T rex:the biggest theropod or not?

T rex:the biggest theropod or not?

Posted in the Dinosaur Forum

First Prev
of 23
Next Last
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#1 Oct 25, 2009
Tyrannosaurus (Tyrant Lizard) was of the last, largest, and most powerful of all predatory dinosaurs. Saw-edged teeth armed the mighty jaws of its immense head, 1.52 m (5 ft), long and strong claws tipped the three toes of each gigantic, bird-like foot. Compared to its massive legs, the small, two-fingered hands and arms no longer than our own appear absurdly puny.

Despite its size Tyrannosaurus was lightly constructed, with hollow bones and great windows in the skull. Alone in pairs, or possibly in packs, Tyrannosaurus probably trailed migrating herds of horned and duckbilled dinosaurs, picking off the weak, young and sick. Other tactics might have involved waiting in ambush then charging, jaws wide open, bringing down its victim with its teeth, after a short chase at speeds of 32 kmh (20 mph) or more. Some experts disagree with this theory. They believe that Tyrannosaurus moved more slowly, eating only copses found already dead; yet no large, land-based carnivore living today survives on carrion alone. For many years, scientist knew only three partial skeletons.

Then in the 1960s, fresh discoveries shed new light on the animals anatomy, however Tyrannosaurus remained incompletely known until two almost entire skeletons were discovered: one in Montana in 1988, the other in South Dakota in 1990. Its eyes faced forward, providing better depth perception, important for a predatory animal, and its narrowed snout gave it a clear field of vision.

At the other end, a heavy tail counterbalanced the skull. A complete tail has never been found, so no one knows exactly how long it might have grown. Tyrannosaurus rex is one of the most famous of the extinct reptiles.
Holotype-(CMN 9380,=AMNH 973)(10.6 m, 5.7 tons) maxilla, lacrimal, squamosal, ectopterygoid, dentary (500 mm), surangular, teeth, cervical vertebra, seven dorsal vertebrae, three gastralia,(sacrum- 983 mm) first sacral vertebra (225 mm), second sacral vertebra (210 mm), third sacral vertebra (165 mm), fourth sacral vertebra (180 mm), fifth sacral vertebra (195 mm), scapula, humerus (360 mm), ilia, pubes, ischia, femora (1.28 m), tibia (1.14 m), metatarsus (684 mm)(Osborn 1905, Osborn 1906, Osborn 1912, Osborn 1916)

(FMNH PR2081,=BHI 2033; Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum "Sue")(11.2 m; 6.7 tons) skull (1.53 m), cervical vertebrae, dorsal vertebrae, sacrum, proximal caudal vertebrae, scapula, coracoid, humerus (37.3 mm), radius (17.3 mm), ulna (21.9 mm), metacarpal I (6.4 mm), manual ungual I, metacarpal II (10.9 mm), phalanx II-1 (5.5 mm), phalanx II-2 (7.9 mm), manual ungual II, pelvis, femur (1.38 m), tibia (1.2 m), fibula, pes

(MOR 980; Rigby specimen; material of [Tyrannosaurus "imperator"])(~10.6 m; ~5.7 tons) braincase, caudal vertebrae, pubes (1.33 m), limb elements (MOR 1126; Celeste or C-rex)(12.3 m?; ~8.9 tons?) surangular, tooth, few cervical vertebrae, cervical ribs, dorsal vertebrae 1-13, twenty-six dorsal ribs, gastralia, sacrum, scapula, pubes, ischia, pedal phalanx (UCMP 118742)(~13.6 m?,~12 tons?) maxilla (skull ~1.75 m)(Carr 1999)

Tyrannosaurus stanwinstonorum "Sue" is the largest relatively complete described specimen. Horner says Celeste is 10% larger, but no measurements have been presented. Though Paul's original estimate for the UCMP maxilla gave an estimate of 13.6 meters, but more recently he's said that it's about the length of Sue's. Rigby's largest specimen on the other hand, has a pubis not much different in size than the holotype.[M.Mortimer]

UMNH 11000 from the North Horn Formation in Utah, consists of approximately 17% of a tyrannosaurid skeleton, including cranial and postcranial materials
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#2 Oct 25, 2009
So in other words c rex and rigby rex probably weren't as big as once thought.Rigby rex was 10.6 meters but add on da head and it may have been 12 meters.C rex was around 12-13 meters?
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#3 Oct 25, 2009
Spinosaurus is the biggest theropod.Here is the data,its so long i can't fit it in one comment!
Part 1:
Jaw fragments, vertebrae, hindlimb elements.
(IPHG 1912 VIII 19, destroyed)(~17.4 m, 12-19 tons) maxillary fragment, incomplete dentary, nineteen teeth, two incomplete cervical vertebrae, seven dorsal vertebrae (190-210 mm), dorsal ribs, gastralia, eight caudal centra (MNHN SAM 124)(~15.9 m, 9-15 tons)(skull ~2 m) partial premaxillae, partial maxillae, vomers, dentary fragment (Taquet and Russell, 1998)
The largest named theropod, and probably the largest known. It beats the nearest competitors by several meters, so I really don't see why it's not more universally thought of as the largest.
Even the rumored largest carcharodontosaurs and tyrannosaurs are smaller. And like Suchomimus, the holotype is a subadult.[M.Mortimer]
The remains of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus were discovered by collector Markgraf during the spring of 1912 in the Baharija Valley three km north of Gebel el Dist. The remains were collected out of a small hill, from a whitisch-grey to yellowisch, clayey, gypsum-free sandstone. Below a cover of 30 cm ferruginous sandstone and 1 meter of hard clay.
Markgraf collected two mandibular rami without the posterior ends with a few teeth in situ, a possible left angular, a little piece of the left upper jaw, over a dozen individual teeth or tooth crowns, two cervical, seven dorsal, two and a half sacral, and one anterior caudal vertebrae, many incomplete ribs and lateral gastralia. All these remains could be prepared out well, but in washing many fell apart into many pieces, which had to be glued back together again, unfortunately many broken pieces became lost.
The fossils were deformed and shattered in the stone due to crushing they were also confusedly mixed. The skull seems to have been present, but due to its surfical deposition has been almost completely weathered away.
A world war II bombing raid destroyed the then few known bones of one of the longest and strangest of all carnivorous dinosaurs. Spinosaurus ("thorn lizard") was longer than Tyrannosaurus, but les heavily build. Its most unusual feature was a tall skin "sail" which was held aloft by bony "swords"rising up to 1.6 m (5ft 6in) front its backbone.
Skull and jaw fragments seem to suggest that Spinosaurus had a long, low skull and a kinked snout. The spines of Spinosaurus were very flat and bladelike, as if someone had stuck the blade of a saber, blunted-point upward, atop each vertebra; and there were fewer of them.
The tallest spine stood almost six feet above the upper surface of the back. To this day, no other dinosaur specimen has been found with such extremely tall neural spines.
Royal Bavarian Academy of Science Mathematical-physical Division Volume XXVIII, Paper 3
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#4 Oct 25, 2009
Part 2:

Results of Prof. E. Stromer's Research Expedition in the Deserts of Egypt

II. Vertebrate Remains from the BaharĒje Beds (lowermost Cenomanian)

3. The Type of the Theropod Spinosaurus aegyptiacus nov. gen., nov. spec.*

by Ernst Stromer

Presented on November 6, 1915

Munich 1915
A publication of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Science in commission of G. Franz's Press (J. Roth)

Translation by R.T. Zanon, 1989.

