Jump to content

spinosaurus reconstruction


Recommended Posts

 I hope this helps with your question:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/BSPG-2006-I-57-mid-cervical-vertebra-C6-of-an-indeterminate-spinosaur-A-posterior_fig15_283051601h

 

https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/47517/zoom/fig/1126/

 

 To my knowledge,there's no cervical vertebrae with a perfectly preserved neural arch showing a rectangular shape of the neural spine;however most specimens seem to suggest that it's the most likely. I'm interested in that other morphotype,is it possible to have access to any specimen with that condition?

 

Edited by MBL13
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
jnoun11

hi

the spinosaurus reconstruction keep going, now i try to understand how the sacral ribs goes on the illium.

did somebody have a picture of a complete sacral vertebrae with the apophysis , on different view?

i see on this forum one fused sacral but now i understand its probably not spinosaurus.

seems the sacrals vertebrae on spinosaurus are not fused with the dorso-sacrals or the caudo-sacral, seems the number of sacrals are five.

the best for me can be to make a video chat with somebody , more smart than me for trying to organize this gigsa puzzle.

im open for all proposal that can help me.

i keep going to want a stl file of the complete arm of spinosaurus., or buying one cast of the arm with scapula.

i have friend in tucson actuallly , he can takeing care of whatever delivery or payement, because i can not do from morocco. (PM me for details)

thanks for your time

20210412_173322.jpg

20210413_080412.jpg

20210413_080423.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned,no well preserved sacrum from Spinosaurus has been reported. There's a mostly complete specimen, though identifying it as a sacral vertebra is problematic,and no good images are available.

Material is know from FSAC-KK 11888 (Ibrahim et al.,2014b) and BSPG 1912 VIII 19 (Stromer, 1915).

Other than isolated material, there're not many other specimens from the Kem Kem group. However,other spinosaurids have better preserved sacra,the most complete is from Vallibonavenatrix cani (Malafaia et al.,2020):

IMG_20210415_185854.jpg.5d5cfa91db0a2b085638efc7ceb88edb.jpg

 

When you mention the "one fused sacral", do you mean this one?

s-l500-1.jpg.cd1a1df8dc95ff0a997a37ae0140e473.jpg.dbcdcf8d669334026ec096fbc151afce.jpg

 

References:

1) Ibrahim, Nizar & Sereno, Paul & Dal Sasso, Cristiano & Maganuco, Simone & Fabbri, Matteo & Martill, David & Zouhri, Samir & Myhrvold, Nathan & Iurino, Dawid. (2014). Semiaquatic adaptations in a giant predatory dinosaur. Science. 345. 10.1126/science.1258750.

 

2) Stromer, E. 1915. Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wüsten
Ägyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharîje-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 3. Das Original des Theropoden
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus nov. gen., nov. spec. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse 28(3):1-32.

 

3) Malafaia, Elisabete & Gasulla, José & Escaso, Fernando & Narváez, Iván & Sanz, José & Ortega, Francisco. (2018). New spinosaurid (Theropoda, Megalosauroidea) remains from the Arcillas de Morella Formation (upper Barremian) of Morella, Spain. Cretaceous Research. 92. 10.1016/j.cretres.2018.08.006. 

 

Edited by MBL13
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mahnmut

Hi jnoun11, cool project.

So do you have a collection of Spinosaurus bones already and now you are looking for the missing ones to rebuild the whole skeleton?

Or are you making a digital model?

Can you do photogrammetry? If so, you would only need about 50 photos of each bone to reconstruct it in 3d.

Or do you use something like blender to reconstruct the bones from fewer photos?

I do not possess any Spinosaurus fossils except a tooth, but let me know If I can help with the 3d stuff.

