Diving dinosaurs? Caveats on the use of bone compactness and pFDA for inferring lifestyle

Abstract

The lifestyle of spinosaurid dinosaurs has been a topic of lively debate ever since the unveiling of important new skeletal parts for Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in 2014 and 2020. Disparate lifestyles for this taxon have been proposed in the literature; some have argued that it was semiaquatic to varying degrees, hunting fish from the margins of water bodies, or perhaps while wading or swimming on the surface; others suggest that it was a fully aquatic underwater pursuit predator. The various proposals are based on equally disparate lines of evidence. A recent study by Fabbri and coworkers sought to resolve this matter by applying the statistical method of phylogenetic flexible discriminant analysis to femur and rib bone diameters and a bone microanatomy metric called global bone compactness. From their statistical analyses of datasets based on a wide range of extant and extinct taxa, they concluded that two spinosaurid dinosaurs (S. aegyptiacus, Baryonyx walkeri) were fully submerged “subaqueous foragers,” whereas a third spinosaurid (Suchomimus tenerensis) remained a terrestrial predator. We performed a thorough reexamination of the datasets, analyses, and methodological assumptions on which those conclusions were based, which reveals substantial problems in each of these areas. In the datasets of exemplar taxa, we found unsupported categorization of taxon lifestyle, inconsistent inclusion and exclusion of taxa, and inappropriate choice of taxa and independent variables. We also explored the effects of uncontrolled sources of variation in estimates of bone compactness that arise from biological factors and measurement error. We found that the ability to draw quantitative conclusions is limited when taxa are represented by single data points with potentially large intrinsic variability. The results of our analysis of the statistical method show that it has low accuracy when applied to these datasets and that the data distributions do not meet fundamental assumptions of the method. These findings not only invalidate the conclusions of the particular analysis of Fabbri et al. but also have important implications for future quantitative uses of bone compactness and discriminant analysis in paleontology.