3. The Type of the Theropod Spinosaurus aegyptiacus nov. gen., nov. spec.

Three km north of Gebel el Dist, thus in the plain at the base of the BaharĒje Valley and in the deepest layer "7 p" (Stromer 1914, p. 28 and 29, fn. 1), out of a small hill, from a whitish-gray to yellowish, clayey, gypsum-free sandstone, below a cover of 30 cm ferruginous sandstone and 1 m of hard clay, in Spring 1912, the collector Markgraf excavated a number of remains, lying closely together, of a large theropod, namely the two mandibular rami without the posterior ends with a few teeth in situ, a ? left angular, a little piece of the left upper jaw, over a dozen individual teeth or tooth crowns, two cervical, seven dorsal, two and a half sacral, and one anterior caudal vertebrae, many incomplete ribs and lateral gastralia.

All these remains of brownish to gray color could be prepared out well, but in the washing many fell apart into many pieces, which had to be glued back together again with difficulty, and unfortunately many broken pieces became lost. Already in the stone much was deformed and shattered due to crushing, also the remains lay confusedly mixed. The skull seems to have been present, but due to its surficial deposition has been almost completely weathered away, since clearly the upper jaw piece shows the unmistakable character of weathering of a bone found on the surface and also the posterior ends of the mandibular rami, traversed by very many cracks, as well as the two cervical vertebrae, somewhat weathered especially in front, indicate a completely superficial disposition.

Of the girdle and extremity bones nothing at all has been found, so the skeleton would have been buried in an incomplete condition. In any case the soft parts were destroyed and with this the articulation of the individual bones was lost; many teeth, whose attachment was in part loosened on account of the replacement teeth pushing in, thereby fell out with their roots and all were confusedly mixed, thrown about either by scavengers or by flowing water. However, further transport of the remains, which show no trace of rolling and on which often very thin and fragile bone elements were perfectly preserved, certainly did not occur. Then in the stone the remains have suffered through compression, which clearly was more likely produced by displacement on account of the leaching of gypsum and salt than by tectonic processes.

Based on their position and preservation the remains belong to one individual, only the proportions in the sacral and caudal vertebrae make difficulties for this view, as is yet to be discussed in the description of these parts. In any case the jaws, teeth, and dorsal vertebrae suffice to characterize the form as new, which I will describe completely in the following, being sufficiently in contrast to all hitherto known dinosaurs.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#5 Oct 25, 2009
Part 3:
Only the dentary and splenial are preserved in natural articulation on both mandibular rami in a length of over 75 cm, and there is also perhaps an isolated left angular. The symphysis end is complete, the posterior part though is penetrated by very many cracks and at the edges is in part incomplete. On the right ramus it has apparently so considerably retained its natural form, but on the left it has been somewhat flattened from the side, since here the wall of the jaw canal for Meckel's cartilage is very thin. On the right ramus near the 5th alveolus there is present laterally a small pathologic thickening of the bone, clearly as the result of a healed wound. The bone sutures are in large part not certainly determinable due to the many cracks. The teeth, present only partially in situ, will be described separately at the end.
The sharp and almost straight anterior edge of the mandible descends ventrally and very little posteriorly in a length of 10 cm, the long ventral edge, preserved on the right in a length of 72 cm, continues for a stretch of about 15 cm straight posteriorly, but then it forms an arch, smoothly convex dorsally, whose highest point lies approximately below the 13th alveolus and whose posterior end, as far as is preserved, turns very gradually ventrally. The edge is in the middle and largest part broadly rounded, but narrower far forward and back, so that it becomes sharp-edged about 60 cm posterior to the anterior end.
The upper end is preserved 66 cm long on the left, 62 cm on the right. It forms an arch, dorsally convex up to the 6th alveolus, concave from there to the 12th, and then it clearly ascends posteriorly, just barely convex dorsally. On account of this the mandible is rather high anteriorly – up to 13.5 cm between the 3rd and 4th alveoli – but at the 7th alveolus only 9 cm, at the 15th already 15.5 cm and even, 10 cm behind this, 19 cm; it is thus relatively long and low and first becomes gradually high posteriorly. The breadth of the upper edge measures 5 cm between the 3rd and 4th alveoli, barely 3.5 cm at the 7th, and only 2.5 cm at the 15th, i.e., the thickness of the jaw ramus decreases gradually toward the rear, which corresponds only in part with the changed size of the teeth. Medially along the alveoli follows a raised keel, which is sharp up to the 4th, but then becomes flattened and finally high and convex, and which rises above the alveolar part anteriorly by about 1 cm, then barely around 0.5 cm, but in the region of the 12th alveolus around 1.5 cm. It is provided with a longitudinal furrow directly laterally to the alveoli and is rough up to the 5th alveolus, then becomes smooth, and then proceeds, becoming gradually narrower and finally sharp, up to the posteriormost preserved part.
The smooth lateral side of the mandible is flat up to the 6th alveolus, then somewhat arched, especially in the lower third; behind the 15th alveolus it is arched here only, while clearly flat in the upper part. Along and also somewhat behind the anterior edge and along the upper edge up to the 6th tooth are present numerous small foramina, then to below the 15th alveolus in a flat channel, which extends 3-5 cm below the edge, still further in mostly larger irregular intervals. In Dryptosaurus incrassatus Cope according to Lambe (1904, Pl. 3) the distribution of these foramina is quite similar, but they are also still numerous in the posterior part below the alveolar rim; in Tyrannosaurus in contrast they are, according to Osborn (1912, Pl. 1), not present at the anterior rim.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#6 Oct 25, 2009
Part 4:

The medial side would have been on the whole originally almost completely flat. Up to 3-4 cm behind the anterior edge it is rough, apparently on account of a not tight and very short symphyseal union, then completely smooth. A furrow, which would correspond to the so-called Meckel's furrow of Tyrannosaurus (Osborn, 1912, Fig. 18 and 20), is certainly not present. About 12 cm from the front and 2.5 cm from below a small foramen appears to occur, above which the inner side on both sides is somewhat crushed in; the inner wall of the jaw canal is here thus apparently especially weak. 41 cm from the front and 1 cm above the convex ventral edge is a longitudinally oval fenestra of the canal for Meckel's cartilage, 13.5 cm in length and up to almost 6 cm in height, whose middle occurs below the gap between the 14th and 15th alveoli.

