Send a Message
to Spinodontosaurus




Mar 2, 2010

Spinodontosaurus Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts


Q&A: Giant-Bird Research Illuminates "Chicken From Hell" ...

It's just a sensationalistic nickname for a moderately large oviraptorsaur, don't get your knickers in a twist!  (Mar 27, 2014 | post #2)


since dino are alive any won go to the zoo to see them !g...

It is impossible to understand what you actually mean because you repeatedly fail to type in a way that is even remotely understandable. Unless you can explain yourself in a coherent manner, I maintain that the presence of a fourth trochanter on both dinosaurs and crocodilians is irrelevant beyond identifying them both - and birds - as acrosauriansNo. Also in that case, explain Austroraptor to me. Austroraptor is a dromaeosaurid, which to you should mean it is a bird, yet it has a skull like a gharials, even more so than spinosaurids. So what it this thingThis is demonstrably false, all the hypothesis' Ruben puts fourth in his papers are based solely on either bad science or simple pseudo-science. Either way neither of them are a good thing. You want a rigorous and scientific analysis on archosaurian phylogeny? Read Brusatte et al., or Carrano et al., or anything other than something John Ruben publishesBirds are secondarily toothless you imbecile. Early birds, and non-avian theropods such as Velociraptor, also possess teeth that you would describe as "thecodont ". Your arguments have more holes in them than an English country road.  (Mar 19, 2014 | post #32)


since dino are alive any won go to the zoo to see them !g...

I don't know how Oxalaia is supposed to help your cause. All it does is show direct evidence that theropods had replacement teeth ready if a tooth were to fall out, which is something that has been hypothesised to be the case for years. As for the fourth trochanter... you claim that Velociraptor is a bird, yes? Would you mind explaining to me how it comes to have a fourth trochanter then? If the presence of a fourth trochanter on the femurs of dinosaurs and crocodilians is supposed to prove dino = croc, then why do animals that you claim to be birds also possess a fourth trochanter? Your argument is so muddled, good luck rambling your way out of this one. BTW I already know why Velociraptor has a fourth trochanter - firstly because it is a non-avian dinosaur (not an avian as you claim), but secondly the presence of a fourth trochanter is ancestral to archosauria as a whole. When will you get it - you cannot use a trait _ancestral_ to dinosaurs, birds, and crocodilians to 'prove' that dinosaurs are crocodilians. All the fourth trochanter's presence in the three proves is that they are all archosaurs. Given you are continuing to repeat this fallacy I am assuming you don't have a good grasp on this at all and are simply parroting the pseudo-science you've seen John Ruben spout out.  (Mar 18, 2014 | post #22)


Did Spinosaurus hunt dinosaurs or fish?

I've just noticed how un-friendly that of mine comment is to read, I had to read it twice to notice the citation I had put in! I don't blame you for missing them (because they are in there). The measurements for Spinosaurus are measured from several figures in: Dal Sasso et al. (2005) "New information on the skull of the enigmatic theropod Spinosaurus, with remarks on its size and affinities". Even if you don't recognise the name of the study, you will know of it; it is the source for that widespread 16 - 18 meter body length estimate (although nobody remembers to mention the fact it was a tentative estimate), and the 175 cm skull length estimate. It describes specimen MSNM V4047 (the big snout) and UCPC-2 (the head crest) The paper itself is behind a paywall, so there is no link to the full paper. But the Figure I used are floating around on Google images: Fig 1: http://vb.userdocs .ru/pars_docs/refs /177/176301/176301 _html_1dc70c5.png Fig 4: http://img.webme.c om/pic/s/spinosaur idae/spinosnout2.g if ('B' is the specimen in question. 'A' is a smaller Spinosaurus snout, 'C/D' is Angaturama/Irritat or, 'E' is Suchomimus and 'F' is Baryonyx) The source for the Tyrannosaurus stuff is several figures from: Brochu (2003) "Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: Insights from a Nearly Complete Skeleton and High-Resolution Computed Tomographic Analysis of the Skull". This is the study that formally described specimen FMNH PR2081, commonly known as 'Sue'. This study is also behind a paywall, and I'm not aware of any of it's figures floating around.  (Mar 16, 2014 | post #95)


since dino are alive any won go to the zoo to see them !g...

Most likely, and then when he realises he has been backed into a corner he will stop posting for about a week, then pop up in a different thread repeating the same old nonsense in the hope everybody will have forgotten his failings elsewhere.  (Mar 16, 2014 | post #15)


Is Tyrannosaurus the king of the dinosaurus?

Oh so now you're resorting to repeating the same invalid claims on a different thread in the hope that everybody will forget? ______ For anybody under the delusion that the far-fetched hypothesis of John Ruben are concrete evidence of any kind, never mind supposed proof that dinosaurs are crocodilians, I suggest you read this: http://scienceblog ogy/2009/07/17/bir ds-cannot-be-dinos aurs/#8206 Nobody has ever presented any credible argument for why Birds are not dinosaurs, yet evidence supporting the link keeps growing. Therefore, birds are dinosaurs. Suck it up, move on, and stop treating this well-supported stance as some sort of evil conspiracy created by some malicious organisations to kill your children and steal your pancakes. It isn't a personal attack, you really shouldn't be so viciously opposed to it, loosen up a little.  (Mar 16, 2014 | post #14)


Did Spinosaurus hunt dinosaurs or fish?

http://www.topix.c om/forum/science/d inosaurs/T1ECDTG39 L4131EEF/p4#c62 ^I provide an explanation in that post I linked to. Topix is being un-cooperative and for some reason isn't allowing me to quote myself, so just click the link.  (Mar 16, 2014 | post #92)