Best Regards,

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

hi

i try to reconstructed the spinosaurus FSAC-KK 11888. i have completed the missing bones by the most adjacent and some modification on 3D software. i work only from originals bones.

my question for the hips, was of its organised, i have S3 and S4 and the both illiums.

on other theropods seems the five sacrals vertebrae are content inside the illium, where on spinosaurus the size of the vertebrae is average 14 cm for 5 vertebrae that will give more and less 70 cm, the illium size is 75 cm, a little too short for the 5 sacrals vertebraes fit inside.

on picture of the sacral group MBL13, schow 4 vertebrae fused togheter, for vertebrae fit perfectly inside the illium. so i supected 4 vertebrae are fused and the five is free.

i have organised my reconstruction like that, 4 fused togheter and one the S1 alone.

i understand its difficult because of the lack of complete organised skeleton, the FSAC-KK 11888, its the most complete spinosaurus from morocco , and by deduction its relatively possible to understand the shape of the missing bones.

i used david pro scanner for all the numerisation, i try to avoid the digital models, so i prefere to numerised the original bones and make some modifications and after i 3D print the missing part with 0.1mm of acuracy.

now i have solved the tails, the rear limbs, the neck, i try now to understand the evolution of the cervicals apophysis, to go gently from cervical 7to the first dorsals.

also the evolution of the shape of the neural spines have a logical shape, more round and spiny on first dorsals, more flats and less widh after the D 8,

on a field 3 apophysis was together connected, i have find the contact connections on original material. that signified, the FSAC-KK 11888 was relativly connected (at list this 3 vertebrae, D6 to D8).

for the front limbs i have now the scapula, and some carpals bones, i still miss humerus radius ulna, if somebody somewhere can make cast of them , or much better, 3D numerisation and sending me the STL or OBJ file, that will be a great help.

i can paid for the files.

the solution for understand the anatomy of this great tenurae is share in differents privates or public collections, but its hard to access to all the collections, for multiple reasons , people dont want shows they have the bones or to much private interest ,

the science is (at list for me) something that must be sharing and free access, the 21 century allow us to work with the computers and scanning, no risk for the original bones to be destroyed or damaged.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got similar results when combining the sacral centra,though my measurement for the ilium was slightly shorter (~71 cm; Ibrahim et al.,2014; Supplementary material) for FSAC-KK 11888. The sacrum has four vertebrae fused,I think their positions are S2-5. Below there're some photos of the specimen I think you're missing.No 3d model available sadly.I have identified a pair of ulnae,one of them(FSAC-KK 11889),was included in the 3d model by Ibrahim et al.,2014b. I have many other specimens now,but only with some views,and they're not mine( I don't collect fossils actually).

20200130_112002.thumb.jpg.72604c87b9b8ee9b6952130150f989d3.jpg.5d8a55afe1aea7c5e1fd580f31cb4993.jpg.957923462f8f3b12eb0c8156a86138e2.jpg

20200130_111510.thumb.jpg.ac85e1e1a5b2e3c45217b8a91b104005.jpg.c3840c1369a59674b14c7a46af5d1953.jpg

20200130_111537.thumb.jpg.121b2acfe4cf67aea90915546fcb1130.jpg.eb5d2b752148ff67f248e69b50053f44.jpg

 

Refs:

1) Ibrahim, Nizar & Sereno, Paul & Dal Sasso, Cristiano & Maganuco, Simone & Fabbri, Matteo & Martill, David & Zouhri, Samir & Myhrvold, Nathan & Iurino, Dawid. (2014). Semiaquatic adaptations in a giant predatory dinosaur. Science. 345. 10.1126/science.1258750. 

Edited by MBL13
Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

what the lenght of the spine? the orientation seem to go on D 12 or D13 . its this spine very round or flat ? difficult to appreciate on a picture. (secretly i wish this spine is more flat than round, so that will fit with the partial spine i have here...)

i agree with your sacrum, to me its S2-S5. that fit with the bone i have here...its really a strange animal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the exact length,but the centrum is shorter than a human hand,so the length of the spine might be,at least, ~120-140 cm.