Here also the borders of the bones are clear, which in comparison with those of Tyrannosaurus (Osborn, 1912, p. 22, Fig. 18) are easily understandable. Just as there the splenial (= operculare) at the lower edge of the fenestra forms a dagger-shaped point toward the front up to its middle, then the lower edge of this bone continues sharp-edged toward the back parallel to and a little below that of the dentary, but finally somewhat dorsally to at least 17 cm behind the fenestra. The well preserved posterior border of the splenial on the left mandibular ramus is very sharp, thin and weakly convex anteriorly and ascends dorsally and moderately anteriorly to a somewhat right-angled rounded upper corner, which occurs 14 cm behind the 15th alveolus. From here the thin upper edge seems to run rather straight anteriorly and moderately ventrally to about 7 cm in front of the fenestra, and from this anterior end on the lower edge runs horizontally posteriorly up to the anterior border of the fenestra. The course of this last border is yet uncertain, since longitudinal crack lines are confused with it. A supradentary seems to me not to be present, although somewhat in the position of the suture of the bone discerned by Osborn (1912, p. 24) in Tyrannosaurus, 2-3 cm under the alveolar border of the dentary on the right and left ramus, fracture lines run parallel to it. For the exclusion of a presplenial, as Lambe (1914, p. 11 and 15, Pl. 3 and 5) would have found in Dryptosaurus, there occurs here scarcely a clue.

On the outer side of the lower jaw the lower posterior end of the large long dentary is clearly not preserved, yet by comparison with Tyrannosaurus (Osborn, 1912, Pl 1) very little would have been broken off on the right ramus, so that it may have been in its entirety somewhat over 80 cm long. A part of the upper posterior edge is, especially on the right ramus, well preserved as a straight, thin, but rounded edge, which is drawn out from back to front and moderately upward to the 15th alveolus; 9 cm from this however it appears to run jaggedly upward, to reach the upper edge of the jaw 6.5 cm behind it. Consequently, from the surangular on the right mandibular ramus there would still be preserved a small little piece of the upper edge. Supposing this latter is correct, then the upper edge of the dentary would be 60 cm long and on the assumption of similar length ratios as in Tyrannosaurus the now missing posterior part of the lower jaw would be yet over 60 cm, the total length of the mandible thus would be over 120 cm. It must indeed be remarked that if the dentary of Tyrannosaurus is relatively much higher than in the present form, then also its proportions could have been very different. In any case, to me, the length of the dentary and the small lateral upswing of its posterior part still preserved on the right ramus seem to prove that the two mandibular rami diverged little from the short symphysis on, and that they belonged to an animal with a longer and narrower snout.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#7 Oct 25, 2009
Part 5:
It is noteworthy how thin and weak the posterior ends of the dentary and splenial are. In this region Meckel's cartilage must have formed the most essential connection of the anterior half, so strong anteriorly in its bony parts, and the posterior half of the jaw.
Only with the greatest reservation can I interpret as a component of this posterior half, perhaps the left angular, an asymmetrically constructed, flat and elongated bone, which in its preservation and according to the place where it was found belongs just here. It is incomplete at the end, at least 25 cm long, at one end somewhat over 8 cm high, at the other broken end 5 cm high, but in the middle scarcely 4 cm high, here at the lower edge 0.8 cm thick, at the upper edge and at the higher end very thin, at the other end under 0.6 and over 0.2 cm thick. The upper edge is correspondingly sharp, especially in the higher half of the piece, likewise also clearly so was the edge at the end of this, at which it is scarcely much broken off, while it cannot be said how much is missing at the other end. The lower edge, finally, is rounded and in contrast to the higher end becomes too sharply keeled and bowed a little toward the inside.
The piece is somewhat laterally bent in the longitudinal direction, and also at the high end a little bent in the vertical direction, its smooth outer side is correspondingly arched, of course from the middle on up to the lower end in the upper part somewhat concave. The inner side is flat to flatly concave and smooth; only along the ventral edge do clear furrows run, which begin near to the lower end, up to the thin end.
Clearly after all it can only have to do with a part of the skull or lower jaw and the furrows medial to the ventral edge indicate the overlap of another bone, while ventrally on the lower edge, clearly also on the upper edge as well as to the thin end no other bone so closely affixed itself.
In size and form now a comparison seems to me to lie nearest to the left angular of Tyrannosaurus (Osborn, 1912, Pl. 1), since it also, in contrast to that of other dinosaurs is overlapped only conspicuously little, close to its anterior end, on the inner side. In the present piece one must exactly accept that is was restricted as well as completely to the lateral side of the mandible. Its thin end would then come up close to the likewise thin posterior end of the dentary, on the upper edge it would have affixed itself to the surangular and in the furrows internally to the lower edge of the prearticular (= goniale of Gaupp).
In order to clarify the systematic position of the present form and to place many of its peculiarities in the proper light, it appears indicated to compare the individual skeletal parts with those of other genera, above all with those of similarly built Theropoda. Unfortunately there are only too many genera, often already established a long time ago, which are insufficiently known or inadequately described.
The mandibles of Megalosaurus bucklandii Meyer (Owen, 1857, p. 20 ff., Pl. 11, Fig. 1, 2), Megalosaurus bradleyi (Woodward, 1910, Pl. 13), Streptospondylus cuvieri (Phillips, 1871, p. 320; Nopcsa, 1906, Fig. 9, p. 69), Allosaurus agilis (Osborn, 1906, Fig. 2, p. 286) and Ceratosaurus nasicornis (Marsh, 1896, Pl. 8; Hay, 1908, Fig. 3, 4, p. 361, 362) all differ strongly from the present in their simple slender form Megalosaurus also in its very low anterior end.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#8 Oct 25, 2009
Part 6 (i know im typing lots but im in the mood for typing XD):

The mandible of Tyrannosaurus rex (Osborn, 1912, Pl. 1) and Dryptosaurus incrassatus (Lambe, 1904, Fig. A, B, p. 25) possess clearly a rather high dentary, but even here a particular heightening in the anterior end with a lowering following behind it is lacking. The present dentary appears thus very particularly specialized in this, and characteristic. Antrodemus Leidy (= Labrosaurus Marsh) seems, in the toothless symphyseal region, specialized in another aspect, in the form of the dentary it is not dissimilar (Marsh, 1896, p. 263, Pl. XIII, Fig. 2-4).

