Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:48, 2 July 2020 editFunkMonk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers102,732 edits →Ophthalmosaurus Size Comparison← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:56, 9 January 2025 edit undoFunkMonk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers102,732 edits →Inaccurate Uncus dzaugisi reconstruction 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{| style="clear:both; background:none;" {| style="clear:both; background:none;"
{|
|style="padding:1em; border:1px solid #dfdfdf; background-color:#e0e0b0; vertical-align: top;"| |style="padding:1em; border:1px solid #dfdfdf; background-color:#e0e0b0; vertical-align: top;"|
{{User:MiszaBot/config
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],
| algo = old(60d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 31
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{archives
|auto= short
|list=
}}
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],
], ]]] ], ]]]


This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur ] (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur ] (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.


If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Once an image has been approved and added to an article, its section can be archived. If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.


Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged, but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as seperate files, so that both versions are available. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.


Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate paleoart", so they can be easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per ] and ]{{efn|Per following policy discussions:}}, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during Featured Article reviews). Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per ] and ]{{efn|Per following policy discussions:}}, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during ] reviews).


''<b> Guidelines </b> for use of ], adapted from ] ]:'' ''<b> Guidelines </b> for use of ], adapted from ] ]:''
Line 35: Line 46:
** Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. ** Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
*Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. *Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
** Example: '']'' chasing a '']'', two animals which did not live together. ** Example: '']'' hunting an '']'', two animals which did not live together.
** Example: ] from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. ** Example: ] from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
** Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. ** Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
{| class="messagebox standard plainlinks" style="text-align: center; font-size: 125%; margin-bottom: 5px; background-color: #e7ebf5" <div class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em; padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; font-size: 125%; background-color: #e7ebf5; font-weight: bold">
| ''''''
</div>
|}
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
{{notelist}} {{notelist}}
|}


= Images in review = = Images in review =


== ''Ergilin Dzo Formation Size Chart?'' ==
== '']'' restoration ==
]
]
Made another prehistoric shark, this time ''Squalicorax falcatus''. It is based on the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), with features like the fins' shapes being derived from modern ] (due to their comparatively close affiliations compared to other extant sharks with ]) and ] (as many species likely filled ecological niches and behaviors akin to ''S. falcatus''). And yes, the upper caudal fin is suppose to curve in the angle it is shown in. The coloration also echoes the latter group, with species like the ] and ] serving as prime inspirations. As with my ginsu shark reconstruction, I aim at replacing the older ''Squalicorax'' art currently present on the wiki page, as it is rather inaccurate and aesthetically unpleasing, at least in my opinion. I hope this shark will get get better representation in paleoart than it has in the past, so I appreciate the potential for this to make it into the article. --] (] | ]) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
:I guess {{u|Macrophyseter}} should have a look. ] (]) 14:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
::{{u|Damouraptor}} First I would like to ask if you actually have access to Shimada and Circumurri (2005), as last time I checked I think it was paywalled and in order to get that skeletal reconstruction someone ought to have posted it elsewhere. (If you don't have access to the paper, just let me know and I'll see what I can do (I'm not a scientist, I'm simply an ordinary person who managed to get access to a lot of papers)) But you are certainly correct on the assumption that ''Squalicorax'' is essentially a lamnoid that was carcharhinoid-like, and I really like how you tried to reflect this. However, I would like to note that ''Squalicorax'' is still a pelagic shark and that it must have features that any pelagic shark has including fins and bodies designed for long distance and at times fast swimming.


Can someone please do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo formation? it would be really helpful and informative.
::So one major thing that could use some tweaking is the angle of the caudal fin; it's too bent down and designed for shallow life. If you can raise the angle of the upper lobe of the caudal fin (keep the lower lobe as it is), it'll make the art a lot more pelagic-like. I recommend taking inspiration of this change from lamnids and confirmed pelagic requiem sharks like the ]. Another thing is that appears that the head kind of deviates from the original Shimada and Circimurri (2005) reconstruction (such as a less flat dorsal). I would caution this as the head reconstruction is the most accurate based on actual well-preserved head fossils and recommend something like vertically shrinking the head region a bit. Here's an image with some of the possible tweaks in place: https://i.imgur.com/UQ27fEx.png


== ] ==
::Still, don't let this artwork down! It's so much better than that unpleasantly creepy current one and just simply needs a few easy tweaks that can be done without going back to the drawing board. I absolutely love the texture inspired from whitetip sharks and your willingness to make art to represent extinct sharks. With some easy changes, this one probably could make it into the article. ] &#124; ] 20:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Damouraptor}} Just a reminder after almost a year and a half, are you still planning on making the tweaks or has this been abandoned? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
::::He doesn't seem to have made much activity in any of his relevant plantforms since late 2019, it's possible that he may have stopped doing paleoart for at least some time. ] &#124; ] 06:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Maybe someone else could do the final fixes? ] (]) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I made changes as the image made by {{u|Macrophyseter}} suggested. What are your thoughts? ] (]) 05:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::My suggestions were rough eyeballs with the intention of the assumption that {{u|Damouraptor}} would know what I would mean and go from there using the research he would be making. As a result, it was never supposed to be the most accurate tweak and at this point I have noticed some details that might be a bit contrary to what we know about the shark's anatomy (including some anatomical contriadictions that I overlooked such as the width of the pectoral fin and the size of the caudal vertebrae). If you can, see if you can get a copy of Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), which is the paper that details the anatomy of Squalicorax and has a nice skeletal reconstruction. Here's a pasteboard of the skeletal reconstruction . ] &#124; ] 06:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, sure. Thanks for the response, I'll do it based on Shimada and Cicimurri this time. ] (]) 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Made new edits on the original image after reading about some of the anatomy and following the silhouette of the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005). I didn't touch the top of the image very much at this point, but what are your thoughts? ] (]) 04:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


{{gallery
== Canid size chart request ==
|Shucaris and Erratus.jpg|'']'' and '']''
|20240904_Radiodonta_frontal_appendage_Shucaris_ankylosskelos.png|'']'' appendage by @]
|3D model of Shucaris ankylosskelos appendage.png|'']'' appendage by @]
}}


Decided to make one more radidont that took longer than expected. To model the appendages I downloaded the raw CT data, put it into Blender, and modelled the podomeres and endites to follow the holotype, as well as referencing the description of course. I gave it 4 sets of GLS associated with reduced flaps, although reduced flaps are not preserved, and the GLS are incompletely known. I feel that this is reasonable speculation given the apparently elongate neck region. I put the setal blades on the dorsal surface of the flaps as well, which I believe better represents the fossil evidence, where in Shucaris they are seemingly only associated with the flaps, rather than the trunk. Something similar is also seen in ] and ]. Regarding the ], I gave it generic, upward facing frontal appendages given its phylogenetic placement, even though this area is completely missing in the fossils.
Hi, I was told by FunkMonk that requests regarding extant fauna are also accepted here.


Regarding the existing appendage illustrations, I wish to suggest (and if they choose to ignore these comments it does not bother me,) that the relative proportions of the podomeres be changed slightly to better reflect the holotype. I will admit that not every appendage presented in the description looks alike, but most commonly, and also in the holotype, there is a very distinct increase in podomere height, starting at the first DAR (distal articulated region, "claw") podomere, maxing out at the joint between the 3rd and 4th DAR podomere, and shallowing out until the 7th DAR podomere. Here, the podomeres are rectangular and tall - but towards the distal portion they are almost completely square in profile. Importantly, the shaft podomeres are shorter than the succeeding podomeres, and the second shaft podomere (BP1 in the description) is wider at the bottom then at the top, similar to amplectobeluids. The first shaft podomere (BP2) is even shorter and more elongate. Wawrow's model already presents this quite well. Altogether, this is what gives Shucaris appendages their very distinct crook-shape, which you can see in most fossils ascribed to it. This is what gives it the name "ankylosskelos" ("curved leg"). I think it would be best if the representative diagrams show this very important characteristic of the appendage. As far as I know, Wawrow is planning to make these adjustments to their model soon. Sorry for the paragraph ] (]) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make a size chart (with human silhouette) of the grey wolf, golden jackal and red fox using these three images as templates? , and .


:My only minor concern on the full body reconstruction is the amount of (at least for now, on the general understanding of radiodont anatomy) unusual speculative features. But since their plausibility was formally mentioned elsewhere I think It's Ok afterall.
Obviously, the image will be very eurocentric, but I may get around to projecting one for North America and Africa.
:Anyway thanks for the suggestions! I'll modifying my diagram within this week. ] (]) 10:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think the reconstruction is accurate but the position of shucaris makes it look kinda like it has legs which may be misleading. ] (]) 13:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::Not really?, you can see in the piece that the GLS stop once you get to the larger trunk flaps, and the shadow below the radiodont indicates its above the seafloor. ] (]) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::OK ] (]) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== New DBogdanov works ==
Anyway, the shoulder heights are:<br>'''Grey wolf''' = 80 cm<br>'''Golden jackal''' = 45 cm<br>'''Red fox''' = 35 cm.


<gallery>
Thank you in advance! ] (]) 19:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Moschorhinus kitchingi.jpg|'']''
:Yeah, since it is unlikely there will ever be a similar request page for extant animals, and since we have already had size comparisons that incorporated extant animals here before, I thought it would be fine. ] (]) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Dinichthys herzeri.jpg|'']''
Dunkleosteus spp.jpg|'']''
Westralichthys uwagedensis DB24.jpg|'']''
MacropetalichthysDB24.jpg|'']''
Pseudopetalichthys problematica DB24.jpg|'']''
Diplognathus mirabilisDB24.jpg|'']''
Tafilalichthys lavocati.jpg|'']''
</gallery>
New works, not used for now. ] (]) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*I don't know anything about these, but many of them we don't have other restorations of, so could be nice with some stamp of approval or not before we use them. ] (]) 09:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:No qualms with any of the arthrodires. I would say that the '']'' and '']'' especially are improvements over what is currently used, and seem to be in accordance with both Engelmann's work and with the anatomy of '']''. I can't speak for the others, unfortunately. ] (]) 20:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Perhaps the ''Diplognathus'' reconstruction can be used to replace the one currently in the taxobox, if the anatomy is more up to date? ] (]) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Returning to this to point out the ''Pseudopetalichthys'' reconstruction is far more accurate than any others used on the site. The other reconstructions, all provided by @], seem to mistake the internal pectoral element for an external armored spur, which does not seem to be correct. A similar issue is present in the currently used reconstruction of '']'' and several other genera of ]. It is an easy mistake to make considering these are placoderms, but these don't seem to have had external armor "plates". ] (]) 13:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


== Things from the past few weeks ==
== '']'' ==


{{Gallery
]
| File:Edingerella madagascariensis.png
The user who drew ''Thanos'' has also uploaded a '']'' and '']'', the latter of which has been added to the article. How accurate is it? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 13:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
|Edingerella madagascariensis
:Only a couple things stick out to me on the ''Gordodon''. First is the ear hole, which shouldn't be there as pelycosaur-grade synapsids wouldn't have any visible external ears. The other thing is that there doesn't seem to be any sign of the "cross-bar" tubercles on its neural spines, which should at least be visible on the sail above the 'hump' at the bottom (the presence of those tubercles all the way down the neural spines might also go against the interpretation of a 'hump' at the bottom, but that point seems more debatable). I'm a bit unsure about the skin texture with rows of large rounded 'scales', but it doesn't seem so egregiously wrong as to be detrimental to the picture in my opinion. ] (]) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
| File:Aphaurosuchus escharafacies.png
::We should probably contact the user so he can fix it. ] (]) 02:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
|Aphaurosuchus escharafacies
:::I'll try pinging {{u|Juan(-username-)}} to see if he can sort anything. ] (] | ]) 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
| File:Stegomosuchus longipes.png
::::Sorry about the long absence. And thanks for realizing and pointing out the innaccuracies of my reconstruction. During this month I will remake this one as well as the Lisowicia and also upload some fossil animals without images yet. And also create my profile here on Wikimedia. ] 12:20, 04 December 2019 (UTC)
|Stegomosuchus longipes
| Tetraclaenodon puercensis.png
|Tetraclaenodon puercensis
| File:Siamotherium pondaungensis.png
|Siamotherium pondaungensis
| File:Rastosuchus hammeri.png
|Rastosuchus hammeri
| File:Paenanthracotherium bergeri.png
|Paenanthracotherium bergeri
| File:Otacillus aumondi.png
|Otacillus aumondi
| File:Nshimbodon muchingaensis.png
|Nshimbodon muchingaensis
| File:Nannaroter mckinziei.png
|Nannaroter mckinziei
| File:Microbunodon sp.png
|Microbunodon sp
| File:Microbrachis pelikani.png
|Microbrachis pelikani
| File:Kosmodraco magnicornis JW.png
|Kosmodraco magnicornis
| File:Konzhukovia sangabrielensis.png
|Konzhukovia sangabrielensis
| File:Jaggermeryx naida.png
|Jaggermeryx naida
| File:Hypisodus minimus.png
|Hypisodus minimus
| File:Floridameryx floridanus.png
|Floridameryx floridanus
| File:Dongnanosuchus hsui.png
|Dongnanosuchus hsui
| File:Dibothrosuchus elaphros.png
|Dibothrosuchus elaphros
| File:Coloradisuchus abelini.png
|Coloradisuchus abelini
| File:Champsosaurus laramiensis.png
|Champsosaurus laramiensis
| File:Bothriogenys sp.png
|Bothriogenys sp
| File:Bageherpeton longignathus.png
|Bageherpeton longignathus
| File:Argochampsa krebsi.png
|Argochampsa krebsi
| File:Arambourgia gaudryi.png
|Arambourgia gaudryi
}} ] (]) 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== '']'' ==
== Marine Reptile Size Comparisons ==


<gallery> <gallery>
SpinosaurusAegyptiacusHabitat.jpg|
File:Cryptoclidus Size.svg|'']''
SpinosaurusAegyptiacusHabitat_(cropped).jpg|
File:Elasmosaurus Size.svg|'']''
File:Liopleurodon Size.svg|'']'' Paranogmius restoration.png|'']''
File:Rhomaleosaurus Size.svg|'']''
File:Ichthyosaurus Size 2.svg|'']''
File:Eurhinosaurus Size 2.svg|'']''
File:Nothosaurus Size 2.svg|'']''
File:Tylosaur Size.svg|'']''
</gallery> </gallery>
Seems this image in use have issue, by lacking pelvic fins. Also according to {{ping|Orthocormus}}, eye placement is wrong, same happening on ''Paranogmius'' reconstruction. (It is helpful if you can post reference where should its eyes be.) Probably someone can edit image? ] (]) 15:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Here are my marine reptile size comparisons. I've been playing with the idea of making a rogue's gallery or marine reptiles size comparison, and am considering finally doing it.
<br />
Taxa in need of review
* '']''
* '']''
* '']''
* '']''
* '']''
Taxa in need of overhauls
* '']'' (skeletal needed)
* '']'' (skeletal needed)
* '']'' (skeletal needed)
Taxa in need of overhauls and uploading
* '']''
Taxa in need of uploading
* '']''
Taxa in need of creating
* '']'' (skeletal needed)
* '']'' (skeletal needed)
Any comments so far or links to good skeletals? Also, for a bonus, I believe I have a '']'' and '']'' lying around somewhere. Also, why was my tylosaur removed from the article? One final question: I could add dorsal views for '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. Should I? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 14:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
::It’d be kinda redundant to have both dorsal and lateral size diagrams (but that’s just my opinion), and for the ''Tylosaurus'' size diagram, you’ll have to ask {{u|Orthogonal Orthocone}} who took it down in October without giving a reason. It looks like it might’ve been an accident when s/he was shuffling text around <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
:::If kept in the same diagram as the lateral view, dorsal views should be fine. I don't think separate files were meant anyway? ] (]) 19:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Yeah, just one file, sort of like my '']'' (I'm still not done with it?!) By the way, how accurate is this ''Placodus'' skeletal: ? I love marine reptiles but lack much knowledge on them thanks to paywalls (seriously, it would be cheaper to buy 4 copies of the GSP field guide than to get access for 30 days on some papers!) --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 19:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
:::::I think ] or ] would be even cheaper, haha... ] (]) 20:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
:::::My apologies ], I did not mean to take down your diagram on the '']'' page - it was a genuine mistake. I actually find these really helpful, so I don`t know what I was thinking. Please, please, put it back up! ] (]) 14:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
::::::It has been re-added. Thanks for helping to expand '']'', it really needs it! --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 17:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
* '']'' has been updated! I'm going to attempt some changes on ], including the addition of a caudal fin, and perhaps a different color scheme. Comments? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 14:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
::I wonder if that light green colour is fitting for a huge marine predator... ] (]) 14:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Here's my current progress: Comments? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 14:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
::::That's a very unorthodox tail fluke, though? I'd expect something more like this (and what you have in the diagram): Also, the fluke shouldn't really make the tail longer, as its tip would follow the length of the bony tail. ] (]) 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


== Plagiolophus ==
== '']'' Size Comparison Update ==


Hey folks, here with more European palaeotheres: Plagiolophus
]
I was asked by a DeviantArt user to do a chart comparing ''Titanoboa'' to a green anaconda and a reticulated python; I'm assuming he was referring to the existing chart so it would make sense to modify it. I've applied some of the comments from the original image review like adding a grid and some colour, added a little more detail etc. The work in progress can be seen here:


<gallery>
One difference is the DA user wanted to use 6.95m for the python, which the Wiki article is stating is 'one of the largest scientifically measured'. (I'm not massively clued up on snakes but I read the source (Fredricksson 2005) and done a quick search and there are mentions a 10m python reported from 'Raven 1947'. The wiki article doesn't mention this so I'm guessing it doesn't count as 'scientifically measured'.) At the moment, the chart is using a captive snake "Medusa" at 7.67m. Would you guys prefer to use the 6.95m measurement or a wild python? ] (]) 00:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Plagiolophus_huerzeleri_Life_Reconstruction.png|''P. huerzeleri''
: Here is a version with a 6.95m python. ] (]) 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Plagiolophus_minor_Life_Reconstruction.png|''P. minor''
::Looks cool, perhaps '']'' could also be added, and maybe other giant extinct taxa (if there are any)? I've always thought that it would be cool to have a diagram for snakes similar to Smokeybjb's crocodilian size comparison. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 22:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Plagiolophus_annectens_Life_Reconstruction.png|''P. annectens''
::: I can certainly look into doing Gigantophis. Regarding Titanoboa; there is a SVP conference abstract that provides a newer length estimate of 14.3m and a skull estimate. Are conference abstracts sufficient enough citation material? or is it still an 'unpublished idea'? ] (]) 11:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Plagiolophus_size_comparison.png|Size Comp
</gallery> ] (]) 01:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*Any sign off on this and others, {{u|PrimalMustelid}}? For future reference, so we know they have been approved. ] (]) 21:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Very well, pass. ] (]) 22:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Agreed, pass. These are all very good reconstructions! ] (]) 14:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


== Artwork of the New Captorhinid ==
It shouldn't be called ''Broghammerus reticulatus'', and ''Python reticulatus'' wouldn't be correct either. The reticulated python doesn't belong in genus ''Python'', and the proper name for this species is ''Malayopython reticulatus''] (]) 20:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
: That last link didn't work but thanks for the info, your comment led me to this interesting read (which is linked to in the Wikiedpia article) I guess every scientific feild has it's 'outsiders'.
:Here is a link to a potential newer version (not 'polished' and I havn't corrected the name yet) In this version I have other estimates ( Titanoboa 14.3m (+/-1.28m) and Gigantophis 9.3-10.7) faded behind the main silhouettes. The larger version of Gigantophis is 10m in this diagram, splitting the difference between 9.3 and 10.7; trying showing both ends of the error margins clutters the diagram. Based on the research I've read, Madtsoiidae isn't well known morphologically so I based the torso depth on the height of the Gigantophis vertebrae and comparison to images of other large snake skeletons, which seem to be 4ish, maybe 5? times the height of a vertebra? (Anyone know of any concrete numbers?) The skull shape was based on a Wonambi naracoortensis skull diagram. ] (]) 22:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
::Here's an alternative link: . ] (]) 21:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


Currently working on placoderm art but thought I'd take a short break to work on something described today, Indosauriscus kuttyi.
== Request:Edits to '']'' life restoration ==
] ] (]) 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Andrewsarchus ==
]
This recontruction by Nobu Tamura is currently the only image of ''Umoonasaurus'' that we have. It is rather old and needs some corrections:
# The nostrils are inexplicably huge
# The paddles have a very oar-like appearance and don't account for the powerful musculature supported by the limb girdles. They also are missing the trailing edge
# It is missing a caudal fin
Points two and three follow Witton's ''The Paleoartist's Handbook''. Does anybody want to make the above changes?