Liopleurodon V.S. Mosasaurus

Liopleurodon is more like the size of a (large) Great White Shark,both in terms of weight and to a lesser extent length, while Mosasaurus was probably the one that weighed as much as an Orca despite being much longer.  (Mar 14, 2014 | post #76)


Mapusaurus vs Torvosaurus

No one has ever estimated the bite force of Torvosaurus, which isn't surprising given we don't yet have a complete skull to work with. In any case Mapusaurus didn't rely on bite force, but instead most likely created enormous flesh wounds with it's many sharp teeth, large skull and even larger gape. And you are seriously underestimating the size disparity here. The largest Mapusaurus remains indicate an animal in the same size class as the absolute largest known theropods, something like 13 meters and 8 tonnes. For comparison the largest Torvosaurus remains (both T. tanneri and T. gurneyi) are in the region of 10 meters, but seeing as Torvosaurus is a very elongate and thin animal it's weight wouldn't be any greater than about 3 tonnes, in the same size class as Daspletosaurus, Baryonyx and moderately-large specimens of Allosaurus. This isn't even a contest.  (Mar 14, 2014 | post #23)


Did Spinosaurus hunt dinosaurs or fish?

I care little for your interpretation, I stick with the facts. The teeth are the thickest of any known theropod, whether they are 0.5% more elongate than certain Tyrannosaurus teeth or whatever doesn't really matter. And in any case not all specimens are like that, MNHN SAM 124 has much shorter teeth both in absolute terms and proportional to width.  (Mar 14, 2014 | post #88)


predator X vs leviathan vs carcharocles vs shonisaurus

http://fc03.devian 06/328/0/c/Pikachu _In_vectorial_styl g ^We should probably include that too, just to make the matchup a bit more rounded.  (Mar 11, 2014 | post #94)


Earth had no dinosaurs...

You're like a broken record. If the pseudo-science of John Ruben is your only source, then your stance on is demonstrably wrong. There comes a point where the evidence is insurmountable to the point that adamantly insisting all that evidence is wrong just makes you like an incompetent fool. Ruben has yet to put forward any convincing argument for why birds are not dinosaurs, and yet every study that examines their relations rigorously all agree on a key detail; that Birds Are Dinosaurs.  (Mar 5, 2014 | post #162)


Earth had no dinosaurs...

Oh back to spouting the same tired old redundant tripe then. I'm growing ever more convinced you are just a troll. Nobody can be this stupid.... right? I mean, you are rather foolish if you think posting a characteristic, that you explicitly state separates a particular family of theropods from crocodilians, somehow helps your case that dinosaurs are crocodilians (or members of the genus Alligator... or within alligatoroidea or something. You use so many different words to describe dinosaurs that I honestly have no idea what you are claiming they actually are). The majority of your arguments are, or are adapted from John Ruben's pseudo-science. Coprolite already posted a linked thoroughly slamming his work several pages back. Seeing as you 'forgot' to read it, I've taken the liberty of posting it below so you can correct that oversight: http://scienceblog ogy/2009/07/17/bir ds-cannot-be-dinos aurs/#8206 ^The comments section also holds several rebuttals of Ruben's nonsensical hypothesis'. And I will have you know that most of Ruben's papers don't even tackle whether or not birds are dinosaurs. They simply skate around the issue, hand waving (incorrectly) at smallest of things, knowing full well that if they actually tried to analyse the situation in a thorough and honest way they would find that birds are, in fact, dinosaurs, as every recent study on the matter has independently concluded.  (Mar 4, 2014 | post #153)


Earth had no dinosaurs...

I am assuming you didn't even bother reading my post properly, seeing as you brought up dromaeosaurids. Had you read my post you would have seen that the only specific dinosaurs I mentioned in the entire post was the chicken, Tyrannosaurus and Herrerasaurus. And no, dromaeosaurids are not birds, although birds might be dromaeosaurids. And I hope you realise that 'thecodont' is no longer a valid term, and when it was a valid term it was used as a grouping of early archosaurians that were BEFORE the split; i.e. they were the ancestors of both croc-line archosaurs (pseudosuchia) and bird-line archosaurs(avemeta tarsalia). Thus that theropod dinosaurs and modern crocodilians both possess 'thecodont' teeth is to be expected... All you are doing is providing evidence for dinosaurs and crocodilians to be part of a wide-reaching clade, which they already are. Archosauria.  (Mar 1, 2014 | post #136)


Spinosaurus vs. t-rex

I think it's not that people spell it incorrectly, more that they are oblivious to the fact. T. rex is one of the shortest abbreviations out there, so it is somewhat puzzling that so many people cant spell it correctly. And further, you don't see people going around typing 'tygur', 'crocadyle', 'humen' and such.  (Mar 1, 2014 | post #5458)

Q & A with Spinodontosaurus




Penrith, UK



Local Favorites:

Mcdonalds fries about 5 minutes from my house:P

I Belong To:

Uhh me?

When I'm Not on Topix:

Im on Youtube, other forums, my consoles...

Read My Forum Posts Because:

Weedle is god, and i am his supporter

I'm Listening To:


Read This Book:


Favorite Things:

Food, Dinosaurs, Cars (especially motorsports like F1), games...

On My Mind:

Your better of not knowing

Blog / Website / Homepage:

never you kind...

I Believe In:

Shooting all religious people and eating their livers... Joking(or am i...?), but im NOT religious AT ALL