The Curious Case of the Becklespinax

[@TheDinosaurChannel]

I may have made a mistake on this video. Honestly the information is kinda unclear, but in regards to classifying the Becklespinax as a Spinosaurid I found this article. "But there are no shared derived characters that might unite Becklespinax with either spinosaurids or carcharodontosaurids, and these suggestions can't be supported." Full article can be found here. scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/10/02/becklespinax-and-valdoraptor It seems that Altispinax and Becklespinax are both synonymous with eachother but their classification is not 100%. Apologies for anyone I may have upset with this potentially false information. I'm talking accountability and will try to do better in the next video. Thanks dino friends ❤️

[@Kaijushorts2023-de4wq]

To be honest it should’ve just been a Concavenator

[@terrysyvertson9205]

it was never going to be

[@terrysyvertson9205]

becklespinax is not a spinosaurid, it's a carcharadontosaurid, so is concavenator

[@jeebus2313]

>"Real" >AI art thumbnail Irony.

[@VelocicoasterFanboy]

REAL

[@MDB2KEntertainment]

And unsubscribed, dammit why the ai?

[@hcollins9941]

I’m sorry, but there is a fair amount of misinformation to actually use this as a good source of Archosaur info. 1: Becklespinax is currently the nomen dubium of the 2 names. The current actual name IS Altispinax. 2: Altispinax has so far not been considered a Spinosauroid. It has been placed under Eustreptospondylidae & Allosauroid. Currently it has been since placed as a Tetanurae Carnosaur, since 2004. 3: Altispinax actually went extinct 133 mya, 3 million years before Baryonyx started showing up in the fossil records. So basically, it’s called Altispinax, it died out before Baryonyx; & so far has not been considered a Spinosaur in any research papers, currently.

[@terrysyvertson9205]

it's considered a carcharadontosaurid since it's considered to be related to concavenator, which is a carcharadontosaurid

[@hcollins9941]

@terrysyvertson9205 Do you have the research paper that claims this theory?

[@TheDinosaurChannel]

Noted, I'm trying to scale up making this content better, and sometimes I mistep. It's really expensive and hard to produce as a one man team, so doing my best and all the feedback is notedm

[@hcollins9941]

Gotcha. It is fairly difficult to do these things; ESPECIALLY, when it comes to the subject of fragmentary & obscure specimens of Prehistoric Life! I mean, look at Megalodon; everybody assumes we know so much about it, but the problem is the only fossils we have of it are its teeth & a few vertebrae. We don’t even know what it looks like! Same can be said for many dinosaurs like a majority of the Spinosaur & Megaraptoran families! Even now we only have fragments of Atrociraptor & Pyroraptor; yet people start assuming we know about them because of the Jurassic Franchise; & in the case of Pyroraptor, “Dinosaur Planet”. At least it’s good to have a channel that will focus on the more obscure genus & species. Keep up the good work then; & be careful where information is found, not everything is up to date or trustworthy.