Back again with a lateral portrait of Andrewsarchus mongoliensis
I plan to draw the skull of this animal in dorsal and lateral views whenever I get time which may be weeks, or months if things go really badly :(. For this drawing, should I use a color key or in-image abbreviations?


<gallery>
Also, does anybody know of an ''Umoonasaurus''/Leptocleidid skeletal? As usual, I'm thinking of making a size comparison. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Portrait_of_Andrewsarchus.png|''Andrewsarchus''
:Should be pretty easy to fix. Have you considered giving it a try? I can give some hints for tools to use... ] (]) 23:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
</gallery> ] (]) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::I've started to have a go at it, and will upload when finished. I use the clone/stamp tool for simple outline readjustment and painting out or drawing in lines and shrinking ears and nostrils, airbrushes to add in nostrils and ears, perspective to roughly distort something, smudge to smooth out unwanted texture or patterning and creating strangely-shaped new regions (i.e. caudal fins), rotate to change positions, scale to fix too big/small areas, multiple layers if I'm extending an appendage (i.e. neck elongation). I see that ''Umoonasaurus'' would have had quite a puny caudal fin based on a chart by ''Lythronax'': . Any recommendations for additional tools to use or other stuff to change? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 23:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::You might be doing this already, but what I've found useful for being precise with additional elements of images I was adjusting (such as the caudal fin and larger paddles) is to draw the outline of these with some base colour, and then fill out the outline, rather than to try drawing these additional areas with the clone stump or any other imprecise tool Then they can easily be filled out afterwards with whatever tool you want. ] (]) 00:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


:Approved. ] (]) 00:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
== Burgess Shale ==
:Should the posterior part of the mandible not be taller so the head tapers a little bit more? I know we don't have the mandible for this taxon, but that's fairly typical of mammals isn't it? ] (]) 01:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
]
::I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. The jaw here is mostly from "Paratriisodon henanensis" which was later referred to A. mongoliensis. It only preserves a tiny bit of the angle of the jaw, so this portion is reconstructed here based on the shape of the angle in other whippomorph taxa. It could certainly be reconstructed a little larger, but I don't think what I have here rn is unreasonable. I'd be happy to show the bones underneath this recon if you want to see how it works ] (]) 04:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
A variety of animals from the Burgess Shale. Here’s the description I wrote for it.
:::I didn't realize there were referred remains. I suppose the length of the head just makes it look odd knowing what the holotype skull looks like. But if you used actual specimens for the scaling, then I don't think there's any issue. ] (]) 09:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== Homotherium ==
Deep in the early Cambrian ocean, below the shadow of the Cathedral Escarpment (A giant rock shelf formation), life goes on as normal. Bioluminescent Amiskwia swim in groups, trying to escape the carnivorous Opabinia. It can walk on the sea floor with legs, or swim through the water with undulating fins.
]
I don't have an image to be reviewed, but I want to point out that a newly discovered ''Homotherium'' cub mummy may impact how the animal should be reconstructed. The paper is , and the mummy has dark, reddish-brown fur. The reconstructions on the '']'' Misplaced Pages page currently have whitish-grey fur, so they may need to be revised. ] (]) 04:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


:There's multiple species of ''Homotherium'' and only this one juvenile is believed to have had brown fur, so theoretically only depictions of juveniles of ''H. latidens'' should be changed. ] (]) 06:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Among the algae, strange sponge relatives called Choia exist, holding themselves just above the rock surface. Hallucigenia sparsa feed on the marine snow that falls, catching it on hairy tentacles and shoving it in their mouths. Aysheaia feed on sponges called Vauxia, which grow on the rocky substrate.
::Our only restoration of ''H. latidens'' (which I'm not sure otherwise passed review) appears to have roughly the right colour: But yeah, the rest we have are of ''H. serum'', so we can't necessarily assume they had the same colour. ] (]) 09:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::As I mentioned on Discord, I will try to fix that head restoration (added above). Seems to be mainly the way the back of the head connects with the neck and the width of the snout base that is off, but feel free to add other issues. ] (]) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Triloboii is also working on his restoration, which hopefully will be completed at some point in the not too distant future. ] (]) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Which species? ] (]) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::''H. latidens''. ''H latidens'' and ''H. serum'' are basically morphologically identical though (the name applied largely depends on which continent the remains are from), and it's not unreasonable to think they are the same species (something which has been repeatedly suggested in the recent academic literature. ] (]) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Cool, either way, then it should probably reflect the colouration of that mummy (felid kittens don't differ so much in colouration from the adults). ] (]) 04:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*I did a bunch of modifications to the ''H. serum'' bust, any comments, {{u|Hemiauchenia}} and {{u|PrimalMustelid}}? ] (]) 21:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:In my opinion it looks basically perfect. I don't know if Silvertiger (our resident cat editor) has any opinions. ] (]) 21:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Cool, let's ping {{u|Silvertiger~enwiki}} (if that is the current account, seems some rename has happened). ] (]) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: His username currently is SilverTiger12. ] (]) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== Unspecified tetrapod ==
Preying on hard shelled animals like trilobites, using its armoured antennae to break open armour, Anomalocaris dwarfs everything. It is followed closely by a shoal of Pikaia, which survive by feeding the scraps left behind when Anomalcaris finishes messily ingesting it’s prey with a horrifying circular mouth part. It can see Opabinia with the best eyes that would ever evolve for millions of years, only rivalled by dragonflies and possibly griffinflies.


This is simply labeled "Labyrinthodontia". Does anyone know what exactly this is supposed to be, how accurate it is and how it could be used (other than illustrating the page about "Labyrinthodontia")? ] (]) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The Opabinia, though it has 5 compound eyes, still has a more limited resolution, and doesn’t notice the Anomalocaris swimming towards it through the gloom of the depths.
] ] (]) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:That's unfortunately all the website said, so may not be of much use. But the author could be emailed. ] (]) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Maybe it's meant to be ''Tulerpeton'', based on the proportions of the six-toed hindlimbs. Even so, that's no guarantee, it could just as easily be an outdated salamander-style ''Ichthyostega'' based on the shape of the skull and long teeth. Or maybe it's not meant to be any one animal in particular. ] (]) 03:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


== '']'' skeletal + size ==
] (]) 22:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
:First of all I want to clarify that this is a beautiful piece of art, and that all my comments focus solely on its worth as a portrayal of modern paleontological notions. For example, I don't believe that there is enough empirical evidence to justify the bioluminescent ''Amiskwia'', despite the fact that it is a very creative and visually appealing concept. You have made good arguments for bizarre interpretations in the past (your bright green '']'', for example), and I would like to see if you have further elaborations on the matter. Just make sure not to infringe upon Misplaced Pages's "No original research" clause (]) too much. Also, I was wondering whether you were aware of the several studies questioning ''Anomalocaris's'' role as a predator of hard-shelled animals. It probably wouldn't affect the illustration, but it would certainly affect the "plot" you seem to be crafting in the description. Speaking of the description, it was the only thing which led me to notice some of the background critters, such as the ''Hallucigenia'', ''Pikaia'', ''Aysheia'', and ''Vauxia''. Their relative invisibility is justifiable considering the murky composition, but still a bit counterproductive if the piece is viewed as an educational piece of art. In conclusion, this piece is very well-made and creative as a piece of original artwork, but I'm not sure if it functions well-enough as an educational tool to enhance or elaborate on the information presented in a Misplaced Pages article. Considering how the bioluminescent ''Amiskwia'' seem to be the sole light source in the piece, the illustration would not really function if they were removed. I'll see what other reviewers think of it, but am personally unsure whether it passes Misplaced Pages's standards or whether the bioluminescent ''Amiskwia'' are too speculative (or justified by too much original research) to allow to be used on a site which advertises itself as an encyclopedia. It's a wonderful illustration though, and it's 100% worth posting elsewhere. ] (]) 22:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


{{gallery
::Thank you for the kind words. While the bioluminescent Amiswkia is speculative, I believe there is no evidence against it either, and I wouldn’t ever suggest this in article. Bioluminescence is widespread throughout Eukaryota, and there are even bioluminescent species of Chaetognaths, which are some of the closer living relatives of Amiskwia. Especially considering the believed deep sea habitat and the fact that we don’t have any living animals in the grouping Amiskwia was apart of, I believe that the bioluminescence in this animal is harmless speculation, as with the colouration of most extinct organisms.
|Nipponopterus Skeletal.svg|Skeletal (holotype)
::Regarding the Anomalocaris, whether or not it fed on shelly fauna is still debated. Personally I fall on the side that it exploited the weaknesses in shells by shaking and contorting prey, before using its jaws to either bite open the shell or just suck out soft tissue from the breakage (this stance is supported in some articles, though other articles oppose it, hence the debate. No firm conclusion has been reached). The Aysheaia, Hallucigenia, and Vauxia are not the main subjects of the image, and are merely there to flesh out the environment should the viewer inspect it closer. ] (]) 01:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
|Nipponopterus Size Comparison.svg|Size comparison (estimated adult)
:::You bring up good points, especially about the existence of bioluminescent chaetognaths. However, the abilities of modern bioluminescent chaetognaths seems to differ quite a lot from the bright solid glows of those in your illustration. In addition, I'm not the only reviewer here, and some editors may have more comprehensive criticism (especially considering how I am no expert on Burgess Shale fauna). Hopefully there will be enough activity here that you would get another substantial evaluation. ] (]) 02:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
}}
::::I know little about invertebrates, but as I noted on the ] talk page, we should steer clear of including our own original research on paleoart, we should only reflect what has been previously suggested by researchers. And this advice is not something to be taken lightly, as we may risk a ban on all user made paleoart if we don't follow this rule, as it has created problems several times in the past. Believe it or not, some editors have suggested that usermade paleoart should not be allowed at all, with much drama to follow. We don't want that again, so any such images that breach the OR rules in an obvious way will not be used. So no, this is not the place for "All Yesterdays" style experimentation, which we should maybe make clear in the guidelines above. I have started a discussion about this general issue here. ] (]) 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::I am against depicting ''Amiskwia'' with bioluminescence here. As far as I know, bioluminescence is rare in gnathiferans (to my knowledge, it is not known in rotifers, gnathostomulids, or micrognathozoans, and is rare and unlikely to be the ancestral condition in chaetognaths) thus its presence in ''Amiskwia'' is a level 3' inference. As I said in the OR in paleoart talk page, I think speculation should be avoided except when necessary in the context of Misplaced Pages articles; depicting ''Amiskwia'' with bioluminescence is both unnecessary and likely to inspire the unjustified paleoart meme of bioluminescent ''Amiswkia''. This isn't a paleoart gallery, it's an encyclopedia. ] (]) 18:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:Aside from the bioluminescence issue, this piece misrepresents the sizes of the Burgess Shale fauna. ''Opabinia'' ranged from 43 to 70 mm and ''Amiskwia'' ranged from 7.4 to 31.3 mm , so ''Amiskwia'' was about one-third the length of ''Opabinia''. The ''Anomalocaris'' seems rather large, but perhaps not implausibly so. Furthermore, ''Amiskwia'' is a fairly rare animal, so I'm not sure depicting large groups of them is a good idea. ] (]) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::Well rarity of ''Amiskwia'' in the fossil record isn't indicative of rarity in the Cambrian, just rarity of fossilization which is to be expected with soft bodied organisms (even in the Burgess Shale). There's that says that it's possible many creatures were bioluminescent in the Cambrian as a warning display to predators, and so many reconstructions of Cambrian fauna are incorrect. It doesn't specifically identify ''Amiskwia'' with hard evidence of bioluminenscence, but if I'm reading it right, it's saying it's possible that any (especially smaller) creature could have had it. Of course, it probably wouldn't have been so bright, and his entire explanation relies on the idea that the evolution of eyes started the Cambrian explosion (which doesn't make any sense because unless it's the mantis shrimp basically nothing in the sea relies on its eyes), so really, we're kind of in the wind if bioluminescence was common or even a thing in the shallow seas of the Burgess Shale <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 18:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
:::OK, I know it's been months, but I only just saw this. The article you linked doesn't mention bioluminescence at all; it's talking about iridescence, which is an entirely different phenomenon. Bioluminescent animals don't look like the ''Amiskwia'' in this image—as far as I'm aware they generally aren't bright enough to cast a light on surfaces—and moreover, bioluminescence in ''Amiskwia'' is not supported by phylogenetic bracketing. Moreover, my other objection, that the scale of the animals in this image is inaccurate, remains unaddressed. As such, this image "differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements" (i.e. body size and capacity for bioluminescence) and meets the criteria for removal stated at the top of this page. ] (]) 04:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


Skeletal reconstruction of the one holotypic vertebra of ''Nipponopterus'', plus a size chart based on the paper's estimated adult wingspan. I'm a little hesitant about that size given the holotype (which is described as a "subadult") is -] (]) 23:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
== Macrauchenia trunkless ==
:If the estimate is wingspan, perhaps a flying silhouette would be preferable? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::Pterosaur size estimates are essentially always given as wingspans, rather than length/height. This size chart is still consistent with the wingspan estimate, even if it is shown indirectly. Flying silhouettes (especially dorsal-view wingspan silhouettes, for which there are very few decent references) introduce new complications with posing and fitting neatly into a believable diagram. -] (]) 20:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agree that the walking pose is preferable. ] (]) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Large bird sizes ==
<gallery> File:Macrauchenia (reconstruction).jpg
File:Macrauchenia2.jpg </gallery>


]
It appears that macraucheniids had more conventional looking nostrils, something similar to a moose if this relatively recent study comparing the skulls of various extinct & extant herbivorous mammals is anything to go by.<br /> Perhaps these two images should be edited. Other Macrauchenia restoration on <br /> should probably be labelled inaccurate, as they depict the genus with odd elephantine trunks. ] (]) 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I found this on commons. I'm planning on using it for a long-term project about the size of birds throughout their evolution. Any issues that some Cenozoic people can identify? ] (]) 07:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:The study I read (see talk page) also proposed a ]-like snout, which isn't that far off from what's shown. Could be a bit shorter, though, but I think it's kind of too early for us to do anything, it seems to be very preliminary ideas. ] (]) 08:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
::I had a look at the talk page and I think we should split the difference. Perhaps someone should edit shorter saiga antelope-like trunks on the mother & calf Macrauchenia, but edit Nobu Tamura's restoration to show moose-like nostrils. Either way, I do believe that the other Macrauchenia restorations on the site are rather inaccurate by modern standards. ] (]) 10:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
:::NT's restoration is pretty much saiga-like already, so I don't see why it would need to be modified, though. If anything, it should be a bit shorter. ] (]) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
::::True, but I was thinking since it was rather simple looking in comparison to Olllga's, it would be more easier to edit. Should I put out a request for a new image instead? ] (]) 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::Of a moose-like snout? Well, no one will stop you, hehe. Personally, I'd like to see some more studies on the issues first, and it seems some are underway. ] (]) 11:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::Well I was thinking more in the lines of a image comparing the two ideas, but I might sit on that idea for moment. I could be wrong, but I think the traditional view of Palorchestes might also be going through similar scrutiny. But I'll leave that discussion for the Palorchestes talk page. ] (]) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
]
:::::::Maybe something like this old Diplodocus (now Galeamopus) diagram, showing all versions. ] (]) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::::That's the perfect example of how to go about! Now the hardest part is finding an artist to do such a thing. ] (]) 14:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Rextron}} does South American mammals, maybe it could be interesting. ] (]) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'll ping ] to see if they're interested (I hope this works, never pinged before). Much easier than explaining it all on their talk page. ] (]) 04:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::Hi! Sorry for the late answer, I've been busy. Hmm, looks like a interesting idea, to show the skull and the trunked and trunkless versions. I guess that the trunkless version should be the moose model recently proposed, although in Darin Croft's book "Horned armadillos and rafting monkeys" appears a version with normal lips and narials located very high in the head, the reasoning behind it model is not explained there, just why it probably lack of a trunk. Well, I can make some sketches, by the way there is a diagram that would be very useful: --] (]) 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for answering! An interesting article, it does highlight the need for more peer reviewed studies on age old ideas that go unquestioned or unchallenged. , though I have no idea if there are more studies on this subject at the moment. As for the comparison image, I think it should be similar to the "diplodocus" chart, with the skull and the three different interpretations. Like the , the small saiga antelope-like trunk and the more recent moose-like suggestion. ] (]) 05:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::Well, I finally can start this. Here is my idea for the "moose" version of ''Macrauchenia'' , any thoughts?--] (]) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I'm perfectly content with this interpretation. Now it looks like a camel with moose-like characteristics. Which seems to line up with our understanding of ''Macrauchenia''. With the taxa appearing to be generalists, like the two mentioned. Calling {{u|FunkMonk}}, do you have any opinions or criticisms? ] (]) 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Looks good, I wonder if that "slope" of the head should begin further anterior, though? Seems like it begins even before the bony nostrils, comparing to this interpretation: ] (]) 19:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Ooops! I forget to delete some fur in that part, now it looks like this: Here is a version with the skull that I used . --] (]) 21:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Cool, still quite some bulge, but who knows how big it would have been... ] (]) 23:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah, I have the same doubt, what if was a inflatable structure? ;) Anyways, later I'll modify it to make the trunked version.--] (]) 03:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
::I've gone back & edit the images myself, any thoughts? ] (]) 01:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::The edit of the first image mostly looks reasonable. However, the edited version of NT's image makes ''Macrauchenia'' look like a bog-standard mammal without an expanded snout. I think both should be revised so that they look closer to Rextron's interpretation posted above. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 05:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::::I guess I was being a bit conservative, I'll fix it up tonight & remove those artefacts near the head.] (]) 05:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::I've edited Nobu's illustration, definitely looks much better. I don't know why I hadn't paid more closer attention to Rextron's diagram & artwork when I was editing Nobu's art, compared to when I was editing Olga's artwork..... Any more criticisms & critiques? ] (]) 12:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::Looks much better. That's it from me for now. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 01:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


:This is surely oversized. Seemingly each square is 30 cm considering human's height, and that make ''Kelenken'' skull way oversized, which is actually 70 cm long but in this chart nearly 1.5 m. ] (]) 07:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
]
::Also ''Gastornis'' being labeled as "predatory" is pretty outdated. Honestly why is it here, this would work better as a strictly Phorusrhacid size chart. ] (]) 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's one that was just posted without review. Thoughts? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Scale diagrams for extinct birds are generally pretty lacking, I may try and get working on some relatively soon. This was the best one I could find. ] (]) 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:Looks pretty good. I wasn't initially sure about the placement of the nostrils, though I think the artist has restored the animal yawning or perhaps braying like a horse or donkey, which would explain the nostrils. It's definitely a lot more stockier than some other restorations, but I have seen other artists also restore them this way. My only complaint would be somewhat wonky looking feet (Not sure if its missing a toe on each foot or if its just a perspective thing). The image itself also needs to be cleaned up a bit. ] (]) 04:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:Definitely needs a scale bar. Could really use an entire overhaul—the silhouette detail is inconsistent (especially with the shaggy ''Gastornis'') and the gradient background is unnecessary and distracting. -] (]) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:In addition to the inconsistent silhouettes as mentioned by SlvrHwk, I think its probably worth looking into the licensing around them. I can't say how much modification or difference would suffice but on first glance the Kelenken seems very much to be slightly repurposed from the artwork of Stephanie Abramowicz, while the Phorusrhacos appears like a slimmed down and slightly reposed derivative of the WWB depiction. There are some obvious differences I admitt (Abramowicz's art has less open jaws and a more raised leg), but for cautions sake its probably better to make an entirely new image.] (]) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think the gradient is pretty tedious as well. Its probably worth doing scale charts for several large extinct birds, as they appear to be relatively lacking in commons. ] (]) 23:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== Anji Biota and ] ==
== Eosimops restoration ==


