spinosaurus reconstruction

[jnoun11]

the nasal crest from ain schock university.

i will correct the suture of the supraoccipital, reduce the squamosal for making the frontal more present in the orbit. reducing the squamosal process,the problem i have here is i have one  skull (cast) and i dont know what was used for making it. so i try to adapted the original parts i have and i scale them for fitting with the cast i have.

working alone is a challenge, i m thinking to travel with my scanner ,visiting privates collectors for scanning all the different pieces , so we can more and less understand what can be the anatomy of this skull.

i can also reducing the neural crest for making the shape more flat,less curvy.

 

[jnoun11]

neural crest from side view

[jnoun11]

i have reduced the squamosal process and now i will make the connection beetween bones more accurate.

if i understand good, the parietal process must be in contact with the squamosal-process

, the squamosal is surrounded by the process of the para-occipital process forming the exoccipital

if somebody have some drawing of the different sutures of the braincase,will be helpfull.

i will also reducing the squamosal for develloping the frontal in the orbit.

[R0b]

Can’t help but I must say I really enjoy the processes 

[LordTrilobite]

37 minutes ago, jnoun11 said:

i have reduced the squamosal process and now i will make the connection beetween bones more accurate.

if i understand good, the parietal process must be in contact with the squamosal-process

, the squamosal is surrounded by the process of the para-occipital process forming the exoccipital

if somebody have some drawing of the different sutures of the braincase,will be helpfull.

i will also reducing the squamosal for develloping the frontal in the orbit.

There are a number of errors here. Some of the sutures are wrong and there's also bone missing in some areas.

 

I made some quick rough adjustments to what it should look like. Much of the parietal is missing. There would have been large thin flaps where the muscles attach. But this is not very well preserved in spinosaurs. So we do not know the exact shape. And we don't exactly know how big these features should be. Part of the paroccipital processes are also missing. They seem maybe too large. But there should not be a gap on the ventral edge. I've never seen anything like that in any theropod. The whole bottom of the basisphenoid is also missing.

 

The best examples for spinosaur braincases are probably Irritator and Baryonyx. And probably also Ceratosuchops and Riparovenator.

Irritator. The exoccipitals/paroccipital processes are damaged. The tip of the supraoccipital is also missing.

 

 

Baryonyx

 

Ceratosuchops

 

Riparovenator

[jnoun11]

thanks a lot i all ready cut the skull,and i m on ,i will make some pictures of the new version soon, that will take some days,because changing a part...change everything,but i m patient.

[jnoun11]

on some model the jugal participate on the anteorbital fenestrea,some not... if i understand right, on the spinosauridae,the process of the maxillary is in contact with the lacrymal forming the base of the anteorbital fenestrae.

 

[LordTrilobite]

Yes, the jugal should not participate in the antorbital fenestra. That's the main problem with some of the skull reconstructions where the lacrimal doesn't extend over the jugal.
The lacrimal extends over the jugal and makes contact with the maxilla.

[kingspino]

Hey, great progress i can't wait to see the full reconstruction. Maybe this is a bit late now but have you considered using other described skull material assigned to Spino as a basis for reference? there is a set of fused frontals and parietals that would have helped regardless of size and morph it should still have helped to some extent no?

[jnoun11]

On 11/16/2021 at 4:05 AM, kingspino said:

Hey, great progress i can't wait to see the full reconstruction. Maybe this is a bit late now but have you considered using other described skull material assigned to Spino as a basis for reference? there is a set of fused frontals and parietals that would have helped regardless of size and morph it should still have helped to some extent no?

hi kingspino

i considered using all material available. did you have pictures of the set frontal parietal?

[LordTrilobite]

There's this one marked E, F, G, H here. These are all the high orbit morph. But we don't really know if the high orbit morph or the low orbit morph belongs to Spinosaurus.

[kingspino]

Yup those are the onesfrom left to right they are FSAC-KK-3209 and FSAC-KK-3210 respectively from Arden et.al. 2018 and the one illustrated is NMC 50808 from Russel 1996.

[MBL13]

These specimens are interesting as they seem to represent mature individuals (frontals are completely fused in FSAC-KK 3029 and the parietal is also completely fused to the frontals in FSAC-KK 3210).

If so,they can't belong to FSAC-KK 11888,which is an immature individual but far larger in size. I've calculated that FSAC-KK 3209 is only 64.7 % the size of FSAC-KK 11888,so that gives(with the later being 11.2 m) a length of 7.25 m. The other specimens seem close in size and also represent mature individuals based on a similar degree of fusion between the frontals and/or parietals.

If any of the two morphs belongs to FSAC-KK 11888 ,it's the other one probably. As shown below,it's far bigger(they're not even isometrically scaled),but as FSAC-KK 11888,and represent a immature individual;which probably was only somewhat smaller.

Another undescribed specimen matching FSAC-KK 7715(the other morph) in morphology approaches FSAC-KK 11888 in size and still has incompletely fused frontals.

In any case,the frontals with the lower orbit have more chances to be conspecific with FSAC-KK 11888 than the other ones.

Sadly,they do not preserve most of the parietals,so you will need to reconstruct that part using other Spinosaurids.