As far as the individual bones of the mandible of the Theropoda are concerned, the descriptions differ so strongly from each other in this regard, that clearly not insignificant differences are accepted, but apparently also errors are present. My findings regarding the dentary, splenial and the very questionable angular, as was already mentioned, can be brought into agreement best with those of Osborn (1912) in Tyrannosaurus rex, but I can distinguish no supradentary, the splenial reaches less far in front of the inner fenestra and the ? angular is apparently completely restricted to the lateral side. Lambe (1904, p. 15, 16, Fig. A, B, p. 25), in Dryptosaurus, leaves a long low presplenial reach still further anteriorly than in Tyrannosaurus, and the angular broadens right on the inner side, but already Hay (1908, p. 363) remarked that he clearly misleads regarding the angular and the posterior end of the dentary and Huene (1914, p. 70, 71, Fig. 2-5) established the statement regarding the presence of a presplenial as the confusion of these bones. Hay (loc. cit.), in Ceratosaurus, lets the splenial cover almost the whole inner side in front of the inner fenestra and it reaches nearly up to the symphysis. Finally, according to Woodward (1910, p. 113), in Megalosaurus bradleyi the angular knocks up against the dentary below an outer fenestra in a V-shaped suture, but further back according to his figure it could be similar to that of Tyrannosaurus and to that of the present specimen.

On the basis of my inadequate specimens I can scarcely do more than make note of these relationships. Naturally it would also lead too far to go into the homology of the individual parts of the reptilian mandible, a question addressed recently especially by Gaupp, Watson and Williston, but still in no way conclusively clarified.


#9 Oct 25, 2009
To me Spinosaurus was NOT 17m
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#10 Oct 25, 2009
Part 7:
b) Skull.
There is only a 20 cm long straight piece of an alveolar border with the remains of 4 tooth alveoli preserved, in the second of which still is found one crushed tooth fragment. On no mandibular ramus is an alveolar piece missing, the premaxilla was certainly not so straight and scarcely so long, thus it can only represent a part of the maxilla and clearly the left, since the alveoli are directed a bit obliquely ventrally and anteriorly. A comparison of this so wretched piece with jaws of other dinosaurs is naturally not worth it.
As far as the position and number of teeth are concerned, this is established without doubt only in the mandible. There are 15 alveoli preserved in each ramus , indeed in the left 4 cm behind the 15th there is apparently yet a 16th. But since in the right ramus such a structure is certainly absent and a transverse break goes through here, it clearly represents only an artifact produced by preparation. Indeed the tooth number can vary by about one, since Osborn (1912, p. 26) in two individuals of Tyrannosaurus found 13 or 14 lower teeth, but here we have to deal with an asymmetric occurrence of a 16th tooth. The tooth row is thus 52.5 cm long.
The alveoli all stand thus rather vertical, the 1st-9th as well as the 10th and 11th rather close, since their separating walls are only about 1 cm thick, but the others are further from each other; then the separating walls between the 9th and 10th, 11th and 12th, as well as the 12th and 13th are approximately 2 cm thick; that between the 13th and 14th 2.5 cm and that between the 14th and 15th indeed 3.5 cm thick. The posteriormost alveoli follow themselves thus in ever greater distances. Especially they become from the raised inner edge of the jaw (p. 4) so towering-up that it is reminiscent of pleurodont implantation of teeth. The anterior alveoli are circular, the 3rd as well as those behind a little longitudinally oval, the 15th clearly longitudinally oval. Their size and concomitantly that of the teeth is strongly different. The diameter increases namely from the 1st, where it scarcely measures 2 cm, quickly up to the 4th of over 3.5 cm, the 5th measures under 2 cm, the 6th-10th indeed only about 1.3 cm, the 11th-14th have long diameter 2.5-3 cm, the 15th rather only 2.5 cm. The transverse diameter of the 13th and 14th alveoli is about 2 cm, that of the 15th only 1.3 cm. The heterodonty in tooth size is thus very clear, in which the 2nd-4th teeth, which are greatly enlarged as canine teeth and stand in the raised part of the jaw, after intervention of the 5th tooth a row of 5 unusually small teeth follow in the lower section of the jaw (6th - 10th), then again a row of 4 larger ones (11th-14th) and finally a smaller one more strongly laterally flattened.
The teeth have almost all fallen out, which is related in part to the fact that the replacement teeth are in the act of replacing. On the right indeed only on the inner side of the 13th alveolus is the little tip of the replacement tooth visible, on the left but not exposed in the same position in the 6th, 12th, and 13th alveoli, rather reaching almost up to the upper edge of the alveolus in the 8th and 14th. Aside from small roots and 4 teeth in situ, 15 isolated teeth or tooth crowns are present, whose position and assignment to the upper or lower half of the dentition in part is not accomplished with certainty. For the sake of clarity, their measures are gathered together in the table on page 11.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#11 Oct 25, 2009
Part 8 (XDplease don't fall asleep readin this LOL!)

All teeth are pointed awl-shaped, scarcely to very slightly recurved, and in cross-section mostly almost circular, only a few somewhat longitudinally oval. Their roots are very long, rather straight and in the upper part thicker than the crowns. Their enamel is in general smooth, only at the base is it sometimes finely vertically streaked and so finely wrinkled that one sees it only with the magnifying glass. In front and behind, where the enamel reaches more widely at the base than elsewhere, there is present almost regularly a smooth sharp keel. The pulp cavity of the adult tooth is very narrow and the enamel is very thin, the keels are also impressed on the dentine.

The crown of the 1st left tooth, as well as the corresponding one on the right, is unfortunately so broken by preparation that it can no longer be attached well to the root sticking in the alveolus. It is relatively small, in cross-section almost circular, curved anteriorly and provided only with a very slight keel, but straight posteriorly and with a clear keel.

The crown of the 3rd left and 4th right tooth, found in situ is straight, anteriorly and posteriorly keeled in equal measure and somewhat longitudinally oval in cross-section at the base. It is about twice as high and at the base twice as long but not fully twice as thick as that of the 1st tooth. That of the 2nd tooth, as can be determined from the alveolus, was about equally as large as the 3rd and 4th but at the base scarcely longer than thick.