]
<gallery> File:Eosimops_newtoni.jpg </gallery>
Hello. Here is a reconstruction of the Anji Biota of Ordovician China, a deep sea glass sponge reef. Mainly featuring ], so I suggest it be added to that wiki page, seeing as the Anji Biota does not have one of its own. ] (]) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


:Seems nice to me. ] (]) 11:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I found this image of Eosimops a while back. Looks a bit emaciated compared to other Pylaecephalid restorations. On that note, are there any images of Eosimops fossils to see if it's anatomically accurate? ] (]) 04:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
::Agreed, very nice recon as always. ] (]) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:At a glance, the neck is almost certainly too long and the overall shape of the head seems incorrect, and it's artistically rather lackluster overall. Definitely needs improvement, and there's that redescribes ''Eosimops'' that would doubtlessly be useful. ] (]) 02:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
::I can give it a try if someone can list all that needs to be fixed. ] (]) 10:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


== Otodontidae == == Unshowcased works ==

I realized recently that the size comparison in the ] article was removed, possibly to it looking to much like a great white. I have been thinking about creating a new size comparison for adding ''O/C. chubutensis'', and having a less great white-like look. I also have been considering doing a life restoration for ''O/C. megalodon'', or perhaps ''O/C. chubutensis''. Here is lineart for a generic otodontid: , based on the ], ], and ]. If it's good enough, I'll proceed with the size comparison and life restoration. Pinging {{u|Dunkleosteus77}} and {{u|Macrophyseter}}, our main prehistoric shark editors. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
*IMO the generic otodontid lineart could be a possible representation for some of its members like ''Otodus'', ''Cretalamna'', ''Megalolamna'', etc, but not likely for those in the' ''Carcharocles''' genus, at least starting ''C. angusteidens''; it doesn't seem to well represent a form designed for the extreme strength megalodon may have possessed, but rather a more generalist morphology. The body shape I'm more used to would be that of what could essentially be described as a beefed-up lamnid, which appears to be the appearance most used in DA that isn't derived from ''Carcharodon''. This ] drawing of a generic ''Carcharocles'' shark presented by Kent and Ward (2018) would be a more ideal representation. ] &#124; ] 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
::Ah, darn it, I forgot about '']''. Looks like I've gotta make the first dorsal fin smaller, the second one larger, the pelvic and rear fins more triangular. I'll post a new version once I've fixed the current one. Perhaps I should go for '']'', as we don't yet have a life restoration for that... --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
:::''Cretolamna''-ized verison has been completed: ! Any comments? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 11:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
::::Shaidng has been added: . Apparently ''Megalolamna'' was an inshore shark, so I'm thinking of coloring it a bit like a ], with a brownish hue. I found the paper that described ''M. paradoxodon'', it's been very useful: . It suggested a phylogenetic placement for ''Megalolamna'' between ''Cretalamna'' & non-"''Carcharocles''"-grade '']'', which I think the image already resembles. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 21:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
]
:::::I just went ahead and uploaded the colored version. I will eventually add more detail. Comments? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 23:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::More detail has been added. If no more comments are added, I'll add this to the '']'' article tommorrow. A size comparison will come soon. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::This was clearly based on the photo of a "Cretalamna" body fossil that used to be on its Misplaced Pages page (which I removed), which is actually a new species of Lebanese odontaspidid. As such, this reconstruction needs to be reworked and should be removed from the page for the time being. There are some other aspects of the soft tissue that are incorrect, like the teeth in the lower jaw not being visible. I recommend using photographs of lamnids like porbeagles for reference.] (]) 01:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, I did see that... I'll see when I can get around to this (I've already got a lot scheduled, so it may take awhile). --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 01:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
]
]
*FYI, a few weeks back I had another DA request to update the existing diagram, which I have been working on. At the moment my WIP has primarily been using the Gottfried skeletal, which extrapolates from the Great White but is more robust generally, especially the jaws, with larger fins. The very rough WIP can be seen here: This has taken me a while because I have been trying to fact check the Misplaced Pages articles for the lengths and estimates of the relevant animals. I'm not too fussed about which silhouette we use because Meg is only known from teeth and vertebrae which don't say much as to overall build and proportions. Maybe a generalised/generic silhouette is the way to go, but ultimately, any silhouette is going to be made up and be speculative. That said, I'd be happy to hear what any of the shark editors think. In my version, I was going to add question marks in the Meg silhouettes, as I have done with some of the really fragmentary sauropods, just to make it clear to the viewer it's speculative. ] (]) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
::Yeah, the ?s are a good idea perhaps you should add the maximum size for the whale shark. Also, it seems like ''O. (C.) megalodon'' loses to the whale shark for the prize of the biggest shark ever, if only by a tiny bit. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
::: What's become apparent looking into shark measuring is that even though there are standards, those standards can be interpreted differently or that different terms are being used interchangeably. Generally speaking there is 'Standard Length' and 'Total Length'. Standard length excludes the caudal fin; some might measure to the base of the caudal fin (precaudal length), it's possible that some are measuring to the notch on the far side (called Fork Length). Total length includes the caudal fin but there are two ways people measure it. One way is the shark positioned in a life pose and measured between the snout and tip of the caudal fin. (between pegs); this is similar to how it might get illustrated in a scale chart. The other way is by measuring the standard length and then just adding on the caudal fin length. This can quite drastically change the perceived size in a scale chart as it does not take into account the angle of the caudal fin. (Not dissimilar to scaling a dinosaur silhouette to the length of the silhouette vs measuring along the curves of the vertebral column.)
::: The are a lot of reports of large ~18m whale sharks, however, I'm currently not aware of any that have detailed measurements. One '18.8m' individual was measured as being 15m SL and then they added on the tail using an equation to get the TL. I know of two reports with detailed measurements from Indian fisheries, one is a 12.18m male and the other a 14.5m female. After trying to use the measurements to illustrate them I realised they probably contain mistakes and/or typos (these are older reports that predate portable computers, so these would have been written down by hand and typed up at a later date). The SL of 12.18 male was reported as 10.23m. After illustrating it is seems that 10.23m is the actual TL and then later this got mistakenly changed to SL and then the authors added on 1.95m of caudal fin. The 14.5m individual hasn't got the same level of detail in measurements but I suspect it was actually 11.5m and there has been a typo, otherwise it's proportioned like no other whale shark I've seen. Another possibility is that it was 14.5m meters and some of the measurements have been placed in the table incorrectly. ] (]) 13:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
: Here is a link to a new WIP for the Megalodon update . At the moment the largest I have found in the literature is estimated at 17.9m and the average size, across geologic time, according to Pimiento&Balk 2015 is ~10m based on 544 teeth. The whale shark is scaled to 9m because they mature at about 8-9m. The Misplaced Pages article and the original version state average adult as 9.8m and cites Guinness Animal Facts&Feats, I can't get a book preview, can anyone confirm that? They get larger; Guinness records claims the largest accurately measured is 12.65m near Pakistan in 1949 but looking into fishery records it seems that individual was 11.58m (I have yet to find a copy of the original source which was published in a weekly magazine) so I'm not sure where the Guinness number comes from? McClain et al 2015 support an individual estimated at 18.8m as the largest. The Great White is scaled to 4.7m which in Gottfried 1996 sample was the smallest mature female. I might also include the largest female which was 6.1m. ] (]) 21:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
:: I've updated the existing size chart. I've temporarily removed the whale sharks. ] (]) 20:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
::: The other day, a new user reverted the old chart back which is probably not surprising considering the subject. Because the old chart was so widely used and many of the image captions became obsolete with the loss of the whale shark, I've decided to upload under a new file name, inserted above. ] (]) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
: This is a potential update to the megalodon scale chart based on Shimada 2019. Shimada suggests only using anterior teeth for estimation which is claimed to be more reliable. (The 17.9m estimate used previously is based on a lateral tooth). Shimada estimates the tooth with the tallest crown height to be 13.5-14.2m TL based on new equations or using the tooth with a tallest total height and the Gottfried equations 15.3m. Currently I've gone for 14.2m. ] (]) 21:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::Is it possible to modify the old one too to newer sizes so its not outdated in every page its used? I don't have the .svg editing ability so I'm just wondering the possibility. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 23:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
::: It's possible. The original intention was for the new one to replace the old one but because I decided to remove the whale shark it creates issues with image captions relating to the old chart. That said, there are some problem users over at the wiki commons that reverted my update. I then decided to update the description on the old image, which was full of errors and misleading statements (see the image history and talk page) but they reverted those as well. The old image doesn't represent the science very well. The idea that there is a 'conservative' and a 'maximum' is also problematic in my eyes; which of the many estimates do we decide is 'conservative'? (I don't think those words even appear in the literature until Shimada 2019). 20m estimates exist but one is purely hypothetical based on scaling trends in the great white and assumes a questioned 7m GW existed. Shimada 2019 shows that another ~20m tooth based estimate is a mistake. Admittedly, considering how many estimates are out there, deciding which estimates to show in a scale chart is difficult. ] (]) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::::We could do something like ] and ]. I'm counting 6 estimations for max size: 13 m by Randall 1973; 25 m by Schembri and Papson 1994; 25 m by Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996; 16.5 m by Jeremiah 2002; 18 m by Shimada 2002; and 15 m by Shimada 2019. If we're doing average size, we could use Gottfried, Compagno, and Bowman 1996, 10.5 m and 14.3 m for males and 13.3 m and 17 m for females; or 10.5 m by Pimiento and Balk 2015 <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 15:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::Do you mean in terms of layout? Finally got a full copy of Gottfried 1996 who do use the phrase 'conservative maximum TL' for their 15.9m estimate. Either way, the existing chart's 'conservative' is too large for Gottfried 1996. Shimada 2019 effectively resizes this estimate to 15.3m after remeasuring the tooth in question. I personally think for this chart we should stick to more recent estimates, ie Shimada 2019 should be used over Shimada 2002. Shimada 2019 also shows that many of those estimates above are not reliable or have made mistakes. I have no issue mentioning larger estimates in the text but I don't think we should show them. Regarding 'Average'; there is 'average megalodon size' including juveniles & adults (ie Pimiento and Balk 2015), or 'average adult megalodon' (ie Gottfried 1996 10.5-14.3m for males); I have currently gone with a global estimated average of 10.5 m as suggested by Pimiento and Balk 2015 and also happens to be the size that Pimiento 2010 consider being adults & Gottfried's 'smallest mature male'. ] (]) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

== Anomalocaris reconstruction inaccuracies ==

]

I noticed this reconstruction of ''Anomalocaris'' has a few inaccuracies. The big one is that the Burgess Shale species ''A. canadensis'' did not have the tail "streamers" (they're only known for the Chengjiang species, ''A. saron''). Additionally, though the low level of detail makes it hard to tell, it appears to lack setal blades on the back and a head shield. Something about the proportions also seems off, but that might just be foreshortening. ] (]) 04:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

== '']'' Life Restoration ==

Here is the link to the work in progress (WIP): . The lower jaw is based on a CT restoration (Fig. 6). Upper jaw curvature has been based on '']'', which may not have been a good thing (perhaps '']'' would be better?). Postcranium is a cross between '']'' and '']'' (Fig 12 & 30). Any input? Do we have any Pal(a)eozoic fish experts? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
: Is there any particular reason to think it had an ''Edestus''-like arrangement with upper and lower whorls instead of a ''Helicoprion''-like arrangement with only a lower whorl? ] (]) 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
::No. I will change it. Should I include a short row of teeth as seen in '']'' and '']''? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 17:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ornithopsis}}, is this version () better? Also, I'm wondering if the lower jaw might have been a lot deeper than I currently have restored it. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
:::: I'm not a fish expert, so I'm not really sure. I do think the updated appearance looks better—as far as I can tell, ''Edestus'' is unusual in having similar tooth whorls on the upper and lower jaws (compare to e.g. ''Ornithoprion'' and ''Helicoprion''), hence my asking if there was a good reason for the original ''Edestus''-like appearance. ] (]) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

== '']'', '']'', and '']'' ==


<gallery> <gallery>
Haikouichthys-ercaicunensis-restoration.jpg|'']''
File:Bruktererpeton SW.png| '']''
Life_restoration_of_Allodelphis_woodburnei.jpg|'']''
File:Mystriosuchus SW.png| '']''
Allodelphis woodburnei jpeg.jpg|
File:Ctenacanthus SW.png| '']''
File:Bandringa SW.png| '']''
</gallery> </gallery>
Found in Commons. ] (]) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


It's pretty unusual for me to do so many life restorations, but here are three more. I may eventually color some of them. Any comments? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 19:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC) :I have a submission for Allodelphis woodburnei, including the dolphin with and without background. If there are any changes I should consider, I'll be quick to work with it. ] (]) 05:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:Here's an additional creature: ''Bandringa''. I will eventually give it a more creative color scheme (and probably a big green eye, as seen in many modern lineages of deep-sea cartilaginous fish) and perhaps a background. Comments? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 20:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
::It's very difficult to find a good source of information on ''Bruketerpeton''. I see you have a source but I honestly have no idea how accurate it is considering its age and how it is a popular science textbook rather than a peer-reviewed study. The illustration doesn't look like it has glaring errors relative to ''Gephyrostegus'', though I am unsure of whether the eardrum would be visible. Most animals with eardrums evolved them independently and have specific adaptations of the stapes and temporal region coinciding with such adaptations. ''Gephyrostegus'' doesn't have any real evidence for such features, due to stapes not being preserved and the temporal region having an unspecialized and broadly concave rear edge. As a close relative, I doubt ''Bruktererpeton'' would be any different. ] (]) 23:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I will remove the eardrum (it looks like our current '']'' life restoration also has an eardrum, so I'm guessing that it needs to be removed too). I'm pretty sure that the skeletal in the book is taken/redrawn from a scientific publication (many of the skeletals are credited as being from ''The Osteology of Reptiles'', for example) although they don't cite their source beyond stating that the author is Boy. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 11:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
::::Isn't ''Mystriosuchus'' supposed to have had a tail fin? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 17:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::No,see the 2017 archive for more details. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::We should probably remove the tailfin mention on the article then <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
* {{u|Fanboyphilosopher}}, should ''Bruktererpeton'' have claws? I noticed that the DiBgd restoration of ''Gephyrostegus'' has them, while my ''Bruktererpeton'' doesn't. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 12:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
::Probably not, claws didn't really evolve until amniotes. '']'' has been claimed to possess claws based on the tapering and curved unguals, but Marjanovic & Laurin (2019) showed that the tips of the unguals were not pointed, unlike the case with true claws. They also placed ''Casineria'' within a gephyrostegid grade of tetrapods, along with ''Bruktererpeton''. So I think that tapering and curved (but not keratinous) finger tips would make sense for ''Bruktererpeton''. ] (]) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
*Just so this doesn't get forgotten, are there any more comments are these restorations good to go? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
::Well, I realized that the head of my ''Mystriosuchus'' doesn't match the perspective of the body, so I'll have to fix that (probably by changing the angle of the neck). I also have to upload my colored ''Cobelodus'' (see above). --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

== Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries ==

]

The timeline should be updated thanks to new discoveries of ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens since 2007. It also should take into account the renaming of ''"Pterodactylus" crassipes'' as '']'' and the erection of ''Archaeopteryx albersdoerferi'' for the Maxberg ''Archaeopteryx'' specimen.] (]) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

== Basilosaurus ==
]
:I'm not quite sure what to make of this honestly; it was posted here without comment by an anonymous IP whose only edit record is here, and likewise the only actions of the commons user who uploaded it was just that. The image itself is a known illustration from deviantART, but there it is clearly watermarked and the full resolution is not available unlike this image. It's licensed as their own work, which lines up with the lack of watermark and high resolution, and a reverse image search doesn't turn up any other examples of the image outside of deviantART and Misplaced Pages, let alone without a watermark and at this resolution. I'm not sure how else this could be uploaded if it's not the original artist, but I don't know if we can be sure of that and let the image stay up on commons as a Creative Commons image. Thoughts? ] (] | ]) 19:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
::I'm with you that I don't see any real possible other way for someone to have uploaded this work if it wasn't there own, and following the nice guideline of assuming good faith I think that the lack of any alternative that we can see as possible means that we should assume this is their own work. I think its possible there is an underbite in the art, although that could be perspective, but I don't know enough about Basilosaurus or its relatives to say much else on the accuracy. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 16:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Some of the ''B. isis'' skulls look like they've got a bit of an underbite (the species isn't specified here). I will say that the perspective does make the tail look a bit unusual, but this image does quite a nice job on the head - unlike virtually every single other restoration that we have (expect maybe this one: ]). --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
:::: The pectoral fins seem too far back; in whales, they are just behind the head and neck. I'm not as confident on this next issue but the dorsal fin seems very far forward compared to other reconstructions. ] (]) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
*Maybe this could be a good time to review the other Basilosaurus restorations we have? Most of the others were uploaded before the paleo review page was started... We need to apply the "inaccurate paleoart" tag more generously, as this is often not done even when an image is deemed such. ] (]) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
::I've added a gallery below of our other images (I actually was thinking of doing something like this soon!):
<gallery>
File:Basilo.jpg| I have no clue what the heck that head's based on
File:Basilosaurus BW.jpg| Tail very thin
File:Basilosaurus cropped.png| "Demonic" shrink-wrapped head doesn't match bulky body
File:Basilosaurus1DB.jpg|Original of the former
File:Basilosaurus illustration.jpg| Too deep body
File:Basilosaurus.jpg| "Demonic" shrink-wrapped head
File:Basilosaurus2 NT.jpg| Should have much more oral tissue going by modern whales
File:Zeuglodon.jpg| General proportions
File:Pr00208.jpg| Shrink-wrapped head, "surfin' serpents" meme, no dorsal fin
</gallery>
::...it's not good. I've included some issues that I saw - and these are all very general, I haven't done anything more rigorous yet. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 20:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I think the last one can be excused and used as a historical example. The ones with the demon heads could probably be modified more easily than the rest. ] (]) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
::::I think the least inaccurate and probably most worth fixing would be Dmitry's and Pavel's but I agree they all have inaccuracies. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 02:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::I can give those two a shot, anything else that should be fixed in them? Seems odd that the raised area around the nostrils would be so obvious in the living animal, or what? Maybe the one with the thin tails too. ] (]) 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps modify Pavel's one following ''B. isis'', as Dmitry's is ''B. cetoides''? That way, we can have a restoration for each species. Also, Pavel's has a strange constriction in its profile after the pelvis, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 23:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
] I added this to show and outdated basilosaurus restoration--] (]) 03:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
*I added lips and other fleshiness to the original of the Bogdanov image, any thoughts? ] (]) 00:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
::Would that bump really be that prominent? It looks like it is a lot lower than the base of the skull: . --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 11:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Hard to say, I'd imagine it would not even be discernible, but even most modern restorations seem to show it. Also, modern whale skulls give little indication of what the living animals look like... ] (]) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Basilosaurus had 10 teeth on either side of the jaw, I’m only counting 9 (but it’s kinda blurry if you zoom in that much, so I don’t know). The head seems about the right size, I don’t know why it’s been called shrink wrapped, but I will say the top of the skull seems really bony (like it’s an exact outline of the skull) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 23:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

]
Here's another one posted without comment. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:It looks really good actually <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 23:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

== More Marine Reptile Size Comparisons ==

]
]
Sorry for my long periods of inactivity, I'll try to be more productive (although I may not succeed, as I'll be pretty busy for quite awhile). Anyways, here's another ''Liopleurodon'' update. I replace the old flat skull with the Noè et. al., 2003-style head, in addition to giving it a ''Rhomaleosaurus''-style caudal fin. How does it look? (As a little side-project, I did a very rough scaling of the Monster of Arramberri using ''Liopleurodon'' and got a pliosaurid that was a little over 9m.) Additionally, I plan to upload some more marine reptile size comparisons once this one's approved (these include '']'', ], and '']'', not to mention updates coming for '']'' and '']''). I'm also open to requests. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 20:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
* Here is the ''Eurhinosaurus'' update. Looks more like a real animal now. The skull's based on Jaime Headden's skull diagram, which we still haven't uploaded here yet. Any comments on the updated size comparison? --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

== '']'' Skeletal ==

]
One more weekend in October means one more skeletal. Here's my first non-archosaurian skeletal - ''Gallardosaurus''. I don't have a whole lot to say about it that can't already be found in the file description. However, there appears to be what looks like part of Cv5 preserved in the specimen, but nothing about this is said in the paper, so I've left it in light gray. Was this the right choice? I'll ping {{u|Eotyrannu5}}, who's done a much more complex pliosaur skeletal, for input. --] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
:I asked someone else to comment on this one, since I'm not a marine reptiles guy, and he said it looked fine, so I will echo that sentiment. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

