessarily enourmous, and not necessarily particularly great damaging potencial, but also not necessarily less than other (macrophagous) relatives. For example, piscivorous eagles have some of the largest and strongest beaks of all raptors.
On the other hand, we have got an extremely narrow skull with relatively little space for jaw adductors (if we go by other spinosaurs for the caudal part of the skull) and a weak anterior rostrum. The posterior part of its mandible and its jaw articulation would be of great interest, it’s a shame there’s just a splenial…
|
|