I'm not sure it's a posterior dorsal, though some details are somewhat similar to wirbel

"i" from the holotype of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.Also,the centrum is clearly not opisthocoelous,posterior dorsal vertebrae all have the "convex" anterior facet, though less pronounced than more anterior vertebrae. This figure contains the vertebrae from BSPG 1912 VIII 19. Wirbel "i" is labelled as "6". A partial sacral neural arch is in the second one, labelled as "16c". The specimen I mentioned has a proximodistally much shorter spine,it's slightly more reclined and the apex is fully inclined posterodorsally. The base of the neural arch is much different,in the one below,four well developed laminae form the margin of three fosse.The one above has a distinctive lamination and less pronounced fossae,seems only one is quite developed.

The base of the sacral spine on the other hand,has the same absolute proportions and curves backwards,more than dorsal spines.

Spinosaurus_vertebrae.thumb.jpg.7a013d56e775002741054d0a6ba6b7eb.jpg

Spinosaurus_holotype.thumb.jpg.a7d5fd1efc0a5ccf754aa9bf0cc23bf0.jpg

 

Ref:

1) Stromer, E. 1915. Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wüsten
Ägyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharîje-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 3. Das Original des Theropoden Spinosaurus aegyptiacus nov. gen., nov. spec. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse 28(3):1-32.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

this vertebrae with long round spine loook like this one i have for D5, my spine is byte by something ,lot of bytes mark on other side.

on a picture from the 22 second street show,the spine is probably restored on wrong side, happen sometime in a dino market in morocco, they misunderstand how the apophysis go on vertebral body. this point can be cleared by cleaning a little bit more the specimen.

because if the vertebrae is real, and its an really one anterior dorsal, she s not to much opisthocoelous, and the spine must go forward.

that can not be a D6, D7 or D8 ,because the spine is not enought large. too me i will keep going to thinking its on posterior dorsal, until i find more informations.

 

20210418_124717.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have access to casts from FSAC-KK 11888?

I would want to know if the D5 has a ventral keel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

 in FSAC-KK 11888, they dont have D5 vertebral body, they have D6,D7,D8 but even on C7 that dont show the ventral keel, ( the C7 is very compressed geologically.

175940660_10221610780432281_5496102334423162288_n.jpg

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my bad.

Fantastic,good to know the dorsals have prominent keels.

It's possible the C7 was more anterior in neck, giving the differences from usual C7(at least those noted by Evers et al.,2015)?

If possible,could I contact you for additional information on FSAC-KK 11888?

Refs:

Evers, Serjoscha & Rauhut, Oliver & Milner, Angela & McFeeters, Bradley & Allain, Ronan. (2015). A reappraisal of the morphology and systematic position of the theropod dinosaur Sigilmassasaurus from the “middle” Cretaceous of Morocco. PeerJ. 3. e1323. 10.7717/peerj.1323. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite
1 hour ago, MBL13 said:

Fantastic,good to know the dorsals have prominent keels.

Didn't Jnoun just imply that the dorsals do not have a prominent keel? I think he was saying that D6,D7,D8 are preserved in the specimen, not that they have a keel. Could you clarify @jnoun11?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a prominent keel on the dorsal centrum,which is congruent with other anterior dorsal centrum. As of now,no anterior dorsal vert lacks a keel. This is congruent with Baryonyx, Suchomimus and Vallibonavenatrix.

There's a clear, though slightly distorted,ridge on the dorsal vertebra, which is similar to D6-7. I could want to know if the next (D7) vertebra did have a ridge.Unless the one below is actually a D7,which is the last one with a keel.

Polish_20210419_142924466.jpg.1032a512634d3484ecdaa67287ff7850.jpg

 

The vertebra above looks like this one,from sseth collection:

 

IMG_6055.thumb.JPG.1da2dd3535fafce925575e3a46454b5a.thumb.jpeg.a3656251274e61704af380d698071d1a.jpeg

Edited by MBL13
Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

Those don't look like the same feature to me. The casts Jnoun showed look like it might have either, a keel like you said, or a ridge due to crushing, or a lip artifact from casting. The feature also doesn't seem to span the full length of the centrum, and I don't see a rugose plateau. And the potential keel looks off center to me.