== '']'' & '']'' ==

]

Just putting up this recent PaleoEquii art for review for the sake of it. I think it looks really good, and I personally know that the artist is quite knowledgeable on Camrbian fauna. ] (]) 03:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
: The shape of the tail looks a little off. I count eight segments in this reconstruction; ''Ooedigera'' had seven. The terminal segment looks too pointed. Would there have been a narrow, rayed fin along the margins of the tail like that? I'm not extremely familiar with vetulicolian anatomy, but that seems different from other reconstructions. Also, if I'm reading Vinther et al. 2011 (the original description) correctly, the tail would have been somewhat more asymmetrical dorsoventrally and had a more prominently scalloped dorsal margin of the first four segments. The body also doesn't look particularly laterally compressed, which ''Ooedigera'' is described as being. ] (]) 05:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
::Small mistake on the tail, removed a segment. I think that’s about all that needs changed. ] (]) 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
:::You may wanna increase shading so it's clearer it's laterally compressed. I thought it was supposed to be a balloon shape when I first saw it, but maybe that's just me <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 18:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
:::Are you sure that's all that needs to be changed? According to Vinther et al., "a broader flattened region extends ventrally all the way from segment 2 to 7 and dorsally between segments 5 and 7", and they repeatedly emphasize the importance of this dorsoventral asymmetry. Your reconstruction doesn't look anything like that. Based on my interpretation of the text, it should look something like this (apologies for the quickness of the sketch, it just needs to get my point across), with a scalloped dorsal margin along the first few tail segments, and no 'fin' along the margins. In addition, the dorsal margin of the tail should probably be approximately aligned with the dorsal margin of the body, as in other vetulicolians, not dorsoventrally centered. ] (]) 19:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
::::I haven't actually read the study yet, that was just my first remark <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 21:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::I was responding to PaleoEquii, who said "I think that's all that needs to be changed" after changing one detail, without responding to any of my other criticisms. ] (]) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::I will say it looks better than ] which is somewhat reminiscent of a bejeweled vacuum cleaner (no offense to the creator). It's in lateral view so I don't think dorsal anatomy is going to be very prominent, and it should be a pretty easy fix. Just make the back end of the tail a bit more bulbous on the top, and the first few ridges a bit steeper. As for my former comment about shading, it actually looks fine the more I look at it <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 04:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I like this one more than the old one too but that just makes it all the more important to make sure this is up to high standards of accuracy. I'd like for PaleoEquii to either revise this image in response to my critique or justify his interpretation as opposed to mine. ] (]) 06:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::::The biggest issue (the tail fin) has just been fixed, and I think that the rest of the anatomy is consistent with what is known of the animal. It was a soft-bodied creature and I wouldn't doubt that it was capable of some variability in its body shape. As it stands, the body looks taller than wide, which resembles the fossil and corresponds with the described lateral compression, the extent of which is not fully set in stone due to the 2D preservation. And the tail looks to be positioned above the dorsoventral midline, as it is above the body's gill slits. Perspective may be responsible for some ambiguity there, in addition to the clearly convex dorsal surface ("egg-shaped", according to the paper's etymology). ] (]) 02:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::You are probably right that the body is within acceptable bounds of accuracy, but I still have some concerns about the tail, to be honest. I've never seen a reconstruction of a vetulicolian with a thin, seemingly translucent, rayed tail fin like this depiction, so I want a source on that, or for it to be changed. Near as I can tell, the thinner fin-like region of the tail is still composed of the same shell material as the rest of the tail. The shape also still looks off in a few details--the peaks of the scalloped axial region edges don't seem to line up with the segment boundaries in some places, when they probably should. The axial region (i.e. the non-fin portion) is described as consisting of "hourglass-shaped" segments and that appears to refer to the concave dorsal and ventral margins of each segment of the axial region. Finally, the seventh tail segment is more or less triangular in ''Ooedigera'', which is not how it looks in this image--and it doesn't look angled in a way that would explain the difference either. ] (]) 06:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah, for the tail segments, they should go inwards rather than outwards so that in dorsal view a segment would have an hourglass shape, the ventral side of segments 2–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, the dorsal side of 5–7 shouldn’t be scalloped, and the ray fin is highly implausible <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 07:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::: The structure of the tail fin is consistent with tunicate larvae and especially conodonts and lancelets, which seem to resemble the "bilaterally symmetrical deuterostome" model quite well, especially compared to the oddly derived shape of ambulacrarians. And responding to dunk, the hourglass shape is meant to be in lateral view, not dorsal view. The scalloping persists throughout the tail as far as it appears in the fossil. From my interpretation of the source's text and imagery, the illustration is completely consistent with the fossil evidence. ] (]) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Conodonts, tunicates, and lancelets don't have shells on their tails, so I'm not sure they're the best model. Given that the life reconstructions of ''Nesonektris'' in its original description (which is a reliable source) lack such a fin, I'd like a source justifying depicting it to the contrary, not just supposition. Also, the shape of segment 7 is clearly inconsistent with the fossil in my eyes, and the shape of the rest of the tail still looks off to me in various respects, as should be evident by comparing my sketch to PaleoEquii's painting. I'm pretty sure that the transition between the axial region and 'fin' ventrally should also be concave, to complete the hourglass shape of the axial region ("there is a broad axial region with concave margins on each segment, giving each of the seven segments an hourglass shape"), but note that that transition between axial region and 'fin' is more a matter of mediolateral thickness of the segmented region than transition from a segmented structure to a thin translucent rayed fin. FanboyPhilosopher is, however, right that there is no reason to depict the segments as convex in dorsal view (as the tail is not preserved in a manner that would show that). ] (]) 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::In that case, the segments still don’t have an hourglass shape in lateral view. The dorsal aspect is fine but the ventral aspect is convex where it should be concave, so each segment right now ends up sort of saddle shaped (if I’m looking at this right) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, that's exactly my point. That, the structure of the fin, and the shape of the final segment are my main concerns left with this image, and I'd really like to see those concerns addressed because we definitely need good vetulicolian art like this on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|PaleoEquii}} So really, there's only 3 fixes and then we're set:
*1. <s>Make the tail segments hourglass-shaped rather than saddle-shaped</s>
*2. <s>Remove the ray fin</s>
*3. <s>Make the final tail segment sharper (like how it was in the original version)</s>
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 19:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
:The tail should be fine now. I don’t see the harm in ornamentation or even simple colour on the tail fin? The fossil itself isn’t exactly pristine. ] (]) 19:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
::Still looks saddle-shaped (both the dorsal and ventral sides should be concave, right now the dorsal is concave and the ventral is convex). The ray fin would be more likely if it were a chordate, but it wasn't, it had armor, so a ray fin is not very plausible <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
:::I think the "ray" fin is fine, it looks like its supposed to except for the colouration giving the appearance of rays, but a striped pattern isn't a dealbreaker. I can't comment on the rest tho. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 00:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
::::I think the lack of an hourglass figure at this point is simply down to perspective. As for the fin, Ooedigera had a much softer body than Chengjiang Vetulicolians. ] (]) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::I can accept that. {{ping|Ornithopsis}} anything else you'd add? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 06:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::A couple of comments: first of all, this is an educational website; if it's misleading but not demonstrably wrong that's still a concern (although admittedly not a dealbreaker). However, more to the point: the "fins" of ''Ooedigera'' are laterally compressed extensions of the segments, not a separate structure, as I understand it. They should be segmented like the axial region, not a separate unsegmented structure. I'll also link to my revised sketch of it; I still think that various aspects of the tail anatomy in PaleoEquii's reconstruction look wrong to me ] (])
:::::::{{ping|PaleoEquii}} Where're we at on this? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 14:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::At this point he has told me that if you all are not satisfied with his illustration, then Ornithopsis's sketch would be a better replacement for the article's current artwork. Misplaced Pages is kind of an afterthought for him and he's more invested in his current work. ] (]) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't see anything incorrect enough about it to not be used, it seems to be a matter of interpretation of the description. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::PaleoEquii is a better artist than I am, so I'd rather his work be used than mine, once my concerns have been addressed in some way. My concerns aren't just a matter of interpretation. The "tail fin" of vetulicolians is essentially a sclerotized extension of the segments, not a separate unsegmented structure as it appears in this image. Unless somebody can provide a citation indicating otherwise, that's still a problem with this image. I can try to make adjustments to PaleoEquii's image to bring it to my standards of accuracy if he isn't interested in editing or defending it himself. Also, {{u|Fanboyphilosopher}}, since you seem to be acting as {{u|PaleoEquii}}'s envoy, could you please tell him that it would be nice if he posted his images for review rather than adding them directly to articles? I promise I'm not going to always be this hardass about it; it's just a matter of principle. I do have a question about his latest '']'' reconstruction, though. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|Ornithopsis}}, Do you object to me replacing ] with PaleoEquii's reconstruction on the '']'' article? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 18:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::I will have to make another reconstruction of it at this point, I’ll try to find time for that. What is your comment on the ]? ] (]) 21:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC) ]
::PaleoEquii, it might be more efficient to upload basic sketches of animals you're reconstructing, which we can critique and you can very easily change, and when the basic sketch is deemed accurate, then you flesh it out completely. Also, I'm not entirely certain, but the eye seems very advanced for a Cambrian creature. I'd think the eye'd look more like that of a ] or maybe a ]. Were you trying for a photoreceptor look like what you did ]? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 22:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

::: Eyes had already become extremely complex by the Cambrian. Anomalocarids, for example, had dichromatic vision, extremely powerful compound eyes with large retinas, and stalks. To view all Cambrian eyes as simple is incorrect. A more apt comparison for Anomalocarid eyes would be those of crabs and dragonflies. ] (]) 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

::: PaleoEquii's reconstruction of the eye looks fine to me. I had more of a question/comment than outright criticism, in this case: given that ''Ursulinacaris'' is likely to be the most basal hurdiid, given the anatomy of its frontal appendages, is it a good idea to reconstruct it with a ''Hurdia/Aegirocassis''-like head shield? I would think that a smaller head shield (like ''Tamisiocaris'' and ''Peytoia'') would be more likely with phylogenetic bracketing. If you think changing it isn't justified, I won't argue further on that point though. ] (]) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

::::Currently, ] is known to be the most basal diverging hurdiid, with a body more comparable to ] than to ]. Ursulinacaris is most closely related to Pahvantia, which has an extremely developed cephalon shield. ] (]) 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::What's your source for either of those claims? ] (]) 01:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

::::::Researchers at the ROM have uncovered whole-body specimens of Stanleycaris from the “Thick” Stephen Formation recently. Don’t know when it’ll be published, but it’s already been in the PalAss conference. As for Ursulinacaris, no phylogeny has included it, but I and some other researchers find it close to Pahvantia, mostly based on the gracile nature of the endites. Think of it as “informed speculation”. ] (]) 01:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::::In that case, that's original research, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Fair enough on ''Stanleycaris'', but wouldn't that only support my concern that a basal hurdiid (such as ''Ursulinacaris'' seems to be in the absence of published evidence otherwise) shouldn't have a ''Hurdia''-like head shield? ] (]) 02:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: There are no body specimens of Ursulinacaris, nor published phylogenies, nor any published ideas on what the whole animal looked like. I’ll be honest, I don’t see the problem. I’m not saying it’s one way or another, this is my interpretation. I could defend my interpretation, but it doesn’t really matter if we aren’t allowed to do “original research”. This interpretation of the animal, as far as published literature is concerned, is just as valid. ] (]) 03:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: While I also disagree with using solely original research to support a speculative reconstruction, I don't think that's a problem here. As said, the source doesn't offer a phylogeny, and instead notes "Crucially all hurdiids show unique characteristics in their frontal appendage morphology when compared to other members of the family, with no apparent sequential acquisition of characters that would provide resolution from a phylogenetic analysis". It also says that ''Pahvantia'''s paired setae may be homologous with the paired endites of ''Ursulinacaris'' and non-hurdiids. So there isn't really a clear phylogeny to engage in phylogenetic bracketing, and using ''Pahvantia'' as a basis for the carapace reconstructing is no worse (and may be better) than other choices. ] (]) 04:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::: I'm not terribly satisfied with your explanation, but as I said, I'll drop it as I admit it's too hard to prove either way. However, upon closer examination of the appendages, I note that you appear to have depicted it with the endites reducing in size beginning on the sixth podomere rather than the eighth--i.e. with only three pairs of elongate endites instead of five. I would have assumed the rest were hidden by the carapace, but the position of the shaft endite seems to indicate otherwise. ] (]) 01:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


== '']'' ==
::::::::::: I’d be happy to discuss it more on another platform, but I’m simply following the rules set out here. There are five pairs of elongate filtering endites, and two smaller, reduced endites after them. ] (]) 01:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


]
:::::::::::: Here's how I'm counting the endites: . Am I misinterpreting something? ] (]) 02:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
]
Hello. I finally got around to finishing my reconstruction of ''Arthropleura''. I based it mostly on the new fossils of ''Arthropleura'' sp. from Montceau-les-Mines, although reduced the spines slightly, to represent an older individual, or a different species. I would have also made clean / orthographic renders, but the page is already short and cluttered as is, so first we would have to find a place to put this one. ] (]) 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


:It seems pretty nice for me! My concerns are, spine-like humps are known mostly from smaller specimens so not sure if it is also like that for adult one, and antennae segmentation being over 7, although yeah, ] seems have more antennae segments than smaller specimen. (problem is not specified in the paper or supplementary material) Do you have opinions, {{ping|Junnn11}}? ] (]) 12:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::: I did have to make a small edit to the reduced endites. Should be good now. ] (]) 04:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
::IMO the spines are still acceptable if it represent older Montceau (potentially new) species. The basal section of the antenna was interpreted as a specifically long 1st segment, but yeah it does not seems to be the case in that specimen. ] (]) 00:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Arthropleura mammata also probably had similar spines as a juvenile, and I did make sure to reduce their size from the height shown in the CT data. I hope the antennae are not too much of an issue, I think its inarguable that there are more than 7 segments in the larger specimen, but I understand its a weird position for wikipedia. sorry about that. I will also note here that I have done a massive overhaul of the ] article. I hope that isnt an issue. ] (]) 12:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== Placoderms and Chondrichthyans ==
:::::::::::::: I see now. It still needs work; the five elongate endite pairs should all be close to the same length, around twice that of the associated podomere (podomere 7 endite height to podomere height ratio is 1.3 in your reconstruction but 1.9 in the holotype) and the reduced endites should also be longer (podomere 8 ratio is 0.7 in your reconstruction but 1.5 in the holotype). The segments also don't exhibit the change from deep but proximodistally short in proximal segments to more elongate in more distal segments (podomere 5 height:depth ratio is 2.3 in the holotype and 1.5 in your reconstruction; podomere 8 ratio is 0.75 in the holotype and 1.75 in yours). ] (]) 05:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|PaleoEquii}} like I said earlier, before attempting to reconstruct a creature, it would be much better if you would upload a very very basic sketch which we can critique and you can very easily fix before you fully flesh it out. Are you still working on ] or have you moved on? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 06:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
::I will not be working on the Ursulinacaris any further; I’ve decided it would be best for me to only upload here infrequently at most. Use it or not, I do not want the Ursulinacaris illustration edited. ] (]) 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
::: My understanding is that PaleoEquii has blocked me on Twitter as they feel that my criticism of their work has been unfair in its intensity, and I feel that may be the cause of their decision to not upload work to Misplaced Pages as well. I apologize if they feel I have been unfairly harsh towards them; it was not my intention to be a jerk but it seems that I may have been. If they wish, and others here agree it would be for the best, I am willing to refrain from participating in reviewing any of their future uploads. Aesthetically, their work is far above the standard of much of the paleoart on Misplaced Pages, and it would be a shame to lose that because of my rudeness. I only wish they were more open to fully participating in the paleoart review process. ] (]) 23:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


My first set of placoderms along with a few other fish with a more updated look, I had help from Richard Carr for a few of the weirder placoderms like rolfosteus and gymnotrachelus. The general proportions are based on the equation from Engelman 2023 but with a bit of wiggle room since one or two were a little shorter than they probably would be.
:::: I'm not familiar with what happened offsite, but your comments here strike me as quite reasonable. The spirit of this review process is to ensure that our images hold up under all kinds of technical scrutiny. It is not a gallery, and it is not DeviantArt (and I think many uploaders - not to point fingers specifically - forget that). If PaleoEquii is not willing to have this image edited, and if there are still clear outstanding issues of accuracy or plausibility, we have no choice but to tag it as inaccurate, regardless of how high-quality it may be. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 23:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
{{Gallery
|File:Tubonasus lennardensis.png
|Tubonasus lennardensis
|File:Gymnotrachelus hydei.png
|Gymnotrachelus hydei
|File:Rolfosteus canningensis.png
|Rolfosteus canningensis
|File:Pholidosteus friedeli.png
|Pholidosteus friedeli
|File:Mcnamaraspis kaprios.png
|Mcnamaraspis kaprios
|File:Latocamurus coulthardi.png
|Latocamurus coulthardi
|File:Kiangyousteus yohii JW.png
|Kiangyousteus yohii
|File:Heintzichthys gouldii.png
|Heintzichthys gouldii
|File:Harpagofututor volsellorhinus.png
|Harpagofututor volsellorhinus
|File:Diademodus hydei.png
|Diademodus hydei
|File:Bryantolepis brachycephala.png
|Bryantolepis brachycephala
|File:Enseosteus marocanensis.png
|Enseosteus marocanensis
}} ] (]) 14:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


:No complaints here, and really glad to see these represented. As stated before I especially like the ''Harpagofututor'' and ''Diademodus'', and I appreciate the changes made to the latter prior to uploading. Great job as usual! ] (]) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' Size Comparsion ==


== Bashkyroleter ==
]
I've never done a size comparison of a <s>non-ornithodiran archosaurian</s> (that I remember) until now. How does this one look? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 13:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
:The scale looks fine if you're using the standard ''Doswellia'' lateral view skeletal first published by Weems (1980). I would personally make the legs more robust, though that's more personal preference than anything. I would also specify that it's based on ''Doswellia kaltenbachi'', rather than ''Doswellia sixmilensis''. The dorsal view in Weems (1980) may be an interesting opportunity for top-down size comparison, and would also be good for depicting the unusual width of the animal. Lastly, ''Doswellia'' is a non-archosaurian archosauriform like ''Vancleavea'', just to let you know. ] (]) 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::Oops. Half of me's still thinking that ''Doswellia'' is an abberant carnivorous aetosaur instead of a proterochampsian. I've strengthened the limbs a bit. I may eventually add in a dorsal view. Here are three new size charts for the time being, and a REAL aetosaur (''Aetosauroides''), which is actually my first pseudosuchian size comparison. It's quite a bit smaller than the specimen's estimated length in the paper, but it is still within the size range provided, so I hope that's okay. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
:::All three look good to me, tho I'm not an aetosaur expert. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 18:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
:::I would maybe add another foot of ''Ixalerpeton'' on the ground. I'm not sure it was saltatory. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
::::I think that it's fine to show the animal jumping, although I was unaware that there was some doubt about lagerpetids being saltatorial. I can add another leg if you really want. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Also, I believe there is a larger specimen of ''Aetosauroides'' - the specimen PVL 2052/1 (skull) had an estimated length of 25 cm, along with a body length estimate of 2 m, in . It is reported to be "1 1/4 times larger than" what I take to be the holotype. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
::::Updated! --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::Fine by me on both counts. There is no formal discussion of ''Ixalerpeton''{{'}}s saltatorial abilities in the literature so this is not a deal-breaker for me. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 10:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
<gallery> <gallery>
Bashkyroleter.jpg|
File:Silesaurus Scale.svg| '']''
File:Ixalerpeton Scale.svg| '']''
File:Aetosauroides Scale.svg| '']''
</gallery> </gallery>
Hello all. Can I have another review for my drawing? This time I tried to reconstruct Bashkyroleter based on the skull found on its Misplaced Pages page. For the body, I mainly using Dmitry Bogdanov reconstruction of other closely related species as base reference. And yes, I am aware Dmitry himself had drawn this taxa a while ago... But it is kind of obscured by other species from its location. So I thought I want to try making a more clear reconstruction?