The 5th tooth, as can be determined from the alveolus, might have been a little smaller than the 1st. An isolated tooth crown with still wider pulp cavity, therefore of a still young tooth, may belong just here. It is scarcely arched backward and medially, anteriorly and posteriorly keeled and has a clearly longitudinally oval base.

Still much smaller must have been the 6th-10th teeth. There occur also 2 almost complete teeth (Taf. I, Fig. 5 a, b, c) and one crown, which correspond to these alveoli. Their crowns are laterally and anteriorly more convex than medially and posteriorly, thus very little arched medially and posteriorly, provided anteriorly and posteriorly with a keel and in basal cross-section almost circular. The root is much higher than it, a little arched, provided with quite flat vertical furrows and thickest in the upper third.

The 11th tooth may have corresponded in size with the 5th, the 12th, in situ on the right (Taf. I, Fig. 12 a, b), has a quite straight crown with a somewhat longitudinally oval basal cross-section and clear keels. The 13th and 14th were rather similar to it, the 15th was however somewhat smaller and basally certainly more longitudinally oval. Some of the individual teeth should belong just here, but none belong to the 15th alveoli. Except for the crown of a grand tooth, whose pulp cavity is still wide, there are namely two rather large crowns present, which could belong to the 12th to 14th teeth.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#12 Oct 25, 2009
Part 9:
Further teeth preserved with their roots are uncertain with regard to their place. Most of them should be uppers, since their roots are too long (high) for the corresponding places of the mandible. According to the preserved teeth there is at the most one difference from the lower teeth, that the uppers are for the most part curved very little more medially and posteriorly. Further the probability is very great that also the upper dentition was clearly heterodont in size and spacing and the piece of the maxilla mentioned on page 7 gives us at least somewhat positive evidence on this latter. Its alveoli had to have approximately 2.5 cm longitudinal diameter, the first preserved separating wall was about 1.5 cm, the second 2 cm and the third clearly almost 3 cm thick, a possible fourth even over 3.5 cm. Thus there is established, as in the posterior part of the dentary, an increase of tooth distance, and it probably relates to the alveolar section of the left maxilla with the teeth which gripped in between the 11th-14th lower teeth.
Of the individual teeth, the two largest preserved with roots should have been opposed to the 2nd through 4th lowers, thus clearly they belonged to the premaxilla, which, based on their roots, must have been very high. The smaller of these, namely according to its form, could have stood below only on the left, but since here the roots are still stuck in the 2nd-4th alveoli, it can only belong dorsally on the right and as the other according to its size could have been opposed only to that tooth. Its almost straight crown is in cross-section somewhat longitudinally oval and has in front and behind a similar clear simple keel as all further teeth. The almost straight root, which is also indeed much higher than the crown and which increases in circumference up to the upper third then gradually decreases, is clearly somewhat crushed, but in cross-section had been very clearly longitudinally oval, and in the lower part provided with a few smooth vertical furrows.
Whether a part of the small tooth described on page 9 belongs to the upper dentition unfortunately cannot be determined. Several larger teeth, which correspond in their size to the alveoli of the posterior piece of the maxilla, are present. One of these lay so in the rock that it was opposed to the 12th of the right mandibular ramus; it belongs indeed by its form in the left upper jaw, one of very similar form and similar size, which belongs to the opposite side, lay by the left lower jaw. Apparently then the position of the fallen-out teeth in the rock indicates nothing of their original position, as should have been assumed, since also large skeletal pieces have been laid extremely confusedly among each other.


#13 Oct 25, 2009
I still maintain a 5ft 9inch skull would belong to a 45-50ft Spinosaurus. The book Tyrannosaurus Rex The Tyrant King agrees with me when I say Spinosaurs evolved hyper-elongated snouts for fishing and are therefore purportionally [email protected] King: You seem to think my argument is based purely on the size estimates of C.Rex and Rigby Rex, when in truth that is only half of it.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#14 Oct 25, 2009
Part 10:

The two mentioned teeth, which correspond in their size to the 12th lower, differ from it in that their crowns are slightly medially bent and anteriorly convex. Its cross-section is very slightly longitudinally oval, its root is somewhat more the same. It shows some smooth vertical furrows and in the more complete right tooth medially at the basal part an indentation of the replacement tooth, its lateral side is more arched than the medial.

A very slightly larger ? left upper tooth differs from these in that its crown is almost straight and in cross-section a little more longitudinally oval. One crown shaped like this, but clearly smaller, with only a remnant of the root should belong accordingly to the upper left. Finally there is present a ? upper left tooth, which agrees with the last mentioned tooth in size, whose complete root is not compressed and whose crown is damaged only posteriorly and at the tip. Its crown is laterally and anteriorly clearly more arched than medially and posteriorly, but yet is curved very slightly toward medial and posterior. The cross-section is also very slightly longitudinally oval in the upper part of the root which is more strongly arched laterally than medially. In the basal part the root is in cross-section clearly longitudinally oval, ornamented laterally and medially with two or three smooth vertical furrows and so damaged medially above the lower end by the pressure of the replacement tooth that the narrow pulp cavity lies free.

Measurements of the Teeth in mm.

crown tooth total basal cross-section height height longi tudinal trans verse 1st lower left (Fig. 7)– ca. 30 15 14 ? 1st ? lower right –? 30 15 14 3rd lower left – 70 28 20 4th lower left ––? 32 ? 28 4th lower right – 64 28 24 ? 5th ? lower right – 22 14 10.5 ? 6th-10th ? lower right –– 10.5 9 ? " ? lower right –– 10.5 10.5 ? " ? lower left (Fig. 5) 65 19 10 9.5 12th lower right – 42 ca. 20 ca. 15 ? 12th-14th ? lower – 40 20 16 " lower – over 35 19 15 " lower –? 52 22 20 ? 2nd-4th upper right (Fig. 8) over 170 68 30 ca. 23 ? " upper left (Fig. 9) over 230 85 34 ? 24 ? 12th ? upper right (Fig. 11) over 125 47 20 17 ? 12th ? upper left over 110 49 21 18 ? 13th-14th ? upper left over 128 52 22 18 " ? upper left (Fig. 10) 138 41 ? 19 17 " ? upper right – 40 18 15

Among the dinosaurs only the theropods come into question for comparison. They possess however normally laterally compressed teeth, whose clearly recurved crowns have in front and in back a finely serrated keel. The number of teeth above and below apparently varies somewhat as a rule, and seems often to waver between 12 and 20, their form and size as well as their spacing in a species seem to be in general rather similar, only note that the posteriormost teeth are smaller.

