Board Thread:Movie discussion/@comment-25238001-20160218163941/@comment-25238001-20161108003436

Collector1 wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rex2.02456 wrote:

Collector1 wrote:

MarkJira wrote:

Collector1 wrote: I doubt it.

The JPIII Spino appears to be a mix between remains of Spinosaurus and Suchomimus both discovered in 1998. The JPIII Spino looks like it overall is based on the Suchomimus skull diagram seen in its description paper while its premaxilla is identical to that of the real Spino. Be that as it may, I always like for there to be canon explanations for mistakes such as this (See: The "null alele" easter egg on the Masrani Backdoor site) and this is just my explanation. I still don't agree with this explanation. There's a much older fan theory that states that the Spinosaurus was misidentified as Suchomimus or Baryonyx as a juvenile, which I think makes more sense given that I pointed out the JP3 Spino has similar skull features like Suchomimus and if I recall correctly the holotype of Baryonyx was said to have not been fully grown and the Suchomimus type specimen (discovered in 1998 during JP3's pre-production) was a sub-adult. Furthermore, from what I've read the only known fossil material of Oxalaia is of the skull, meaning the shape and size of the sail is unknown.

Plus, I don't see why the JP3 Spino has to be a species that was unknown until a decade after it first appeared. This is the franchise where Dilophosaurus spits venom and fossil evidence of dromaeosaurids "smarter than primates" exist. The JP3 Spino looking less like the real animal could literally be explained anything besides it just being Oxalaia. Not entierly it lacks the crest of the Spino, has a more rounded sail, and has large back legs. Just liket he jp3 spino. Did you not read my post at all? The only fossil material is of the skull and a piece of its backbone that isn't even of the sail. The back legs, the lack of a crest, and even the sail are just merely assumed and are restored from Oxalaia's relatives.

Oh, and I'd also like to point out that the artist of the image used in the thread revised his restoration with a much larger sail, which only proves that the anatomy of the sail of Oxalaia can only be guessed until further fossil material is uncovered. Still, as I keep saying, I feel there should be an in-canon explanation for at least some of the scientific shortcomings in the franchise. This one, at least in my opinion, accounts for this one discrepancy substantially