Thank you in advance always...
==Deinosuchus riograndensis==


] (]) 14:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
]


:https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/search/?search=Daeng+dino&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image ] (]) 14:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Scott Hartman. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.
:If there are no major inaccuracies, I think I am going to upload it to the taxa page... But as always, if it is deemed inaccurate, please just take it down... ] (]) 15:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:Should definitely be cropped. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 03:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
:Comparing to skeletal reconstructions of other nycteroleters, I don't see any major discrepancies other than the fact that there should be five digits on all limbs (not super clear here). Perhaps more important is that the file should be renamed to specify the species (''mesensis'') because the genus is considered to be polyphyletic in recent literature. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::The article says it has an alligator-shaped head, but this one looks more like a Nile crocodile <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 16:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you for the reply. Ah yes, I am aware about the 5 digits but it is not quite visible from the angle I drew it.. About the species, I am not aware of the specific species. I will change it then.. Thanks! ] (]) 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Megatherium == == Amphimeryx ==
]
*Posted by {{IP|92.249.200.24}}
*The IP has also posted dinosaur paleoart discussed at ] which are plagiarized. Also, what happened to the claws on his left foot? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 18:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
::Concerns are probably best addressed on DeviantArt to the user Sphenaphinae. I have reason to suspect that the IP and Commons user Sphenaphinae are not who they claim to be. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 23:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
:::I requested him to put up the images he put up. You can message him on Deviantart about it.
::::Yeah, the foot claws should be there, the shortish hair seems nice, though, alluding to Mark Witton's recent blog post. Can't say much about the identity issue, but contacting the Deviantart user seems the only way. ] (]) 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


Another Quercy artiodactyl, this time tiny
== ''Scleromochlus'' reconstruction ==


]
has produced a new reconstruction of ''Scleromochlus'' as a sprawling basal archosauriform. Could someone modify this existing reconstruction or produce a new one? Thanks. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 20:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
: What particular modifications do you think are necessary? I assume that Bennett's assessment that ''Scleromochlus'' had a sprawling stance and a nearly plantigrade foot are the main ones, but are there any others? I feel like it's worth mentioning that Bennett's assessment that it is not an avemetatarsalian has been met with some skepticism among researchers online (e.g. ) so it might be wise to not assume that Bennett's reidentification of it as a stem-archosaur is definitive. ] (]) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
::It seems that Bennett also identified osteoderms, so those would have to be added as well. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 01:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
:::The osteoderms have been known since Benton's 1999 redescription of the taxon (and were observed in the original description but interpreted as gastralia). I'm not sure why Tamura's reconstruction lacks them, but it might just be the low detail of the image. ] (]) 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
::::With all these modifications, it would probably be easier to draw it from scratch... The original is almost too rough to spend time saving. ] (]) 08:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

== New ''Lemurosaurus'' reconstruction ==

]
The ] on the '']'' page is perhaps a bit zoologically improbable and/or terrifying to small children, so I decided to make a new one. What do you all think? I'm aware that this is not the ''Dryptosaurus'' reconstruction I said I'd do on the dinosaur page a few weeks back; I hit a roadblock on that one but hope to finish it soon. ] (]) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
:Certainly looks better. Based on for example this diagram, the back of the mandible should be deeper? Your shading makes it look like its depth is the same for its entire length. It also seems to be much narrower right behind the "chin" which isn't visible in the restoration. ] (]) 08:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
::I have revised the lower jaw (and tweaked some of the bosses). How does it look now? ] (]) 15:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
:::Looks fine to me. ] (]) 01:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
::::Thank you. If there's anything else I need to change, let me know, but I'm going to add it to the ''Lemurosaurus'' page now. ] (]) 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::Looks good to me, but just noticed this image, the Lemurosaurus looks even odder here: ] (]) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::They all look really odd <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 05:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I'm probably going to do more therapsid reconstructions over the coming weeks, so I'll keep those in mind. ] (]) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

== New distribution map for ''Zygolophodon'' ==
]

Wang et al. (2020) revalidate ''Miomastodon'' as a distinct genus from ''Zygolophodon'' based on comparisons of ''Zygolophodon gobiensis'' (Osborn & Granger, 1932) and ''Zygolophodon tongxinensis'' (Chen, 1978) with the type species of ''Miomastodon'', ''M. merriami'' but also the ''Zygolophodon'' type species and gomphotheres, placing both species in ''Miomastodon''. Therefore, the current map showing the range of ''Zygolophodon'' (taken from ) may have to be revised whereby the purple patches for North America and parts of East Asia are changed to pink to reflect the distribution of ''Miomastodon'' following Wang et al. (2020).

Shi-Qi Wang; Xiao-Xiao Zhang; Chun-Xiao Li (2020). Reappraisal of ''Serridentinus gobiensis'' Osborn & Granger and ''Miomastodon tongxinensis'' Chen: the validity of ''Miomastodon''. Vertebrata PalAsiatica in press. doi:10.19615/j.cnki.1000-3118.200310] (]) 16:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

== Images by Concavenator ==
The user {{u|Concavenator}} has uploaded some nice paleoart, which should still be reviewed here to be safe. I'll add dinosaurs here too, just to keep it in one place. Mostly looks good as far as I can see, but the Camarasaurus perhaps has too many hand claws, and the Concavenator has too sunken skull fenestrae? ] (]) 23:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
<gallery> <gallery>
Amphimeryx_life_reconstruction.png|Amphimeryx murinus
File:Mylodon darwini.png|'']''
Amphimeryx_size_comparison.png|Size chart
File:Entelodon magnus.png|'']''
</gallery> ] (]) 00:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
File:Deinotherium bozasi JG.png|'']''
* Already was the one who provided material images for the restorations, approved as usual. ] (]) 02:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
File:Australopithecus afarensis JG.png|'']''
File:Concavenator corcovatus V2.png |'']''
File:Camarasaurus supremus.png|'']''
File:Fauna of Batallones.png|'']'', '']'', '']''
</gallery>
:As far as the ones I can comment on go, Deinotherium and Australopithecus look alright, the Camarasaurus is good beyond the hands, and the Concavenator looks good to me, fenestrae as they are, except the for seemingly identical fingers and possibly the feathers. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 00:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
::I wonder if the toes are too short in the Entelodon? The hind feet look a bit too stumpy, compared to for example this skeletal of a relative: ] (]) 01:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
:::They kinda remind of Disney cartoons (especially ''Australopithecus'' which sort of looks like Baloo when he was dressed up like King Louis in the Jungle Book), which isn't something wrong, I just thought it's kinda funny. I don't really understand your comment about the ''Entelodon'' hooves. I will say for ''Australopithecus'' that that is a ''very'' muscular child with a ''very'' wide range of facial movement and expressions for such an early hominin (though that may just be the Disneyfication) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
::::I can see what you mean with the "Disney" style, but that shouldn't be a problem for most of them, as long as the anatomy is correct. But yeah, the apes probably shouldn't be smiling as much... As for Entelodon, it's not so much the hooves, more the distance between them and the toe-foot joint (compare with the same distance in the front feet), there should be "more toe" before the hoof begins. ] (]) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::Also, why is the ''Australopithecus'' mom be swinging at the very end of a small tree branch with a baby precariously perched on her back? They had a pretty humanlike physique, they wouldn't have been so adept at swinging around in the trees as orangutans, and do even chimps hold their babies on their backs when climbing or do they hold them on their bellies? Also, what's in the background for the ground sloth one? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 03:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::Can't say about the primate, but it seems to be fossil dung and skin next to the sloth. We have other such photos. ] (]) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
:::Most of these restorations look good, though I do agree that the Entelodon looks off. Not sure what's going on with the Concavenator, but it looks like it has a sail on its on arms, rather than quills, spines, feathers or whatever it had. I think the Camarasaurus tail looks a bit short, but that could just be me. The visible fenestrae, the identical fingers & visible front toes are easy fixes though. I also feel like it's for the best to spilt the images of Decennatherium, Tetralophodon & Machairodus.
::::Yeah, I agree the last image should split out, we can do that soon if they're all accurate. ] (]) 06:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


== '']'' by {{u|かずたき}} ==
== American lion (Panthera atrox) ==


]
<gallery>
PantheraLeoAtrox1.jpg
PantheraLeoAtrox1 (retouched).jpg
Panthera leo atrox Sergiodlarosa.jpg
Panthera leo atrox Sergiodlarosa (retouched).jpg
</gallery>


This unreviewed image of the recently described azhdarchid ''Nipponopterus'' was added to its page without review. -] (]) 17:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I find these images of the American lion to be far too pale, paler even than the African lion. These are otherwise nice images but not easy to recolour. What do people think of this attempt by User:PawellMM at the Graphics Lab? <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 09:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
:This is rough. The wing/hand posture is completely wrong. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:The retouching of the second image by Sergiodlarosa introduced far too much blue where the previous image was only slightly saturated. As well, I think the discussion of their colour shouldn't be divided between here and the talk page it was on already, so I'm declining to comment on that. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
:It seems to have an extra arm bone. ] (]) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think the discussion should be kept here, as this is more widely watched by the relevant people. But as I said on the article's talk page, if we want to follow that paper, which only presents a minority view, we should follow it more precisely. ] (]) 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
::Which? I see a scapula, upper arm, lower arm, and metacarpals. That said, it is pretty rough, and not sure about the proportions (the body looks too big). ] (]) 08:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::not an extra arm bone per se but having the humerus articulate with the scapula below the vertebral column contradicts every well-preserved pterosaur specimen ever found. In effect, the scapula is where the humerus should be. Body/neck ratio also wrong for azhdarchids... the arm is so wrong that I don't even care about the shrinkwrapped nasoantorbital fenestra. ] (]) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


== Port Kennedy Bone Cave Fauna ==
== Artwork depicting Pleistocene mammals of South America ==


I have recently been working on reconstructing Port Kennedy Bone Cave fauna, inlcuding Smilodon gracilis, Megalonyx wheatleyi, and Mericonyx inexpectatus. Specifically these were reconstructed in the context of the local Philadelphia area (with the Smilodon and Megalonyx being depicted in the Wissahickon). I noticed that the wikipedia page for the Port Kennedy Bone Cave lacks reconstructions of the animals discovered there, so I suggest these be added on the page. ] ] ] (]) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
<gallery>
:Hi, I'm not seeing all the taxa you mention? The sloth image also needs a Commons description. ] (]) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Pleistocene mammals of Chile.jpg
: The ''Smilodon'' in the drawing just look off compared to those of Mauricio Anton (e.g. , , ), even considering the obvious differences in detail and art style, so I would oppose inclusion. The restoration of ''Miracinonyx'' looks a lot better, but again there are issues with the tail, which looks crudely drawn like it shrinks where it joins the body, unlike that of say the living cheetah. ] (]) 17:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
South American Pleistocene equids.jpg
{{clear}}
Onohippidium reconstruction.png
</gallery>


== Andrewsarchus life reconstruction ==
It looks like these works depicting various South American mammals of the Pleistocene haven't been reviewed yet, any thoughts on them? BTW, I took the liberty of editing the nose of the Macrauchenia from the first image, as well as sharpening the overall image just a tad. ] (]) 11:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:I don't think we usually review images from journal articles, since they're supposedly already peer-reviewed, but the fix looks good! But those horses look a bit scrawny... ] (]) 13:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


]
== Longisquama ==
Uploaded by @] and added to the ''Andrewsarchus'' article without review. Figured it was best to post it here, seeing as the original full-body life construction was replaced for being too speculative (since ''Andrewsarchus'' is known exclusively from craniodental elements). ] (]) 15:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


:The texture of the skin looks a little off. I'm not sure of any mammal that has skin texture like that. ] (]) 19:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
]
::The skin was inspired by rhinos, since it was a large land mammal. The related hippo is also somewhat in the mix. ] (]) 08:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
This image has not been reviewed yet. Tamura's more recent ''Longisquama'' reconstruction seems slightly different anatomically (though it's too small to properly compare). If there are no problems, this is the only good ''Longisquama'' image that is not a fossil photograph (the only skeletal reconstruction posted here was declared inaccurate by its own author. I wonder if the dinosauromorph-like legs in this life restoration were based on that skeletal?) ] (]) 15:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:If those are intended to be oxpeckers, I am not sure that any passerines are even known from contemporary strata. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 20:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's certainly a possibility, although we don't know any leg material for ''Longisquama'' so we can't really say for sure. I also see what looks to be some shrinkwrapping of an antorbital fenestra, which is unlikely to have been present. We aren't fully sure about its relations (it could be a basal drepanosaur), though I would bet that it had a much more sprawling posture than currently depicted. ] (]) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::The accompanying article(?) lists them only as "tick birds", so I'm assuming that was the intention. Looking into it, there doesn't seem to be any records of ''Buphagus'' in the fossil record (let alone from any of the locales ''Andrewsarchus'' comes from), and there is no molecular data on their date of origin or even point of divergence from other muscicapoids. If they don't represent buphagids, they must represent a clade we have no evidence for, which would make them completely made up. Either way, ''very'' speculative. ] (]) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::We could cut the new one out if we think it's better. ] (]) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::These are just speculative, and may or may not be traditionally be oxpeckers, they’re at least just random birds. Also, oxpeckers are not really the only "tick birds," egrets and magpies are a couple that will often hitch a ride on large animals to eat their parasites. ] (]) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Oh thank you! Glad you love it. ] (]) 08:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== Palaeoart of Szymon Górnicki ==
::Even if we do not exactly know what it looked like beyond the head, its close relatives can restore a close picture, which is what I tried doing here. Nothing else too speculative. ] (]) 08:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This was discussed previously regarding Dmitri Bogdanov's reconstruction, which was deemed too speculative. Contrary to what you state, ''Andrewarchus'' has no known close relatives, and any detailed reconstructions of its postcranial anatomy should be considered very tentative to the point of diminishing educational value. Yours additionally includes entirely fictional passerine birds, something which is generally best to avoid to avoid misleading unaware, casual viewers. Misplaced Pages isn't a paleoart gallery, for better or worse, and even reconstructions that are visually appealing and within the realm of possibility may not see use due to there being more encyclopedic alternatives. Frankly I am of the opinion that if this were to be suitable for the page, Bogdanov's reconstruction would be as well, and its more clear silhouette and lack of fictional species would make it a preferable alternative. ] (]) 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Alright, although the birds aren’t fictional, they’re just speculative. ] (]) 19:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
<gallery> <gallery>
File:Arthroleptides dutoiti reconstruction.png|Illustration of a live Du Toit's torrent frog
File:Charging woolly rhinoceros by Szymon Górnicki.jpg|Charging ]
File:Arthroleptides Scale Chart.png|Chart showing the sizes of Arthroleptides species
File:Silesaurus opolensis by Szymon Górnicki.jpg|'']''
File:Restoration of Metoposaurus krasiejowensis by Szymon Górnicki.jpg|'']''
File:Life restoration of Lisowicia bojani (Szymon Górnicki).jpg|'']''
File:Life reconstruction of Paleorhinus (Szymon Górnicki).jpg|'']''
File:Restoration of Cyclotosaurus by Szymon Górnicki.jpg|'']''
File:Restorations of Stagonolepis robertsoni, after skeletal by Hartman, 2016.jpg|'']'' based on Scott Hartman's skeletal
File:Comparison of two Smok reconstructions by Szymon Górnicki.jpg|'']'' comparison
</gallery> </gallery>
Ok I realize this isn't exactly paleoart since this species survived into modern times (and might not even be extinct yet) but I figured I'd put it here anyways, if there's a similar review page for illustrations of extant fauna then I don't know about it. This species was last seen in 1962 and the preserved specimens have lost their original color so I had to restore it based on field notes, so there's some element of reconstruction like in paleoart rather than referencing photos of live individuals (which to my knowledge do not exist). ] (]) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
Szymon Górnicki uploaded his art to various articles without having them reviewed, any thoughts & criticisms of his work? They look pretty decent in my eyes, though the Dinosaurian version of Smok appears to have a pronated hand & overall looks a bit off in my opinion. ] (]) 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:Lifting the arms of Smok could also put the hands in that position I think. In any case, it seems to have claws on the fourht and fifth fingers, which it probably wouldn't, and the perspective of the toes seem weird. Also, seems like the Lisowicia has skin covering its, err, tooth beak? I now see many of our other dicynodont restorations also show this, but is that likely? Also, Lisowicia has three very similar restorations, is that warranted? ] (]) 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
::The croc-line reconstruction of ''Smok'' probably shouldn't be digitigrade. It also should only have three manual unguals, not five. It also looks a bit long-legged and short-bodied to me but I haven't checked the measurements. ''Lisowicia'' should not have a visible external ear, and even if it did have one it wouldn't be in that position. In at least ''Sangusaurus'' the caniniform process of the maxilla appears to have been covered by a beak, but I don't know if that can be applied to other dicynodonts. I see no value in having all three illustrations of ''Lisowicia'' on the page as is; only one—preferably the scale image—is needed. ] (]) 04:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
::: Not sure why there's so many Dicynodont restorations that cover the beaks with skin. I thought it was just a paleoart meme that caught on somehow, or perhaps it was based on the platypus' skin-covered beak? Anyway, I definitely think that there's too many similar looking restorations on the Lisowicia article, The two prior were enough. The location of the nostrils looks a bit strange compared to the other restorations. ] (]) 04:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: In the absence of finding any better sources, I found a Twitter discussion in which Christian Kammerer provides evidence for a keratinous sheath covering the caniniform process in ''Placerias'' , explicitly in the context of the beak covering the processes. The position of the nostrils doesn't look too problematic to me personally. ] (]) 05:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Ah, seems we'll have quite some work ahead of us if that conclusion ever sees print.. ] (]) 09:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::Did ''Paleorhinus'' really have that short of a tail? I must admit that I know little about phytosaurs. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::In a strictly lateral view the tail is definitely too short, having compared it to Hartman's reconstruction which it appears to be based on. I think the intention was for the end of the tail to be foreshortened away from the viewer, though it doesn't quite come across that well. A few other anatomical bits and pieces to mention; ''Silesaurus'' and ''Stagonolepis'' have the same manual ungual problem as ''Smok'', and the ear on ''Metoposaurus'' is in a funny position, and should correspond to where the otic notch would be.] (] | ]) 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::As far as published sources go on the dicynodont beak issue, the redescription of ''Sangusaurus'' explicitly indicates that the beak probably extended onto the caniniform process (describing the position of the posterior margin of the beak correlates as being on the posterior margin of the caniniform process), and gives no indication that this is an unusual extent for the beak correlates. ''Diictodon'' is also described as having keratin on the caniniform process . ''Lystrosaurus'' has also been figured with a beak covering the caniniorm process . Crompton and Hotten (1967) describe the beak extending to the ''Mundplatt'', a membrane they suggest extended to the posterior margin of the caniniform process. All in all, it seems clear to me that dicynodont beaks did include the caniniform process, and I can't find any indication it was otherwise. ] (]) 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, anyone for rounding up our dicynodont restorations that show the skin covered part of the beaks so they can be corrected? We could just do a section with a gallery where anyone can add images as they find them. ] (]) 15:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

== Edits to Dmitry Bogdanov's Anteosaurus & Mojcaj's Titanophoneus==


<gallery> <gallery>
Dongnanosuchus size.png
File:Anteosaurus magnificus.jpg|'']''
Dongnaosuchus skull reconstruction.png
File:Anteosaurus in landscape.jpg|''Anteosaurus'' landscape
File:Titanophoneus head.jpg|Mojcaj's '']''
</gallery> </gallery>
] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