Megalosaurus bradleyi possesses, according to Woodward (1910), above 4 teeth in the premaxilla and apparently 18 in the maxilla, below at least 17 teeth should have been present; in any case more than in the present mandible. Most of the teeth are typical stately theropod teeth, but the anteriormost are small and similar in their slight lateral compression as well as in their slight recurvature to the present teeth, yet they possess posteriorly a pronounced keel. In the original of Megalosaurus Meyer, in Megalosaurus bucklandii, there is nothing to note of this sort of difference of the anteriormost teeth from the posterior teeth (Owen, 1857, Pl. 11, Fig. 1, 2).
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#15 Oct 25, 2009
Part 11:
Measurements of the Teeth in mm.
crown tooth total basal cross-section height height longi tudinal trans verse 1st lower left (Fig. 7)– ca. 30 15 14 ? 1st ? lower right –? 30 15 14 3rd lower left – 70 28 20 4th lower left ––? 32 ? 28 4th lower right – 64 28 24 ? 5th ? lower right – 22 14 10.5 ? 6th-10th ? lower right –– 10.5 9 ? " ? lower right –– 10.5 10.5 ? " ? lower left (Fig. 5) 65 19 10 9.5 12th lower right – 42 ca. 20 ca. 15 ? 12th-14th ? lower – 40 20 16 " lower – over 35 19 15 " lower –? 52 22 20 ? 2nd-4th upper right (Fig. 8) over 170 68 30 ca. 23 ? " upper left (Fig. 9) over 230 85 34 ? 24 ? 12th ? upper right (Fig. 11) over 125 47 20 17 ? 12th ? upper left over 110 49 21 18 ? 13th-14th ? upper left over 128 52 22 18 " ? upper left (Fig. 10) 138 41 ? 19 17 " ? upper right – 40 18 15
Among the dinosaurs only the theropods come into question for comparison. They possess however normally laterally compressed teeth, whose clearly recurved crowns have in front and in back a finely serrated keel. The number of teeth above and below apparently varies somewhat as a rule, and seems often to waver between 12 and 20, their form and size as well as their spacing in a species seem to be in general rather similar, only note that the posteriormost teeth are smaller.
Megalosaurus bradleyi possesses, according to Woodward (1910), above 4 teeth in the premaxilla and apparently 18 in the maxilla, below at least 17 teeth should have been present; in any case more than in the present mandible. Most of the teeth are typical stately theropod teeth, but the anteriormost are small and similar in their slight lateral compression as well as in their slight recurvature to the present teeth, yet they possess posteriorly a pronounced keel. In the original of Megalosaurus Meyer, in Megalosaurus bucklandii, there is nothing to note of this sort of difference of the anteriormost teeth from the posterior teeth (Owen, 1857, Pl. 11, Fig. 1, 2).
Streptospondylus cuvieri H. v. M., according to Phillips (1871, p. 320) and Nopcsa (1905, p. 290), should have very Megalosaurus-like teeth Huene (1908, p. 330) would unite the two genera, which in my opinion is not justified based on the strong difference of the vertebral centra. In his detailed letter (1906) Nopcsa unfortunately says nothing at all about the dentition, but according to the piece of the snout figured by him the same sort of teeth are present in similar spacing; only the 9th above seems much less recurved and twice as large as the others, yet this may only be a mistake of the draftsman and the great height may be a simulation on account of the slippage of the root out of the alveolus.
Dryptosaurus (Laelaps) aquilunguis Cope (1869, p. 101, Pl. X, Fig. 5, 6) has typical theropod teeth; almost nothing is known about their number and placement. Dryptosaurus incrassatus according to Lambe (1904, p. 9 and 11) possesses below 14, but in the upper jaw 12 very similar teeth, and below at the very front yet one more small posteriorly flattened tooth (loc. cit. p. 11, Pl. 3). Ceratosaurus nasicornis has, according to Marsh (1896, p. 158) 15 teeth below, but 4+15 above, and Allosaurus agilis according to Osborn (1912, p. 28, Fig. 26) has even only12 below, yet above likewise 4+15 apparently similar teeth. Finally, Tyrannosaurus rex according to Osborn (1912, p. 26, 27, Pl. I, Fig. 20, 21, p. 23) possesses below 13 to 14, above 4+12 typical theropod teeth, which clearly show some differentiation in form and size, but not in their separation.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#16 Oct 25, 2009
Part 12 (my fingers are hurting XD!):

The form described by me thus falls well in line among the theropods named here in tooth number, and was apparently, as they, a predator whose enlarged lower 2nd through 4th teeth and their upper opponents served the roll of canine teeth, while the small teeth following behind might correspond in their significance to the weak anterior molar teeth (gap teeth) of some Carnivora. But in the special simplicity of tooth form they stand apart from the normal theropods and the named differentiations in the size as well as in the separation of the teeth speaks for a certain specialization among the theropods.

d) Vertebrae.

Since the sequence of the vertebrae is not certainly established and their number even less so, I have designated them in the presumed sequence with letters. Their measurements are summarized in the table on a later page.

1. Cervical Vertebrae.
Taf. II, Fig. 1 a, b and 2.

Vertebra "a", which is dorsoventrally compressed, whose arch is separated from the centrum and whose left postzygapophysis is shoved dorsally, and vertebra "b", which is laterally crushed, but in contrast to the other is rather completely preserved up to the prezygapophyses, are certainly cervical vertebrae.

The centrum is about twice as long as wide, thus clearly elongated, anteriorly clearly convex, posteriorly just as concave, therefore typically opisthocoelous. Ventrally and laterally it was apparently concave, these lateral depressions correspond to the pleurocentral holes of Nopcsa (1906, p. 61, Fig. 1, p. 63). The ventral surface is transversely convex without a crest, the thin edge of the posterior concavity is however laterally and ventrally ornamented with numerous longitudinal ribs. Above the parapophysis, a longitudinally oval opening, over 2.5 cm long and more than 1 cm high, leads into the apparently hollow interior of the centrum. Whether a funnel-shaped pit lying behind this and a further one which lies immediately behind the parapophysis also open into the interior of the vertebra, I can not determine; in any case they would have represented only small foramina.

The thick short parapophysis projects below the middle of the height of the centrum directly behind the arched anterior end of the centrum about 2.5 cm laterally and a little dorsally and ends with a blunt rough surface, and thus clearly possessed a cartilaginous union with the cervical rib.

