Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-27500445-20151230081039/@comment-5025237-20160115092857

I'd like to point out that what the most recent papers say is basically: "It's difficult to tell whether the Spinosaurus fossils analyzed by Ibrahim et al were in fact composed entirely of Spinosaurus material." Not to put all too fine a point on it, the jury is still out on this one. The paper that many claim discredits the Ibrahim et al one on Spinosaurus' quadrupedality mostly just notes that some of the vertebrae in the Ibrahim et al reconstruction might have come from Sigilmassasaurus.

TLDR: It's unclear, odds are quadrupedality is correct.