Here's something a wanted to do for a couple of years now! Any thoughts on my edits to Bogdanov's Anteosaurus restorations? I hid the teeth under lips, removed the ear holes, made the skin around the skull less tight looking & cropped & sharpened the first image. ] (]) 12:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:Looks good, the lower "lip" looks pretty smooth compared to the upper one, perhaps also give it some shading so it looks like it protrudes more along its length? If what I'm saying is even understandable... ] (]) 13:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
::I do get what you mean. Funny enough, I did actually think of putting some more "texture" or something to the chin, but didn't think anyone would noticed due to how compressed & pixely the originals were. Anyway, I'll fix it up tomorrow. ] (]) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Cool, another thing I noticed with DB's images is that they often don't have an entirely white background, but is would probably be best if they did, since many of them are used in cladograms, for example, which looks odd with these sometimes bluish or greyish whites. ] (]) 13:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
::::I don't get where Bogdanov got those proportions from at all. The anteosaur with the most complete skeleton, ''Titanophoneus'', looks nothing like that and very little of the postcranial anatomy of ''Anteosaurus'' is known. Compare with my ''Anteosaurus'' . I never got around to finishing getting my image reviewed, and looking back at it I'm dissatisfied with it so I might revise it. In particular, I gave it too much of a sprawling stance and I wouldn't give it visible ears if I redid it. As for your edits, the lips don't look great to me, but I don't have any other significant issues aside from my fundamental concern about the proportions Bogdanov gave it. ] (]) 21:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps he based the proportions of the animal on more distantly related Dinocephalians? Anyway, I've tried to change the length of the body & tail to better match Titanophoneus, though I was being a bit conservative. Also, I won't edit the second image until the first is critiqued. I would also like to apologise for taking so long to respond. ] (]) 06:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::Come to think of it, where does the claim that ''Titanophoneus'' has 60 caudals come from? Kammerer's review of the Anteosauria indicates that a complete caudal series is not known. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: As you might be able to guess, I still think the tail and body look rather short. I also think the hind legs look a bit short, but that might be a product of it being in a crouched pose (it's worth noting here that dinocephalians walked with their hind legs nearly erect). Orlov (1958) reports that there are 38 caudals preserved in ''Titanophoneus'' specimen PIN 157/1 and estimates the complete sequence of caudals as having contained at least 60: "Общее число предкрестцовых позвонков у титанофонеуса не менее 33; хвостовых сохранилось 38, но, по-видимому, было более 60." When I did my own ''Anteosaurus'' reconstruction, I took that into account; I don't think I could make the tail significantly shorter while remaining consistent with the fact that there are 38 preserved caudals and Orlov's interpretation that numerous caudals are missing. Remarkably, Orlov's ''Titanophoneus'' skeletal (the classic one that everyone copies) actually has ''too short'' of a body compared to the number of vertebrae he reported; his skeletal has only 26 presacrals of which 5–6 are cervicals, contrasting with his statement that it had 33 presacrals of which 7–8 are cervicals. Again, I took this into account when making my own. It's also worth mentioning that anteosaur trackways have tail drag marks, indicating a tail long enough to reach the ground in an upright-limbed walking pose. I am, incidentally, working on revising my ''Anteosaurus'' reconstruction right now, and will post it here at some point if it's desired. ] (]) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Ah, I'd missed the sentence "Lectotype complete skeleton" in Kammerer's review. Fair enough. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: I would be all for your updated ''Anteosaurus'' reconstruction ], so do upload it when you're ready. ] (]) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: I've made the tail, body & even the neck longer on Dmitry's restoration. Any more critiques & criticisms that I should take into account? I have a sneaking suspicion that I should've made the tail even longer.... Anyway, all this talk of ''Titanophoneus'' has made me think that some of images for the genus may need to be reviewed/re-reviewed. ] (]) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::It looks a lot better now. The tail could probably be longer, but it now looks long enough to be at least consistent with what's known (after all, according to Orlov, less than two-thirds of the tail is preserved so there's probably some room for interpretation in the exact length). The limbs now look a little short to me, particularly the hind limbs, but that might just be the crouched stance. My one significant remaining critique is that I think it would look better with the teeth fully covered by lips. I'll post my revised ''Anteosaurus'' for review when I complete it, which might not be for a few weeks—I'm juggling a couple of projects at the moment. ] (]) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
::I forgot to mention that I also updated ''Anteosaurus'' landscape some time ago. For the sake of simplicity, I've also placed my edited version of Mojcaj's ''Titanophoneus'' here. Any thoughts & critiques? Ornithopsis, I'm a bit cautious to fully close the mouth of the Bogdanov's Anteosaurus due to a previous mishap with . But I might do it if I get the OK from other users as well. ] (]) 06:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


== Unreviewed images by ] ==
== '']'' and '']'' (and co.)==
<gallery> <gallery>
File:Counillonia profile.png|''Counillonia'' File:Tuanshanzia linearis.png|''Tuanshanzia linearis''
File:Repelinosaurus profile.png|''Repelinosaurus'' File:Grandilingulata qianxiensis.png|''Grandilingulata qianxiensis''
File:Ufudocyclops profile.png|''Ufudocyclops'' File:Tuanshanzia fasciaria.png|''Tuanshanzia fasciaria''
File:Proterotainia sp..png|''Proterotainia'' sp.
File:Tawuia_and_epibionts.png|''Tawuia'' & epibionts
</gallery> </gallery>
These images got removed from their respective pages for being unreviewed, so the obvious answer was to post them here and get them reviewed. ] (]) 09:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
]
The other day I finished illustrating the two Laotian dicynodonts described last year, ''Counillonia'' and ''Repelinosaurus'', and figured the articles could maybe use the images since it's otherwise pretty bare bones for them. They were each based on the holotypes where possible, with the referred ''Repelinosaurus'' specimen used to fill in the gaps where needed, and related taxa as basis for the mandibles. Baring in mind ], I've tried to 'blend' the texture of the upper beak into the rest of the face in the manner of a tortoise, rather than clearly demarcating beak from skin. This goes more so for ''Repelinosaurus'', which was based on the more robust and undistorted LPB 1993-2 specimen that was explicitly described with rugose maxillae and postorbital bars. ] (] | ]) 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
:Another dicynodont from 2019, '']''! Like the Laotian dicynodonts, I figure the article could use some actual images of ''Ufudocyclops'' instead of just referring to images of ''Stahleckeria''. Once again, it's based on the holotype skull and the two referred specimens, particularly a fragment of mandible to roughly get the shape of the anterior jaw right. Assuming the lack of critiques means the other two are good to go I may go ahead and add them to their articles, but any comments for fixing them are appreciated. ] (] | ]) 03:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::...And I went ahead and whipped up a scale diagram for ''Ufudocyclops'' too, why not? This is my first attempt at a scale diagram like this, and it's mostly modified from the scale diagram of ''Stahlackeria'' (]), pioneer dork and all, due to their close relation (and I figured it would be easier than starting entirely from scratch). I modified the head to match the skull of ''Ufudocyclops'' (based on my life restoration above) and scaled the whole thing down to match the skull measurements for the holotype given in Kammerer ''et al.'' (2019), with other appropriate alterations to the diagram made as needed. Hopefully it looks organic and not something frankensteined together, and I'm fairly pleased with the result, but it's still all a new medium to me. Any thoughts? ] (] | ]) 01:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::: I see nothing inaccurate with any of these. The eye of ''Counillonia'' looks a bit peculiar to me, but otherwise, they look good, the ''Ufudocyclops'' portrait in particular; I'm not sure how visible the ear would actually be but that's definitely not clearly inaccurate. ] (]) 21:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: Good stuff, with hindsight I can see what you mean about the eyes and the ears, especially with how the latter changes in appearance between the Laotian dicynodonts and ''Ufudocyclops''. I've gone in and fixed both ''Counillonia'' and ''Repelinosaurus'' up a bit, including changes to the eyes and ears, as well as the general rendering, particularly on the ''Repelinosaurus'', so they should hopefully look better now. ] (] | ]) 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


:Definitely notebook lines are unneeded, needs to get rid of. ] (]) 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' Size Comparison ==
::Thanks for the advice, however, in my experience, attempting to remove these notebook lines is not only difficult but also makes the images worse. I'll need to create some new illustrations at some point. ] (]) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Should I keep adding new illustrations here or should I make new sections for them? ] (]) 07:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::I’d say make new sections for them. ] (]) 14:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::alright. I'll do that then. ] (]) 17:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Is there a way to make it automatically add the date and time to the new section because I had to add that manually last time. ] (]) 19:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Titanoides new life reconstruction ==
]
So... pliosaurids have returned - and they're now vivid purple. I've scaled ''H. longirostris'', but I didn't include it since I couldn't find length estimates for it. Hopefully I've reinflated the torsos sufficiently. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
:White seems to have reported a skull length of 680 mm for ''H. longirostris'' here: '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
::Wouldn't extrapolating a TL estimate from skull length be an ] issue? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 18:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Ah, here we go. Benton reports 5 m TL with 70 cm skull (which is consistent with White): '']'' (] &#124; ]) 18:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
::::Done! It's not quite at the 5m mark, but it's pretty close (anyways, I'd guess that 5m is an approximation). --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


Little(ish) fella to replace the old Bogdanov art ] ] (]) 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' skull ==


:It looks very good, but the file is a bit low res. Is that the original or did it get compressed? ] (]) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
]
::I don't typically work at a ''super'' high resolution (simply out of habit), but i could absolutely resize the image. The conversion to a .png format may have caused some compression. ] (]) 22:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
]
*Is the Bogdanov version inaccurate? ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
An extremely obscure one today, a bizarre '']'' relative with the most extreme cranial thickening of any known mammal, and one of only two deer species ever to have inhabited Africa , and suprisingly recently with latest known dates of 4500-4000 BC. The image is directly redrawn from , so I don't think there should be any serious accuracy concerns. The skull is of a really old individual which is why there are no visible sutures. ] (]) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:Is there a way to get the whole horn in there? It's visually a bit confusing. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:: This is how the photograph itself is so it's not that easy to work around. Only the proximal cylindrical part of the antler is preserved, so I'm not sure there would be much to show regardless. A partial proximal antler ia shown on fig 15 of the paper, but I'm not sure how how it would be orientated relative to this specimen. ] (]) 19:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


== Euparkeria == == ''Koonaspides'' ==


] At Ta-tea-two-te-to's request. ] (]) 17:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
]
This image differs a lot from Gregory Paul's skeletal reconstruction, having a more robust body (and tail), an excessively rectangular head, strange legs and a seemingly digitigrade stance. ] (]) 21:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:I'm not too fond of this illustration. The jaw seems detached from the cranium, the ear hole is missing, the back has an unusual arched shape, and there are too many osteoderm rows. I'm much more fond of Taenadoman's interpretation. Nobu Tamura's newer CGI version is also decent. I'd be fine with slapping an inaccurate label on this one, we've got better equivalents so touch-ups would not be necessary. ] (]) 02:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


:This seems so nice to me, matches with morphology descripted in Jell & Duncan, 1986 (it is inaccessible, if someone want to see I can send in Discord) and modern anaspidids. ] (]) 09:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' Size Comparison ==
::Well, probably it would need extra uropods as modern members have 2 pair of that. ] (]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Pteranodon ==
]
One more pliosaurid for April. I think that I may also have size charts for '']'', '']'', and '']'' buried somewhere - I'll see if I can dig them up in May. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 12:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


]
{{clear}}
Please review for accuracy. Go easy, this is my first pterosaur! ] (]) 22:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' ==

]
This skeletal reconstruction was drawn in 2015 and doesn't cite any sources, and because only a mandible and teeth are known, extrapolating other anatomical details such as posture or a sagittal crest of a Miocene ape is, in my opinion, unsafe because post-cranial anatomy is poorly known for Miocene apes, and I'm unaware of one with a sagittal crest. Also, the front view of the skull is far too narrow. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 17:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
*I've made a drawing of the holotype. Since I literally just traced it, I'm gonna assume it's good to go and put it on the article. I figured I might as well mention it here <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 16:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
]
:: Yeah, I think the OR is extreme enough for that complete skeletal that it might be grounds for deletion. Nice drawing of the jaw. Looks like it was done freehand? ] (]) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I traced it on my iPad using a note-taking app <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 23:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

== Request: '']'' size comparison and maybe other stuff ==
]
]
Been a long time since I was here. I'm currently working on '']'', an obscure and dubious plesiosaur from Late Cretaceous Scandinavia and though I recently ensured that it wouldn't be an imageless article by getting some of images of ''Scanisaurus'' fossils up on commons, it's still somewhat lacking in imagery. I realize asking someone to do paleoart for it is a bit far (though if someone wants to that's fine 👀) but perhaps someone wants to do a size comparison for it? Help would be greatly appreciated :)

The material referred to ''Scanisaurus'' is very limited, everything we have on its appearance (about 4 to 5 meters long, relatively short neck for an elasmosaurid) can be found in . The only decent modern restoration of this genus in particular can be found on the page labelled as page 155 of , maybe that could be useful for making a size diagram. ] (]) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
:I made a quick restoration myself, should be fine since I followed what was in the 2018 paper for everything, but some of you might want to have a look at it anyway. All that's needed now is a size diagram. ] (]) 10:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
::Here's a size chart modified from my '']''. Do things need changing or is this satisfactory? It doesn't seem like the remains are very substantial. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 22:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Thank you, looks good! No accuracy concerns here since the fossils, as you say, don't tell us a whole lot about its appearence. ] (]) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

::::There was a recent paper out arguing for horizontal tail flukes I think, is there anything to this? ] (]) 10:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
{{clear}}

== Request: '']'' size comparison ==
]
I've done quite a bit of work in expanding ''Cartorhynchus'' and I think it could use a size comparison. A (somewhat low-res) skeletal is available in Fig. 2 of this paper: Thanks. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:I've made the silhouette. Would you prefer the animal in the water or on land? I probably won't finish the size chart until Friday (I've been really busy lately). --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
::In water, I think. Shows the anatomy better (even if it's just a silhouette). No worries, thanks for the help. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 17:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Here it is! Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 12:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::::This is great, thanks! Looks good to me. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

== Copyright status of images of paleolithic artwork ==

{{strikethrough|I have questions regarding the copyright of images taken of Paleolithic artwork, (which I suppose can be considered to be paleoart in some sense, given many of the depicted animals are extinct). My question is whether they would be considered public domain as images of art (as the artists of the work are long since deceased), or the respective copyright of the image taker. Kind regards. ] (]) 15:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)}}
Nevermind, the answer is no as the Canvas is 3d, per commons discussions. ] (]) 17:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:Well, if the rock surface is flat, it is as 2D as a painting. I think we would mainly have problems if a painting was painted across a bulging rock area where the photographer would actually have to be able to take a choice of angle. But we shouldn't show for example rock formations in the same photo, and only crop to the painting itself. Likewise, if the frame of a public domain painting is showing in a random image we find on Google, the frame should be cropped out, because the photographer holds the copyright to that 3D part of the photo. ] (]) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

== Drawing of a cave painting of Megaloceros giganteus at Cougnac ==

]

Another unusual one at WP/Paleoart today, a drawing from a photograph (which can be found ). I'm not sure if cave paintings have ever featured here before. I tried to authentically portray the line thickness for the charcoal, which is why the line thickness varies so much, the left edge of the drawing isn't actually drawn, but is part of the cave morphology. The image is a bit warped as it isn't drawn on a flat surface. ] (]) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:Should be fine, I had a similar image in the ] article (Relationship with humans section), I had uploaded a trace someone else did, but I ended up retracing it myself to be safe (see discussion under image review here:). ] (]) 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::Is there something wrong with the copyright status of ] and ]? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The first one is a selfmade photo of a user who seems to have photographed a replica on flat surface, so that should be fine, and the photo should also get a PD old tag along with the CC tag. The second one is also usermade, so that should be fine, and it illustrates the point of cave paintings on non-flat surfaces. If that photo had just been found on a Google search and uploaded as PD, it probably wouldn't fly because the cave walls (if it is not just a cave replica) are obviously not flat. ] (]) 07:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

== ''Parocnus serus'' skull ==

]
An extinct ground sloth from Hispaniola. Drawn from , missing the jugal (apparently a common taphonomic issue with Caribbean sloth skulls). I think the teeth are also loose from the sockets (at least in the upper jaw) as they look overly long and I saw another caribbean sloth skull in a paper which was noted to have this issue, which looked very similar.] (]) 22:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


:It doesn't look like it has pteroids. ] (]) 23:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Megatherium range map ==
::I think the texturing's just weird in general. The brachiopatagium looks essentially undifferentiated from the skin of the body. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 01:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Pteroids added. How should I differentiate the brachiopatagium? ] (]) 21:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Perhaps just a crisper line. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't think the brachiopatagium would have had feathers on it, that would probably do the trick. ] (]) 11:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*Isn't the current thinking that the wing tips would have been rounded? ] (]) 20:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::The distal phalanx is more strongly curved in ''Pteranodon'' than other taxa but the rounded wingtips thing usually feels overdone. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 21:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:tail should be much less chunky. Not sure how i feel about the wing posture either. When flying they would have wings extended near perpendicular to the body, so the angle between the metacarpal and first wing phalanx should be much less sharp ] (]) 05:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== ''Eramoscorpius'' ==
]
]
Based on , I tried to avoid using straight lines to make it more natural looking. ] (]) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


] Ok, I guess I can now update ''Odaraia'' and ''Arthropleura'', although it may take some time. ] (]) 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:In the second source and your map, its range appears to extend a bit further to the southwest. Do you know why this is? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I think it's because of different levels of interpolation of the range from the single find in central Chile, as indicated on the first image. ] (]) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
A new range map, this time for Macrauchenia and Xenorhinotherium. ] (]) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


:Thanks for the new artwork! Just take your time for the updates.
== '']'' Skull Diagram (And Some Other Things) ==
:The only issue of this reconstruction is the fingers of right pedipalp, which should curve inward instead of upward. In scorpion's pedipalpal pincer, the curvature is perpendicular (to inward) to the arrangement of the fingers (free finger latero-ventral, fix finger dorso-mesial). It's better to explain by ]. ] (]) 04:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation!, I have already fixed it. ] (]) 12:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


]
I've recently been preparing an expansion for the '']'' article (you can see it ]), so I thought that this would be a good time to upload this diagram. I've had this image for a while (ever since I worked on '']''). I followed the reconstructed skull diagram in Ketchum & Benson (2011) pretty closely, since ''Peloneustes'' actually has a pretty decently preserved skull (pliosaurid crania apparently cave in quite frequently postmortem). I scaled it to this specimen (NHMUK R4058), although I could scale it to a different one. Comments? Feedback on the article draft would also be welcome, I worry that it's too extensive. It also appears that one of my main sources, , is in the public domain. Is there any special procedure for uploading stuff from BHL?