The neural arch, united by a suture with the centrum, forms apparently a simple high arched roof, which ascends posteriorly. The neural canal is about as high as wide, highly arched and remarkably narrow. Its floor is formed in large part by the medially broadened pedestals of the pedicles of the neural arch. The posterior edge of the pedicel is somewhat concave, the anterior edge clearly only slightly so. On the latter a channel continues anteriorly from the neural canal through a lateral opening of the pedicle, probably for the spinal nerve, ventrally to the centrum down in front of the diapophysis. Dorsally however from out of this foramen of the pedicle a canal seems to continue posterodorsally within it, yet on account of crushing, the numerous breaks and the partial weathering of the surface of the vertebra especially on its anterior end, details about this cannot be established.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#17 Oct 25, 2009
Part 13:
The diapophysis projects in the anterior half of each pedicle a little above the body and extends ventrally, somewhat laterally and posteriorly. It is dorsoventrally flat and completely smooth above laterally. Its end is missing, yet it was apparently short, its sharper anterior end should have proceeded dorsally below the prezygapophysis.
Of the prezygapophyses there is only one in situ on vertebra "a", the other is preserved broken off. According to this they project strongly anterolaterally and somewhat dorsally in front with longitudinally oval and scarcely arched articular surfaces, which face dorsally somewhat medially and posteriorly. Even longer, especially in "a", are the postzygapophyses, which to conclude from the apparently uncrushed left one of vertebra "a", project posteriorly, modestly laterally, and somewhat dorsally and whose longitudinally oval and smoothly concave articular surfaces face ventrally, somewhat laterally and a bit posteriorly. On them sit remarkably strong, thick and, especially in "a", posteriorly projecting epapophyses, from whose upper edge a thin high keel rises up dorsally, moderately anteriorly and medially to the posterior edge of the processus spinosus. These keels roof over, in "a", a very deep and broad, in "b", a nevertheless crushed together niche, which occurs above the neural canal between the postzygapophyses and whose roof in "a", but not in "b", possesses a median keel on its underside. This niche, reaching in "a" to above the neural canal anteriorly, just as the above mentioned canal in the pedicle, would appear also to provide the neural arches with hollow spaces.
The processus spinosus in "a" is apparently formed completely differently than in "b". Specifically, in "a" it arises along the whole length of the roof of the neural arch and of the niche and probably projects posteriorly somewhat dorsally, yet it is broken off over the posterior end of the mentioned niche. Its vertical blunt and rough anterior edge rises up only about 3.5 cm high, the upper edge, which is rough and blunt only in the anteriormost part, then becomes thin and sharp edged, then stands up posteriorly somewhat dorsally. In "b" in contrast the processus spinosus rises up rather vertically in general on the posterior half of the neural arch roof and was clearly about 18 cm high and 8 cm broad and truncated dorsally. Its damaged anterior edge apparently stood up from the anterior end of the roof dorsally somewhat posteriorly, then first as the posterior edge vertically. This is simple, blunt, and about 8 cm over the posterior articular surface.
What position the two cervical vertebrae occupy is difficult to say. To conclude from Plate 9, Fig. 2 and 4 in Marsh (1896), where vertebrae of Ceratosaurus, similar especially in the neural spines, were figured, but not more closely described, one could see in "a" the epistropheus, in "b" a cervical vertebra lying further posteriorly (6th). Also the neural spine and the postzygapophysis of the epistropheus of Plateosaurus are, according to v. Huene's figures (1907-8, Taf. 10, Fig. 2 a, 2 d, and Fig. 283, p. 280), similar to those of "a". The anteriorly strongly weathered centrum of "a" was in its form not in conflict with this interpretation, also not the well developed strong prezygapophyses, since the atlas of the dinosaurs took care to have well constructed postzygapophyses; yet the size of the prezygapophyses arouses concern. Therefore I might see in "a", only with reservation, the 2nd cervical vertebra, in "b" a middle one.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#18 Oct 25, 2009
Part 14:
Streptospondylus cuvieri stands closest to the described form in its convex-concave and similarly elongated centra of the cervical vertebrae, but according to Nopcsa (1906, p. 61 ff., Fig. 1 and p. 70, Fig. 10, 11) possessed much deeper pleurocentral holes, ventral ridges on the middle cervical vertebrae and a posteriorly strongly projecting lower edge. The vertebrae figured by him (Fig. 1 and 11) show also no epapophyses; they certainly belong in the posteriormost cervical region according to the form of the diapophysis.
The very little known cervical vertebrae of Megalosaurus (Phillips, 1871, p. 200, Fig. VIII, 4-6 and Lydekker, 1889, p. 44, Fig. 2), by their insignificant elongation and the absence of a clear anterior convexity of the centrum, differ as clearly from those present before me as from those of Streptospondylus that I do not comprehend how Huene (1908, p. 330) could unite the latter genus with it. Ceratosaurus nasicornis has, according to Marsh (1896, p. 159), likewise on the centra anteriorly scarcely a swelling, in addition it has a ventral median keel and a keel extending from the diapophysis to the postzygapophysis, but according to the figures of the epistropheus, exhibits similarities with vertebra "a" in the form of the spinous process, in the possession of strong postzygapophyses thickened by epipophyses, and a posterior niche between them, as well as in the elongation of the centrum. Finally, Tyrannosaurus rex clearly has on the 2nd through 4th cervical vertebrae apparently likewise strong epipophyses (Osborn, 1906, p. 287, Fig. 3), but the neural spines of the middle cervical vertebrae are weak, and the centra only slightly opisthocoelous and above all very short.
The cervical and trunk vertebrae of Antrodemus Leidy (=[Poicilopleuron] Leidy,= Labrosaurus Marsh) should be distinctly opisthocoelous (Marsh, 1884, p. 337; Leidy, 1873, p. 267-269, p. 338, Pl. 15, Fig. 16-18) and contain hollow spaces in their interior, but the hitherto most highly insufficient descriptions of the remains of Antrodemus unfortunately do not permit closer comparison with those of our form.
Seven further vertebrae "c"-"i" are more or less damaged by loss of some parts and by crushing, especially on their diapophyses. Especially "g" (Taf. II, Fig. 4 a, b, c, d) is in this respect instructive, since its neural arch is shoved posteriorly and dorsally on the here uncrushed centrum; onto the middle of the anterior edge of its spinous process is pressed a part of the posterior edge of the vertebral centrum "i" (Taf. II, Fig. 6) and the upper part of the spinous process is transversely wavily curved. Only in "f" (Taf. 2, Fig. 3 a, b) is the neural arch still in natural articulation, in "g" less certainly, in "h" and "i" (Taf. II, Fig. 5 a, b and 6) very probably associated, while in "c", "d", "e" (Taf. I, Fig. 17 - 19) the centrum has unfortunately been lost.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#19 Oct 25, 2009
Part 15 (Please read all of these posts):