The real fossil from sseth's collection you showed does indeed have a clear keel as well as rugose plateau. Its ventral features are identical to a dorsal vertebra I have in my collection as well. The only difference is that mine has a much flatter anterior face, suggesting it's from a more posterior position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11
1 hour ago, LordTrilobite said:

Didn't Jnoun just imply that the dorsals do not have a prominent keel? I think he was saying that D6,D7,D8 are preserved in the specimen, not that they have a keel. Could you clarify @jnoun11?

on a specimen FSAC-KK 11888, they have for the cervicals, only C7 and the atlas. the cervicals vertebrae  C4 and C5 belong to another specimen FSAC-KK 5017 and FSAC-KK 5019 but they are not on ain shock collection. and like you can see on the cervical C7 the keel is not so evident, also the end of the neural apophysis is not square but spiny.

for the dorsals D6,D7,D8 have a keel but they are compressed laterally,so ,i dont know if its really a keel or juste the effect of compression. must be a keel (okam razor).

neck.png

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, FSAC-KK 11888 vertebrae are highly crushed transversely,with certain specimens being slightly constricted or shaped as a parallelogram.

The keel on the D6 from FSAC-KK 11888 is present on images of the real vertebra,so it's not a result of casting.

I would discard a taphonomic explanation:

1) The keel is on the same area (approximately) as in other anterior vertebrae.

2) The "prominence" and overall shape is consistent with D6-7(see below).

3)It seems to follow a almost straight line. With only a segment being displaced.

4) Instead of the entire centrum being ventrally elongated,only a small fraction is elevated, forming a well delimited ridge with clear margins.

 

The vertebrae I posted seems to be much better preserved,with the posterior part intact,while the anterior vertebra of the neotype is crushed and eroded. The image Jnoun provided doesn't clarify if the posterior ventral margin was slightly flattened.

And the differences might be due to different positions in the axial line. With the "D6" of FSAC being a D7,and the other one a D6. 

To know if the keel is properly placed,I would need a more detailed picture.

However,consider that taphonomic deformations might have displaced certain parts of the centrum,while others are less deflected. Apart from that,a displacement of the keel could be the result of other processes,like intraspecific variation or a pathology

On the other hand,the anterior part of the keel is irregular and might be broken. Other specimens,like the one from below,have keels that only persist for half the centrum length. They originate in the hypapophysis. But as that part from FSAC-KK 11888 is highly damaged,the keel "seems" to apear more posteriorly.

I'm not sure about your dorsal centrum, without images I can't compare it with other specimens.

Here's another vert,more posterior than the first.The keel is less pronounced and only extends half the ventral length, without expanding into a platform. I also doubt that the other dorsal centrum has a proper plaform

20201108_194726.thumb.jpg.e777b8266e73730374876508e885c435.thumb.jpg.140d940d6b521ea3de4fd18a6219e7f8.jpg

 

Edited by MBL13
Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

him confused, when i said no keel more up in my comment i was speacking about C7 cervical seven.

on a dorsal is something like keel , and because  dinosaurs are not my speciality, i was supposed the lateral compression create this ridge.

on a picture D6,D7,D8 on ventral view, you specialist will see probably the keel.

175339911_10221612546356428_826330091110274252_n.jpg

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kingspino

Hi,

 I'm a hobbyist paleo-artist, I'm new here. Hopefully your reconstruction of Spinosaurus is coming out great jnoun11, listen I am also trying to make a skeletal model of the dinosaur based on described material, are those really casts of FSAC-KK-11888 you have there? 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Le Ouistiti

Incredible work Jnoun ! Did you post your reconstruction here when it’s over ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jnoun11

the base of this reconstruction will be FSAC-KK-11888, but i used some other bones from the market for filling the gap of the missing bones. reconstructing a decent spinosaurus skeleton is a difficult thing...

first i rarely work with dinosaurs, and also because of the lack of remains of complete skeletons of spinosaurus .

this reconstruction is difficult because i m alone here and even people helping me on this web site, every day is challenge to understand the anatomy, one of the difficulty i have now is the transition of the neural  apophyses  form C7 to D4.

did somebody have a picture of the apophyse of D1? that will be welcome.

also i keep seeking scanning bones of the front limbs.

when it will be finish i will post my humble version of this incredible theropod... in few month

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...