Here are two other semi/vaguely-related things on the subject of British fossil reptiles from the days of old: a restored '']'' skull for a skeletal I'm working on (restored with ''Torvosaurus'' (gray & purple), ''Dubreillosaurus'' (yellow), ''Afrovenator'' (red), and generic elements (orange), and I just realized that I forgot about '']'' somehow). I don't think that I'll be ready to post anything else on this subject for quite a while, so that's why it's here and not at ]. Additionally, I've been working on updates for my '']'' size chart. I scaled a silhouette based on Hartman's skeletal to a skull length of ~55cm, which should have produced a preflexural (snout to tail bend) length of 2.8m according to , but instead gave me one less than 2m. Any recommendations about what to do? (Sorry for this massive post). --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 00:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


== Liulaobei Formation size chart ==
:''Peloneustes'' skull looks good. The length of the description is not unheard of, but I think it's a bit too jargony right now. Focusing on autamorphies and comparative anatomy will probably help you cut it down.
]
:I did a Ctrl + F for 2.8 m in the Massare paper... this figure seems to be based on their assumption that skull (or "jaw") length is 20% of preflexural length in ''Ichthyosaurus''. What this would mean is that the preflexural vertebral column is four times the length of the skull. From eyeballing Hartman's skeletal this doesn't seem to be the case. One possibility is that Hartman's skeletal is not ''I. communis'' — there is, after all, more than one species. This plaster cast of what should be a complete ''I. communis'' specimen matches the 20% ratio: '']'' (] &#124; ]) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
] Here is a size chart I made of various organisms from the Tonian aged Liulaobei Formation. This formation doesn't yet have an article, but it might fit with the Huainan biota (it is part of the Huainan Group), though I think that it might constitute a different biota. Also, I don't know about whether or not to keep the texture of the sketchbook. I don't think it can be removed without making the text/scale bar look out of place.
::On BDL or archive.org uploads, I zoom is as much as possible before downloading the images there, and then I crop and colour correct them. Here is an example from the same paper I think, at archive.org: ] (]) 14:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
] (]) 00:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The pliosaur skull looks fine, I don't know enough to comment on the Ichthyosaurus, but I am aware that the ''Megalosaurus'' has a jugal preserved. From that through cross-scaling via Torvosaurus you get a lower skull roof and consequently a more Torvosaurus-like long and deep snout. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 16:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Regarding ''Megalosaurus'': The jugal (it's green instead of blue, this was mainly to distinguish which institution the specimen came from, something that won't be present on the finished skeletal diagram) seems to cross-scaled correctly with Torvo. I do notice that it articulates with the maxilla more posteriorly than in Hartman's skeletal, so that may be part of the weirdness. I'll look into it. Here's the version with ''Wiehenvenator'' parts: . --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 00:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


:I made an alternate version in Krita that I think looks a lot cleaner. I'm unsure what to do with the old one though. I might make the digitally altered one an edit to the old one. ] (]) 02:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== Diprotodon skeletal mounts and skulls ==


== ''Changchengia'' ==
It has come to my attention that most museum display mounts of the skull of '']'' are inaccurate, and are based on skulls that have been distorted by crushing, due to the heavy pneumatisation of the cranial portion of the skull. Accurate models and drawings based on uncrushed skulls are displayed on the right. ] ] The paper the 3d model and drawing are from states that the nasal turbinates were not restored, but I don't think this is a huge issue for external morphology. EDIT: fully rotatable 3d model of uncrushed skull is ] (]) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
<gallery> <gallery>
File:Changchengia stipitata.png|''Changchengia stipitata''
File:Diprodoton.jpg
File:Changchengia sp 1.png|''Changchengia'' sp. 1
File:Diprotodon Australis - geograph.org.uk - 1514361.jpg
File:Changchengia sp. 2.png|''Changchengia'' sp. 2
File:Diprotodon australis skeleton 1.JPG
File:Changchengia sp 3.png|''Changchengia'' sp. 3
File:Diprotodon australis skeleton.JPG
File:Diprotodon.jpg
File:Em - Diprotodon optatum - 3.jpg
File:Diprotodon australis skull.JPG
File:Diprotodon skull, jjron, 29.11.2010.jpg
</gallery> </gallery>
:Is the problem the projection of the nasal bones? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 17:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I think the external nasal bones are among the most likely parts to be broken off, so they are debatable. I think one of the main issues is the ventral-anterior dorsal-posterior bar on the cranium that connects to the Zygomatic bar and the orbit in the museum specimens, which simply doesn't exist on the uncrushed specimens and is an artifact of dorsal-ventral crushing of the endocranial sinuses, this also causes issues with the overall profile of the top of the cranium. ] (]) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::: , which should make what I am saying clearer, having looked at the 3d, what is a bar structure on the museum models is actually a relatively sharp edge transitioning to the depressed front of the cranium behind the vomer, which is somewhat reminiscent but different to the museum specimen. ] (]) 18:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::The best we can do is probably use a photo in the taxobox where the error is less apparent. I doubt we'll get an up to date mount any time soon, if one even exists. We can add a tag like the one here on Commons photos where it is obvious. ] (]) 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


Here are all the Images I made for Changchengia. The Chuanlinggou Formation forms still currently have the lines since I made them a while ago, but I made the C.stipitata illustration more recently. I was originally going to leave the C.stipitata illustration with the paper texture, but there were some smudges of the paper so I decided to remove the background digitally.
== Possible anachronism ==
] (]) 09:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ''Skara anulata'' ==
]
The Commons description doesn't mention the species, but it's used on '']'' (which went extinct 7 mya), '']'' (which appeared 5 mya), and '']'' (which appeared 2.5 mya) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 19:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::The image description clearly states that the image represents the Pleistocene, which renders the argentavis identification the most unlikely. I would suspect that the bird represents either a smaller teratorn or a condor. ] (]) 19:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:(Edit conflict) I don't think any of them were identified in the original upload, but we can be sure it's Megatherium at least, since the same drawing of it was uploaded separately. But it lived alongside Glyptodon, didn't it? We can just remove the reference to the bird, might be a condor, who knows... ] (]) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


]I have been wanting to make this recon for a long time, so here it is. The next one now is ''Odaraia''. ] (]) 12:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' Size Comparison ==


:Looks pretty good. Could I add it to the Skaracarida page? ] (]) 21:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{multiple image
::Thanks! I think it would be good to wait and see if @] has any comments on the accuracy. ] (]) 20:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
|image1=Kronosaurus scale.svg
:::Alright. ] (]) 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
|caption1=Current version
:::I see no obvious issues. Yery detailed work! ] (]) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
|image2=Kronosaurus Scale V2.svg
:Ooh, Skara finally gets a reconstruction! Also, I could probably expand the Skaracarida page; gives me something to do other than Precambrian stuff. ] (]) 16:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
|caption2=New version
}}


== ] ==
Here's something that I'm very excited to share - a size komparison of ''Kronosaurus queenslandicus''! Our current size comparison is a bit odd-looking, with missing teeth, no trailing edge on the hind flippers, and no caudal fin (which can be inferred to exist through ''Peloneustes'', ''Rhomaleosaurus'', and cryptoclidids). I relied heavily on the Devourer of Gods thesis while creating this. One thing that I noticed is that the "Plasterosaurus" silhouette only came out at ~12 m when scaled to the 2.6 m mandible - perhaps scaling it to the 2.9 m report would be better? To create a rough "skeletal" for reference, I sliced up a photo of the mount in GIMP and reassembled it with McHenry's skull. After making this, I'm considering making charts for ''Sachicasaurus'' & ''"K." boyacensis''. Any comments on this size comparison? Please analyze it brutally - ''Kronosaurus'' can be a contentious taxon. Also, does anyone know if any work's being done on the "Richmond pliosaur" (actually a polycotylid)? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::The Kronosaurus Korner website confirms that it's a polycotylid and explains that the "Richmond pliosaur" nickname was made back when scientists thought that polycotylids were pliosaurs. . As far as a know, the specimen is still taxonomically undescribed but the website states that phylogenetic analyses were made on it. For my take on the reconstruction, it is much better than the old one currently in the article. I haven't studied too much about Kronosaurus, but I have a few comments. First, I think that there should be some indication given in the diagram that the Harvard Mount is inaccurately long since people might think that the mount is depicted as the "upper estimate" of Kronosaurus. Second, it seems to me that the parietal crest for the MCZ 1285 proper reconstruction looks too short. Great job on the diagram! ] &#124; ] 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Thanks! What exactly should the parietal crest look like? Right now it's both slightly longer and taller than in the McHenry (2009) skull reconstruction (although I'm not sure that that reconstruction accounts for the fact that pliosaurid posterior crania tend to cave in significantly). The labels can be changed pretty easily, perhaps to something like 'MCZ 1285 - Historic Reconstruction' and 'MCZ 1285 - Revised Reconstruction'? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Just wanted to note we have a photo of the "Richmond pliosaur" on Commons, which sat unidentified on Flickr for years with only a Swedish description. Not sure what we can use it for until the specimen is described, though... ] (]) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Macrophyseter}}, I've made the parietal crest a bit taller, akin to what I did in the ''Sachicasaurus'' and ''"K." boyacensis'' size comparisons below. I've revised the labels, too. How does this version look? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
]
::::::Looks pretty good to me! ] &#124; ] 05:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a size comparison of one of ''Kronosaurus''{{'}} Colombian cohorts, ''] vitae''. ''Sachicasaurus'' is huge, complete, and published in a freely licensed paper, so its size comes with a greater degree of confidence than that of ''Kronosaurus''. It's about 10.1 m long here, which is close to the estimate of 10 m provided by Páramo-Fonseca et. al. (2018). Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:Have you also checked the bodily proportions against tables 1 and 3? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::I assume you mean 2 and 3? Not until I read your comment, but going by table 2, the neck seems okay, as does the precaudal series based on rough guesses & added cartilage after ''Kronosaurus''. Table 3 deals with appendicular elements, most of which are in perspective here and therefore don't have determinable lengths. Table 1 was used to scale the skull, and with it, the animal. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I did mean Table 1. I was concerned that you may have used the specimen's photograph directly. That's fine then. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 21:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::That is what I tried to do initially, but I realized that something wasn't right when the scale bars for the skull and body didn't match by a significant margin... --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 00:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
]
* Here's the third promised pliosaurid - ''"K. boyacensis'' (which may in the future become ''Sachicasaurus boyacensis''). It came out at about 9.7 m, a bit on the lower side but well within the range recoverd by McHenry (2009). The silhouette is based on the photogrammetric reconstruction, ''Kronosaurus'', and ''Sachicasaurus'', with the proportions cross-checked against the provided measurements. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== Models by Peter Menshikov ==


<gallery> <gallery>
Jiangxisuchus size wikipedia.png
File:Tullimonstrum Model.jpg|'']''
Jiangxisuchus skull.png
File:Aetosaurus ferratus Model.jpg|'']''
File:Jachaleria candelariensis.jpg|'']''
File:Pseudochampsa ischigualastensis.jpg|'']''
File:Grendelius pseudoscythica.jpg|'']''
File:Goniopholididae from Berezovsk coal mine.jpg|] indet. from Berezovsk coal mine (])
File:Austriadactylus cristatus.jpg|'']''
File:Austriadactylus cristatus (view from above).jpg|'']''
File:Tashtykia primaeva.jpg|'']''
File:Atopodentatus unicus.jpg|'']''
File:Rhamphorhynchidae from Berezovsk coal mine.jpg|] indet. from Berezovsk coal mine (])
File:Rhamphorhynchidae from Berezovsk coal mine (view from above).jpg|] indet. from Berezovsk coal mine (])
</gallery> </gallery>
] (]) 14:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
Here are the new models by ] (Peter Menshikov). He plans to create animation with them. Are there any errors? In the future, I will add even more files to the gallery. ] (]) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:The ''Grendelius'' is really lumpy, the quadrupeds are all missing their manual unguals, and the ''Austriadactylus'' is missing a rudder and its teeth don't match up with the fossils. I haven't done any rigorous comparisons yet, so there may be even more anatomical problems present. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 17:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::The ''Grendelius'' and ''Austriadactylus'' updated. ] (]) 05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Not fond of the wing membrane on the latter. Should attach at the ankle? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::A new version of the file has already been uploaded. ] (]) 09:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Do claws of ''Jachaleria'' and ''Aetosaurus'' look better now? ] (]) 08:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure aetosaur osteoderms were not subcutaneous. That's what it looks like for this model. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 19:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::Is the new version better? ] (]) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes. Glaring issues outstanding: aetosaurs have quite sizeable teeth, and the fourth and fifth fingers should not have claws. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 05:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::And now? ] (]) 08:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::There appears to have been a misunderstanding. The fourth and fifth fingers are at the outside of the hand, like your ring and pinky fingers. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 13:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:Today were uploaded models of ''Tashtykia primaeva'' (known only by teeth and based on relatives), Rhamphorhynchidae indet. from Berezovsk coal mine and ''Atopodentatus unicus''. ] (]) 09:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::In general aesthetic terms, the splotchy skin patterning and dark background make these restorations look unappealing, which detracts from their potential educational value. In specific terms, proterochampsians lack a fifth toe on the foot and have an enlarged second toe, unlike what the ''Pseudochampsa'' piece illustrates. ] (]) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Hello! Here's my hypothetical restoration of Nipponopterus. Please let me know your thoughts! I hope everyone had a wonderful new year!
== '']'' Size Comparison ==


] ] (]) 08:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{multiple image
:What is it doing? ] (]) 13:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
|image1=Ophthalmosaurus compared to human.svg
::It’s using its forelimbs to launch itself into the air in order to start flying. ] (]) 14:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
|caption1=Current version
::: '']'' (] &#124; ]) 15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
|image2=Ophthalmosaurus Scale.svg
::::Yeah, if it's using the legs for take-off, they would never stick up into the air like that, the feet would always be directed towards the ground. ] (]) 15:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
|caption2=New version
:::::Oh, my mistake! I should've looked back at the launch sequence to make sure I was accurate. I'll see what I can do to fix this. Thanks for showing me the diagram too. ] (]) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


== ] ==
After a few plesiosaurs, it's time for an ichthyosaur! Here's a new ''Ophthalmosaurus'' size comparison. The current size comparison has a few problems, including the label (''O. discus'' is a jr. syn. of ''O. natans'', and ''O. natans'' is most likely '']''). Despite the label being ''O. discus'', it seems to clearly be based on ], which is ''O. icenicus'' (and ''Ophthalmosaurus'' proper). The head shape in the current chart also gives the impression of gills, which ''Ophthalmosaurus''/''Baptanodon'' obviously didn't have. I drew my ''Ophthalmosaurus'' based on Scott Hartman's skeletal and the skeletal diagram in Lawrence (2008). Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:Is there a specific specimen with a size estimate that can be used? Might want to check that McGowan & Motani source cited by Lawrence. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 02:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
*Speaking of ], it seems the eye should be modified, since it seems to take up the entire sclerotic ring, when only the inner ring should define the visible part of the eye? I've been thinking of this for years without knowing what to do, hehe... And the old diagram also has this issue, maybe we could use it for ] after all if fixed. ] (]) 21:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
*And another thing, a new paper is out about ] fins, and it has a skeletal which shows a different configuration than in our restoration. Something we should fix? ] (]) 11:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


]'']]
== A Panoply of ]ns ==
Hi, I've created this illustration of the extinct lovebird species '']''. The pose is based on ] of '']'', and the leg proportions are based on the . The coloration is based on '']'' as well as '']''. Does it look good to use? ] (]) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Looks nice, the eye seems like it could be rounder? And I'd probably make the flight-feather anatomy more specific, it's very unclear now. ] (]) 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sure thing, I'll work on that. ] (]) 19:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have updated the file with the improved eye and feathers. ] (]) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Much better! While some might argue it's pointless to reconstruct colour scheme for such a bird, the literature is full of this kind of speculative restorations, so there's plenty of precedent. ] (]) 20:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request: Pachycrocuta brevirostris life restoration, and a review of Nobu Tamura's restoration ==
{{multiple image
|align=center
|image1=Grendelius Scale.svg
|caption1='']''
|image2=Keilhauia Scale.svg
|caption2='']''
|image3=Ichthyosaurus Size 2.svg
|caption3='']''
|image4=Hauffiopteryx Scale.svg
|caption4='']''
|image5=Arthropterygius Scale.svg
|caption5='']''
}}


]'' by Nobu Tamura]]
Here are a bunch of parvipelvian size comparisons. I scaled ''G. mordax'', but I didn't include it since I could find no length estimates/skeletal diagrams with scale bars. The scale bars in the ''Keilhauia'' figure were off by a considerable margin. ''Ichthyosaurus'' was quite complicated to update. ''Hauffiopteryx'' was pretty straightforward. I'm also throwing in ''Arthropterygius'', since it got no feedback when I first sent it through here. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:Can't say much about accuracy, but I wonder if we could get '']'' in there? ] (]) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::Possibly sometime over the next few days, it would have to rely pretty heavily on '']'' and '']'' though. I was going to see if anyone else wanted to make the size comparison, but considering that nobody's made one in 355 days since first requested, I may as well take a stab at it. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Hehe, yeah, it doesn't help there doesn't seem to have been any published length estimates of it? But if we know the length of the skull, it could be extrapolated from relatives? I wonder if it would be considered too much original research... ] (]) 21:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::My rule of thumb would be to avoid making a size chart unless a length estimate exists or some sort of size-indicating diagram (i.e. the one in the ''Grendelius'' paper) appears in a peer-reviewed academic source. I realize that I violated this with '']'', it seems... oops. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 23:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::It can probably wait then. The article is also pretty image heavy as is. I didn't add a size comparison for '']'' for the same reason, no overall size estimates exist. ] (]) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Compared to the life restoration on Maucio Anton's website (which also includes excellent skeletal reference material ), Nobu Tamura's restoration looks wonky. Particularly noticable things include the upper profile of the head, and the shape of the neck. Would be nice to get more accurate restoration. ] (]) 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Nobu Tamura's Titanophoneus & Anteosaurus ==


== Inaccurate ''Uncus dzaugisi'' reconstruction ==
<gallery>
File:Anteosaurus BW.jpg|'']''
File:Titanophoneus BW.jpg|'']''
</gallery>
I recently remembered a discussion about how short the tail was on Dmitry Bogdanov's Anteosaurus for something that was supposedly "croc-like". I had a look at various other Anteosaur restorations & found that Nobu's artwork to be lacking said long tail. His ''Anteosaurus'' also appears to be missing the various "bumps" or "warts" found on the skull. Speaking of the skull, it does seem a bit long. ] (]) 06:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


]
== ''Atlanticopristis'' in need of updating ==

]'']]

]'s '']'' illustration is in dire need of updating. It's basically just a copy of the extant ''Pristis'', which is very inaccurate. Sclerorhynchoids like ''Atlanticopristis'' are not sawfishes (pristids), but are actually most closely related to skates (rajiforms). Inaccuracies I can see include the rostral denticles all being the same size and the fin arrangement, which are characteristic of pristids and not sclerorhynchoids. I've written a summary of sclerorhynchoid paleobiology with a reference list here: https://incertaesedisblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/onchopristis-is-a-sawskate-not-a-sawfish/

]
(]) 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

:I agree with your comments on life appearance. Given that we have soft tissue outlines of sclerorhynchoids (whether they form grade or otherwise) it's not very parsimonious to reconstruct them as sawfish clones.
:That being said, I disagree with your comments on phylogenetics. Sclerorhynchoids have been unstable historically and they have come out close to ''Pristis'' at times. I am wary of pushing the Villalobos-Segura ''et al.'' topology too strongly at the expense of NPOV. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 07:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
::The phylogenetic analyses of Villalobos-Segura ''et al.'' (2019a;b) are the first to include sclerorhynchoids as far as I know. Previous papers placing sclerorhynchoids with pristids were not based on any analysis, so they should be disregarded. ] (]) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Are you sure? Granted, it appears to just be ''Sclerorhynchus'', but the analyses of these two papers both include sclerorhynchoids: There is probably an argument to be made for taxon and/or character sampling but I'm not sure it's grounds to totally reject this work. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
::::They include a single sclerorhynchoid (''Sclerorhynchus''), not multiple sclerorhynchoids. Taxon exclusion is of course a problem with these analyses; Villalobos-Segura ''et al.'' (2019a;b) not only include more sclerorhynchoids but also other batoids. Additionally, the dataset of Claeson ''et al.'' (2013) (which was re-used by Underwood & Cleason ) is missing important characters like rostral denticle replacement, wood-like rostral cartilage, etc. that distinguish sclerorhynchoids from pristids. It is also missing the 8 synapomorphies that sclerorynchoids share with other rajiforms. I don't think these analyses are anywhere near good enough to challenge the findings of Villalobos-Segura ''et al.'' and can be safely ignored. ] (]) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Okay, point taken. The lack of those taxonomically significant characters in Claeson ''et al.''{{'}}s work is definitely cause for concern. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

:I've seen some images of ''Onchopristis'' with this skate-like anatomy circulating on the internet and was wondering what it was based on, so nice to see an explanation! Wasn't even aware that we had such substantially-preserved sclerorynchoid fossils. I'll get to work on making a new restoration. ]] 10:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
::You could even include dermal denticles like those seen in ''Onchopristis'' and ''Ischyrhiza'', since I think ''Atlanticopristis'' is more closely related to them than to ''Sclerorhynchus''. ] (]) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
*Just overhauled the restoration. Thoughts, {{u|Carnoferox}} & {{u|Lythronaxargestes}}? ]] 13:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
::I was waiting for Carnoferox to reply but I guess I'll sign off on it myself. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Alrighty. Btw, he didn't comment here but suggested to me on Discord that the colour pattern is probably not the most plausible given the animal's niche, ecology and relationships. I'll be re-colouring this with a more skate-like pattern when I have time. ]] 23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

== Thylacoleo restoration by SERGIO GAUCI ==

]
Added to the article by {{u|SERGIO GAUCI}} without review. While it doesn't look too bad in thumb view, close up it looks terrible as it is composed of copies of the same hair image that look like they've been stretched in MS paint. The hind legs also look unaturally thin. ] (]) 00:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
:The teeth also look way too protruding, and to have been taken directly from a photo? ] (]) 07:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