The preserved centra are in their proportions and form little different among each other and from the two described cervical vertebrae, yet those of "c" and "d" should clearly have been shorter than the others, since here the neural arches are shorter. The preserved centra are clearly elongated, somewhat higher than wide, anteriorly moderately convex, in "g" slightly convex, posteriorly clearly concave, on the relatively thin edge of this concavity ventrally externally somewhat ribbed longitudinally, in "g" also on the anterior edge laterally and below a little so, but otherwise completely smooth without processes, keels, articular surfaces or foramina. In contrast to the cervical vertebrae they are internally not hollow, but likewise below and laterally, especially laterally far above, strongly concave, i.e. their pleurocentral pits (Nopcsa 1906, p. 61 ff.) are deep and very wide. Therefore they offer dorsally the pedestals of the neural arch only anteriorly and posteriorly broad rough articular surfaces, in the middle of the length however only very narrow ones, e.g. in "g" (Taf. II, Fig. 4 c, d) these are anteriorly 9.5 cm, in the middle only 5.5 cc wide. The vertebral centra are thus pinched in, i.e. they have an hourglass shape when viewed from above or below.

The neural arches are clearly regularly rather completely preserved, at least in "c", but mostly somewhat crushed. They are always highly arched and relatively narrow, the anterior and posterior edge of their pedicles are indented, the latter is sharply keeled, the former however is so only in "i", otherwise it is very broadly rounded. The narrow neural canal seems to have been originally dorsoventrally oval. Its arch is formed primarily by the medially broadened pedestal of the pedicle, yet it is a little sunk into the dorsal side of the centrum in the midline.

The diapophyses, unfortunately usually somewhat crushed or displaced and only in "c", "d", "e" and "h" at least on one side almost complete, otherwise broken off close to their base, appear to project in the normal way toward the side, a little to somewhat dorsally and a little posteriorly, and to jut out from the neural arch in the middle of the length and in the middle of the height of the postzygapophyses and clearly sticks up, as often in dinosaurs, from three support lamellae, namely one horizontal thin which unites the pre- and postzygapophyses, and one each from the lower anterior and from the lower posterior edges of the pedicle obliquely to the ventral side of the diapophysis. Below each diapophysis therefore there occur three approximately triangular deep funnel-shaped pits between these support lamellae. While the sharp edge of the horizontal lamella continues into the anterior and posterior edges of the diapophysis, the two oblique buttresses, mostly a little rounded on their edges, unite into an arched thickening of the under side of the diapophysis.
Spinosaur King

Liverpool, UK

#20 Oct 25, 2009
Part 16:

In "c" the part of the horizontal lamella forming the prezygapophysis is very broad, also likewise apparently well developed, in "f" and especially in "g" though only narrow, but the oblique buttresses in "i" (Taf. II, Fig. 6) are much weaker than otherwise, also approach each other, which latter is also the case however in "c" and "d". In "f" and "g" (Taf. II, Fig. 3 a, 4 b), certainly not in "d", "h" and "i" and apparently not in "c" and "e", the anterior buttress possesses about in the middle of its length an obliquely oval arched thickening, which gives the impression of a small articular head. It corresponds certainly to the somewhat more deeply lying thickening on the same buttress of Megalosaurus, which Owen (1855, Pl. 29 p) designated as parapophysis, without commenting that normally the articulation for the capitulum of the rib is yet larger and above all concave.

The diapophyses in "c" are rather long and seem to become somewhat shorter on the following vertebrae, provided that the sequence of vertebrae determined by me is correct. They are 5 - 6 cm broad, but apparently broaden toward the end (to 8 cm), dorsally flat to shallowly arched, dorsoventrally flat, but ventrally in its middle generally thickened. On the transversely truncated end, which unfortunately is never completely well preserved, they are provided with a somewhat rough, scarcely concave and ventrolaterally facing surface, which one must interpret as the articular surface for the tuberculum costae. In "i" (Taf. II, Fig. 6) the broken off diapophyses were formed certainly clearly differently from this norm, since its anterior edge was clearly moderately sharp, but its posterior edge not so dorsoventrally flat and sharpened as otherwise, but rather rounded, so that the width of the transverse process here measured only 4 cm.

The only moderately large prezygapophyses, both broken off in "c", otherwise often somewhat incomplete and crushed, project anteriorly somewhat laterally and somewhat to a little dorsally not to in front of the anterior end of the centrum and arise very close together, but are usually separated by a cleft. From their underside a keel extends ventrad posteriorly, in "i" to the anterior edge of the pedicle, otherwise to the middle part of the anterior oblique buttress lamella of the diapophysis, so that in the vertebrae "c" - "h" the anterior diapophyseal pit has a marked anterior border. The oval smooth articular surface faces dorsally and moderately medially or dorsomedially and somewhat anteriorly.

The also only moderately large postzygapophyses in "i" both are present only in remnants, otherwise rather well preserved – arise likewise closely together and are united to a kind of hyposphene, similarly as Phillips (1871, p. 202, Fig. LIX, 5) figured in Megalosaurus, except that this union is restricted to the ventralmost part directly over the neural canal, while the upper parts are separated by a narrow cleft (Taf. II, Fig. 5 b) in contrast to the complete union in Megalosaurus. They project ear-shaped posteriorly and slightly laterally to a little behind the posterior end of the centrum. From its surface a keel rises up dorsally and a little medially to the posterior side of the spinous process. Its oval articular surfaces are flat to shallowly concave, face laterally and ventrally or laterally and moderately ventrally and are on vertebrae "c" to "e" smaller than on "f" to "h". Only in "g" are the concave articular surfaces on either side still discernible at the hyposphene, they are separated by that surface.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 23
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Spinosaurus would easily beat T rex in a fight (Jun '14) 8 hr spinosaurus or trex 458
Empirosaurus vs. Quarray Eels 14 hr Kiryu2012 1
Ahuizotl (My Little Pony) vs Loch Ness Monster ... 14 hr Kiryu2012 1
Empirosaurus (Terra Nova) vs Hydra (My Little P... 15 hr Kiryu2012 1
Ankylosaurus (Ice Age) vs. Indominus Rex 16 hr Kiryu2012 6
Carnotaurus vs Stymphalian Dragon 23 hr Kiryu2012 1
Triceratops Prorsus vs Siberian Tiger pack of 2 Oct 19 Kiryu2013 1
More from around the web