Edited November 22, 2021 by MBL13

[jnoun11]

hi

second version i have following your suggestions.

[jnoun11]

i have 3D printed the first version,just for fun.

[Sjfriend]

4 hours ago, jnoun11 said:

i have 3D printed the first version,just for fun.

That is awesome!

[kingspino]

On 11/22/2021 at 11:15 PM, MBL13 said:

These specimens are interesting as they seem to represent mature individuals (frontals are completely fused in FSAC-KK 3029 and the parietal is also completely fused to the frontals in FSAC-KK 3210).

If so,they can't belong to FSAC-KK 11888,which is an immature individual but far larger in size. I've calculated that FSAC-KK 3209 is only 64.7 % the size of FSAC-KK 11888,so that gives(with the later being 11.2 m) a length of 7.25 m. The other specimens seem close in size and also represent mature individuals based on a similar degree of fusion between the frontals and/or parietals.

If any of the two morphs belongs to FSAC-KK 11888 ,it's the other one probably. As shown below,it's far bigger(they're not even isometrically scaled),but as FSAC-KK 11888,and represent a immature individual;which probably was only somewhat smaller.

Another undescribed specimen matching FSAC-KK 7715(the other morph) in morphology approaches FSAC-KK 11888 in size and still has incompletely fused frontals.

In any case,the frontals with the lower orbit have more chances to be conspecific with FSAC-KK 11888 than the other ones.

Sadly,they do not preserve most of the parietals,so you will need to reconstruct that part using other Spinosaurids.

Hi, well your are probably right you divide them in different morphs but again as you said you cannot put any one bone in any group or whatever as they are all isolated and dont directly match in position. We do not know how Spinosaurids develop ontogeneticly or what kind of variation there is at the species level so we cannot say for sure if every little difference represents another morph or any new specimen represents a new taxon. There are many factors involved dimorphism ontogeny individual variation taphonomy and so on but there are some differences that cant be explained by these explanations. And the holotype and the neotype cannot be confidently placed in the same taxon yet they are from one side of the continent and the other, spinosaurids seem to show some level of endemism considering that most are known from one locality and neither that is enough given that there are two taxa in the Wessex. For now i wouldn't come to any conclusion as no theory can prove or disprove referral of all this material to spinosaurus aegypticus. Here i took the "Ibrahim approach" where i placed all the skull material in one ontogenetic chart as how they referred and explained but it is probably outdated now be taken with some salt the very least.

[jnoun11]

hi

i will not try to go in ontogeny,my little skulls are just the reduction of the one i prepared for reconstructing the casa specimen. i will further trying to update when we will know better the anatomy of this animal.

i want just to show the last modification,following the recommendations of the community.

the 3D techniques are good for understand what its possible or not. until we find a complete skeleton or one skull,until further studies,its just one version,or proposition.

i have using most of the original bones available,casting them and making my best to unified them.

during this process, i have listen all advises, reading lot of papers, and for my humble opinion,most of the skull refered are not mounted right. my skull will be one more of them.

i eliminate all skull where the jugal take part of the preorbital fenestrae. a new topic about raw material from kem kem bed with pictures of the different bones available in collections,with different view of them,will certainly help .

my goal ,showing this last version is for understand what its still very wrong on it. i have to finished this year for building the skeleton for a exhibition in morocco in 2022.

[jnoun11]

hi people

the spinosaurus project run good,the specimen is cast and i have still to correct some anatomical parts of the front limbs and the skull, i m at the tucson gem show now until the 12 february. at the market place.

it will be a great pleasure for me to share information or speaking about anatomy.

i will modified the back skull by introducing the processus of the pterygoid, beetween the quadrate and the basisphenoid. the second modification will be the humerus,i get a good cast of allosaurus front limb and i will using it ,after little modification for create a more accurate mounting.

the specimen is not yet mounted but soon,when i go back to morocco i will take care of that.

thanks again for the help of the fossils forum member.

[LordTrilobite]

There are still some things I think aren't correct on the skull. The wing on the quadrate shouldn't really touch the exoccipital like that. Instead it should articulate with the pterygoid. Although this bone is still unknown in Spinosaurus. The teeth seem too curved and a little too slender in some places.

The jugal and lacrimal also look off to me. The lacrimal seems too small and the jugal much too long. This also make the whole back of the skull too long an flat it seems.

I think the lateral view should resemble Tyler Keillor's reconstruction more. That's still one of the best skull reconstructions of Spinosaurus at the moment.

[jnoun11]

hi friends

the spinosaurus project is finish.

Lord Smaug is now exhibited at the Sternberg museum in Hays, Kansas.

i want thanks all of you for the help during the process of reconstruction.

Lord Smaug is  not perfect and i wait more skeleton discovery in future.

[Ludwigia]

Congratulations on your labor of love and to all who helped you along the way. Am I correct in assuming that you are the gentleman on the right in the first photo?

[Le Ouistiti]

Congratulations Serge ! Such a beautiful work. 

[LordTrilobite]

Nice! It looks great!

[jnoun11]

 the making off, lord Smaug

https://fb.watch/dgzMQYqw0q/