== '']'' Size Comparison ==

]
]
Here's an ''Effigia'' size comparison. ''Effigia'' looks really weird, although that's probably due to it being a pseudosuchian trying really hard to be an ornithomimid. My main questions are - 1: that's a really prominent Mt V in the Nesbitt & Norell skeletal. Is that probable or would it have been swept forwards and level with the other metatarsals? 2: Despite the scale bar clearly indicating a ~3m animal, Nesbitt (2007) estimates a length of only 2m. Which estimate should I follow? Or is this due to multiple specimens? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
:Nesbitt remarks that "Metatarsal V could articulate to the anterolateral surface or the posterolateral surface of tarsal 4." That, combined with the morphology of the metatarsal, might be why it's reconstructed like that.
:The larger and more complete of the skulls is 17 cm long. I'm inclined to believe that there is a mistake in the scale bar; if you scale the skull to 17 cm, what is the full length? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 01:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::{{convert|2|m|ft|abbr=on}}. Revised accordingly. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 16:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
* Here's another pseudosuchian size comparison, this one for ''Terrestrisuchus''. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
::Perhaps it needs osteoderms? Also note that Sereno and Wild produced a (proportionally) very different reconstruction of ''Terrestrisuchus'' to Headden, see Fig. 5 here: '']'' (] &#124; ]) 22:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Would it be better to follow the Sereno & Wild skeletal for proportions? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: has a skeletal and a range of size estimates (p. 151) which might be helpful... I suppose the discrepancy comes from scaling multiple specimens. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 03:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::The Crush skeletal looks intermediate between the two others that we've discussed, so I think that I'll use it as a reference when I get around to updating the chart later on this week/month. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

== Mosasaur Size Comparisons ==

{{multiple image
|align=center
|image1=Plotosaurus Scale.svg
|caption1='']''
|image2=Platecarpus Size.svg
|caption2='']''
|image3=Plioplatecarpus Scale.svg
|caption3='']''
|image4=Goronyosaurus.svg
|caption4='']''
|image5=Yaguarasaurus Scale.svg
|caption5='']''
}}

Here's a ''Plotosaurus'' size comparison, the first mosasaur chart by me that matches my new style. I hope to add another ('']'' and perhaps '']''), as well as update '']'', '']'' (finally getting to things that don't start with "P"), '']'', and '']''. How does this first one look? I wonder if the skulls are perhaps too small (they're larger here: ), as the holotype (smallest one) should have a total length of 4.2 m according to more than one source. Hmm... ''Plotosaurus'' would look an awful lot like an ichthyosaur if it had a dorsal fin... --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:The main differences appear to be that Lindgren ''et al.'' reconstruct a longer axial skeleton and larger flippers than Camp, as well as a slightly deeper torso (due to the incomplete ribcage)... but the verts also seem to be scaled differently. Not totally sure what's going on there but it could be due to the composite nature of both reconstructions. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 20:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
::I've scaled down the postcrania to match the 46cm skull length and 4.2m total length. The proportions are now intermediate between the Lindgren and Camp skeletals. How does this look? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
:::That looks reasonable. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
* '']'' is updated. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 19:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
* Here's '']''. I was planning on doing ''Goronyosaurus'' today, but I probably won't get around to it until tomorrow. Comments? It's length is slightly over 5 m, which is a bit shorter than the 6-7m estimate . --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
::I assume the curve is a pose? Additionally, I wonder if there is a non-amateur source that can be cited for the reconstruction. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
:::1: yes 2: I don't know. I didn't find any, but I can definitely try to. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
* '']'' has been updated! ''Clidastes'' will come relatively soon, but ''Prognathodon'' and ''Tylosaurus'' are tricky and they may have to wait for a while. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
::Perhaps {{u|IJReid}} has some input on this one. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 21:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
:::Theres not much to say it seems to match my skeletal and thats all I know about it. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{] - ] - ] - ]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 02:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
* Here's a ''Yaguarasaurus'' size comparison. I scaled the larger specimen, and can add it if desired. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 16:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
::I can't see the image? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I was rather careless and accidentally named it ], it seems. I've requested a move to the correct filename. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 16:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
]'']]
* Here's the promised '']'' update! Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
]'']]
* Here's a random '']''. I wonder if the 30m ''Tylosaurus'' in its description is an error in translation and actually 30ft... same with ''Clidastes''... hopefully. Anyways, how does this basal mosasauroid look? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
::Seems quite a bit more rotund than the life reconstruction. Any particular reason? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
:::That's how the ribcage was restored in the aigialosaur (first listed) paper. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
::::I see. Perhaps the reconstruction needs revision... its chest looks more like ''A. dalmaticus''. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
* I just found a diagram of all the "important" ''Tylosaurus'' species (except ''T. pembinensis'', but Hartman's skeletal covers that) here: , so this will be a major reference for the '']'' update when it comes. Additionally, would halisaurines have had bilobous caudal fins? If so, then the "basal ichthyosaur" shape would have evolved at least ''three'' different times in Mosasauridae (as the basalmost mosasaurine known, '']'', preserves claws ). Then again, so did flippers, apparently. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
:: suggest that halisaurines had caudal fins based on caudal morphology. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 21:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

== '']'' Size Comparison ==

]
Here's another random Triassic reptile size comparison, this one depicting ''Askeptosaurus''. I made the human silhouette pale gray to put more focus on the reptile. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:It would probably be more visually clear if the silhouettes do not overlap. ] (]) 16:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
::Like this? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, that looks nice. ] (]) 18:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

== Old pterosaur image ==

]
This 19th century illustration is commonly seen in textbooks. Because of this, I think it is useful to evaluate its accuracy. The pterosaur doesn't seem to be a real species - or is it an inaccurate ''Scaphognathus''?. Are the shapes of the brachiopatagium and uropatagium correct? I thought the wing was slightly more 'rounded' and the (cr)uropatagium didn't touch the tail. ] (]) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
:Also needs a bigger propatagium, I reckon. It does look like early reconstructions of ''Scaphognathus'' : remember, the holotype does not preserve a tail so it would have been restored based on other ''Pterodactylus''. '']'' (] &#124; ]) 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
::It looks pretty similar to ] from 1817. The '']'' article says it's inaccurate <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 00:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
::: Bear in mind the new policy on historical images we have. We shouldn't edit this image whether or not it's inaccurate; if somebody wants to make a new version of this image that's fine, though. ] (]) 01:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Yeah, it has always been an unwritten rule that historical images remain historical. But yeah, those teeth, the pose, and the robustness of the skull and neck vertebrae makes it pretty clear it's '']'' (which was of course also considered ''Pterodactylus'' back in the days). 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)~

==Undersized Wadiasaurus scale diagram ==
]
This scale diagram for the dicynodont ''Wadiasaurus indicus'' may be undersized. It's based on a skeletal diagram in Ray (2006) which seems to reconstruct the skull at around 15 cm in length. However, ''Wadiasaurus'' has been described as a "medium-sized" to "moderately large size" kannemeyeriiform (which can get quite big). Moreover, Roy-Chowdhury (1970) and Bandyohapadhyay (1988) both estimate a skull length of about 40 cm. The various published skull diagrams are composites based on specimens from multiple age classes, though they also seem to be based on the same specimens. Unfortunately, many of the earlier publications do not have scale bars, and instead have scaling information like "1/4 natural size", which is only really useful in a print copy. Can anyone who is more experienced with scaling try to edit the diagram or resolve this conflicting information? ] (]) 15:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
<br/>Sources:
*Roy-Chowdhury (1970): Two new dicynodonts from the Triassic Yerrapalli Formation of central India.
*Bandyopadhyaya (1988): A kannemeyeriid dicynodont from the Middle Triassic Yerrapalli Formation.
*Ray (2006): Functional and evolutionary aspects of the postcranial anatomy of dicynodonts (Synapsida, Therapsida).
::I've given it a go of scaling up the silhouette to match the ~40 cm skull length estimates, and I can upload the replacement SVG if everyone else is happy with it.
::I couldn't find any reason to doubt the ~40 cm estimate, and although detailed measurements of the skull are lacking I did find a paper (Ray, Bandyopadhyay & Appana 2009) that contained measurements of limb bones from different size classes, including individuals ">60% adult size" that corroborate the large body size (some of the largest bones are almost as long as the animal currently in the diagram!). I made a rough scale based on these lengths, which produced a larger animal and a skull length noticeably exceeding 40 cm. However, this is based on some conjecture on my part, and also relies on Ray's skeletal being correctly proportioned (which it may not be given ''Wadiasaurus'' is known from a bonebed), so I'd personally stick with the first diagram based on skull length alone. ] (] | ]) 21:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

== ] Size Comparisons ==

{{multiple image
|align=center
|image1=Tatenectes Scale.svg
|caption1='']''
|image2=Ophthalmothule Scale.svg
|caption3='']''
}}


''Uncus'' is likely a nematoid yet this reconstruction has scalids and a proboscis (similar to a priapulid) while these features don’t seem to appear in the fossils. These features should likely be removed in favour of a relatively featureless front end, like the fossils of ''Uncus'' show. ] (]) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Here are a couple more marine reptiles, two cryptoclidids with really weird body shapes. Comments? --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 20:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
: Agreed. ] (]) 17:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:The rear paddle and tail fluke of ''Tatenectes'' appear to differ from the reconstruction of O'Keefe et al. Any particular reason? '']'' (] &#124; ]) 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
::I second this ] (]) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::The hind paddles I think are just a result of perspective, I can try and make this more obvious. I honestly forgot why I changed the caudal fin... I'll make it more cryptoclidid- and less non-polycotylid-xenopsarian-like soon. --] ⟨] - ] - ]⟩ 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
::: {{Ping|FunkMonk}} would you be able to fix this? ] (]) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, but if I remove the proboscis, what to do with that seems to be the part of it that seems to be within the body, the red innards? And what are scalids? ] (]) 12:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Scalids are those spines on the proboscis that scalidophorans are named for.
:::::And perhaps the interior part of the proboscis could just be made into generic gut (I.e. shrunk) with a small opening at the front for the mouth. ] (]) 12:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Should the tentacles be removed also, essentially rendering the depiction nematode-like? ] (]) 12:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Probably, seeing as ''Uncus'' is likely a stem-nematoid. ] (]) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::yeah, ''Uncus'' would've probably heavily resembled nematodes given its likely taxonomic position. ] (]) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What would be a good reference photo? I can modify it, but I know barely anything about this group. ] (]) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:56, 9 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Discontinued yearly archives:
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.

If you want to submit paleoart images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.

Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Drastic modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.

Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).

Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page:

Criterion sufficient for using an image:

  • If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria sufficient to remove an image:

  • Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
  • Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
    • Example: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
    • Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
  • Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
    • Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
    • Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
  • Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
    • Example: Utahraptor hunting an Iguanodon, two animals which did not live together.
    • Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
    • Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.

Click here to submit a new image for review

  1. Per following policy discussions:

Images in review

Ergilin Dzo Formation Size Chart?

Can someone please do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo formation? it would be really helpful and informative.

Shucaris ankylosskelos

Decided to make one more radidont that took longer than expected. To model the appendages I downloaded the raw CT data, put it into Blender, and modelled the podomeres and endites to follow the holotype, as well as referencing the description of course. I gave it 4 sets of GLS associated with reduced flaps, although reduced flaps are not preserved, and the GLS are incompletely known. I feel that this is reasonable speculation given the apparently elongate neck region. I put the setal blades on the dorsal surface of the flaps as well, which I believe better represents the fossil evidence, where in Shucaris they are seemingly only associated with the flaps, rather than the trunk. Something similar is also seen in Amplectobelua and Lyrarapax. Regarding the Erratus, I gave it generic, upward facing frontal appendages given its phylogenetic placement, even though this area is completely missing in the fossils.

Regarding the existing appendage illustrations, I wish to suggest (and if they choose to ignore these comments it does not bother me,) that the relative proportions of the podomeres be changed slightly to better reflect the holotype. I will admit that not every appendage presented in the description looks alike, but most commonly, and also in the holotype, there is a very distinct increase in podomere height, starting at the first DAR (distal articulated region, "claw") podomere, maxing out at the joint between the 3rd and 4th DAR podomere, and shallowing out until the 7th DAR podomere. Here, the podomeres are rectangular and tall - but towards the distal portion they are almost completely square in profile. Importantly, the shaft podomeres are shorter than the succeeding podomeres, and the second shaft podomere (BP1 in the description) is wider at the bottom then at the top, similar to amplectobeluids. The first shaft podomere (BP2) is even shorter and more elongate. Wawrow's model already presents this quite well. Altogether, this is what gives Shucaris appendages their very distinct crook-shape, which you can see in most fossils ascribed to it. This is what gives it the name "ankylosskelos" ("curved leg"). I think it would be best if the representative diagrams show this very important characteristic of the appendage. As far as I know, Wawrow is planning to make these adjustments to their model soon. Sorry for the paragraph Prehistorica CM (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

My only minor concern on the full body reconstruction is the amount of (at least for now, on the general understanding of radiodont anatomy) unusual speculative features. But since their plausibility was formally mentioned elsewhere I think It's Ok afterall.
Anyway thanks for the suggestions! I'll modifying my diagram within this week. Junnn11 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the reconstruction is accurate but the position of shucaris makes it look kinda like it has legs which may be misleading. Zhenghecaris (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Not really?, you can see in the piece that the GLS stop once you get to the larger trunk flaps, and the shadow below the radiodont indicates its above the seafloor. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
OK Zhenghecaris (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

New DBogdanov works

New works, not used for now. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't know anything about these, but many of them we don't have other restorations of, so could be nice with some stamp of approval or not before we use them. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    No qualms with any of the arthrodires. I would say that the Diplognathus and Dinichthys especially are improvements over what is currently used, and seem to be in accordance with both Engelmann's work and with the anatomy of Amazichthys. I can't speak for the others, unfortunately. Gasmasque (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps the Diplognathus reconstruction can be used to replace the one currently in the taxobox, if the anatomy is more up to date? The Morrison Man (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    Returning to this to point out the Pseudopetalichthys reconstruction is far more accurate than any others used on the site. The other reconstructions, all provided by @Apokryltaros, seem to mistake the internal pectoral element for an external armored spur, which does not seem to be correct. A similar issue is present in the currently used reconstruction of Stensioella and several other genera of pseudopetalichthyids. It is an easy mistake to make considering these are placoderms, but these don't seem to have had external armor "plates". Gasmasque (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Things from the past few weeks

  • Edingerella madagascariensis Edingerella madagascariensis
  • Aphaurosuchus escharafacies Aphaurosuchus escharafacies
  • Stegomosuchus longipes Stegomosuchus longipes
  • Tetraclaenodon puercensis Tetraclaenodon puercensis
  • Siamotherium pondaungensis Siamotherium pondaungensis
  • Rastosuchus hammeri Rastosuchus hammeri
  • Paenanthracotherium bergeri Paenanthracotherium bergeri
  • Otacillus aumondi Otacillus aumondi
  • Nshimbodon muchingaensis Nshimbodon muchingaensis
  • Nannaroter mckinziei Nannaroter mckinziei
  • Microbunodon sp Microbunodon sp
  • Microbrachis pelikani Microbrachis pelikani
  • Kosmodraco magnicornis Kosmodraco magnicornis
  • Konzhukovia sangabrielensis Konzhukovia sangabrielensis
  • Jaggermeryx naida Jaggermeryx naida
  • Hypisodus minimus Hypisodus minimus
  • Floridameryx floridanus Floridameryx floridanus
  • Dongnanosuchus hsui Dongnanosuchus hsui
  • Dibothrosuchus elaphros Dibothrosuchus elaphros
  • Coloradisuchus abelini Coloradisuchus abelini
  • Champsosaurus laramiensis Champsosaurus laramiensis
  • Bothriogenys sp Bothriogenys sp
  • Bageherpeton longignathus Bageherpeton longignathus
  • Argochampsa krebsi Argochampsa krebsi
  • Arambourgia gaudryi Arambourgia gaudryi

SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Concavotectum

Seems this image in use have issue, by lacking pelvic fins. Also according to @Orthocormus:, eye placement is wrong, same happening on Paranogmius reconstruction. (It is helpful if you can post reference where should its eyes be.) Probably someone can edit image? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Plagiolophus

Hey folks, here with more European palaeotheres: Plagiolophus

  • P. huerzeleri P. huerzeleri
  • P. minor P. minor
  • P. annectens P. annectens
  • Size Comp Size Comp

Triloboii (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Artwork of the New Captorhinid

Currently working on placoderm art but thought I'd take a short break to work on something described today, Indosauriscus kuttyi.

SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Andrewsarchus

Back again with a lateral portrait of Andrewsarchus mongoliensis

  • Andrewsarchus Andrewsarchus

Triloboii (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Approved. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Should the posterior part of the mandible not be taller so the head tapers a little bit more? I know we don't have the mandible for this taxon, but that's fairly typical of mammals isn't it? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. The jaw here is mostly from "Paratriisodon henanensis" which was later referred to A. mongoliensis. It only preserves a tiny bit of the angle of the jaw, so this portion is reconstructed here based on the shape of the angle in other whippomorph taxa. It could certainly be reconstructed a little larger, but I don't think what I have here rn is unreasonable. I'd be happy to show the bones underneath this recon if you want to see how it works Triloboii (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I didn't realize there were referred remains. I suppose the length of the head just makes it look odd knowing what the holotype skull looks like. But if you used actual specimens for the scaling, then I don't think there's any issue. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Homotherium

Head of H. serum

I don't have an image to be reviewed, but I want to point out that a newly discovered Homotherium cub mummy may impact how the animal should be reconstructed. The paper is here, and the mummy has dark, reddish-brown fur. The reconstructions on the Homotherium Misplaced Pages page currently have whitish-grey fur, so they may need to be revised. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There's multiple species of Homotherium and only this one juvenile is believed to have had brown fur, so theoretically only depictions of juveniles of H. latidens should be changed. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Our only restoration of H. latidens (which I'm not sure otherwise passed review) appears to have roughly the right colour: But yeah, the rest we have are of H. serum, so we can't necessarily assume they had the same colour. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned on Discord, I will try to fix that head restoration (added above). Seems to be mainly the way the back of the head connects with the neck and the width of the snout base that is off, but feel free to add other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Triloboii is also working on his restoration, which hopefully will be completed at some point in the not too distant future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Which species? FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
H. latidens. H latidens and H. serum are basically morphologically identical though (the name applied largely depends on which continent the remains are from), and it's not unreasonable to think they are the same species (something which has been repeatedly suggested in the recent academic literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Cool, either way, then it should probably reflect the colouration of that mummy (felid kittens don't differ so much in colouration from the adults). FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Cool, let's ping Silvertiger~enwiki (if that is the current account, seems some rename has happened). FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
His username currently is SilverTiger12. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Unspecified tetrapod

This is simply labeled "Labyrinthodontia". Does anyone know what exactly this is supposed to be, how accurate it is and how it could be used (other than illustrating the page about "Labyrinthodontia")? Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's unfortunately all the website said, so may not be of much use. But the author could be emailed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it's meant to be Tulerpeton, based on the proportions of the six-toed hindlimbs. Even so, that's no guarantee, it could just as easily be an outdated salamander-style Ichthyostega based on the shape of the skull and long teeth. Or maybe it's not meant to be any one animal in particular. NGPezz (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus skeletal + size

  • Skeletal (holotype) Skeletal (holotype)
  • Size comparison (estimated adult) Size comparison (estimated adult)

Skeletal reconstruction of the one holotypic vertebra of Nipponopterus, plus a size chart based on the paper's estimated adult wingspan. I'm a little hesitant about that size given the holotype (which is described as a "subadult") is much smaller... -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If the estimate is wingspan, perhaps a flying silhouette would be preferable? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Pterosaur size estimates are essentially always given as wingspans, rather than length/height. This size chart is still consistent with the wingspan estimate, even if it is shown indirectly. Flying silhouettes (especially dorsal-view wingspan silhouettes, for which there are very few decent references) introduce new complications with posing and fitting neatly into a believable diagram. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree that the walking pose is preferable. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Large bird sizes

I found this on commons. I'm planning on using it for a long-term project about the size of birds throughout their evolution. Any issues that some Cenozoic people can identify? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is surely oversized. Seemingly each square is 30 cm considering human's height, and that make Kelenken skull way oversized, which is actually 70 cm long but in this chart nearly 1.5 m. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Also Gastornis being labeled as "predatory" is pretty outdated. Honestly why is it here, this would work better as a strictly Phorusrhacid size chart. Fossiladder13 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Scale diagrams for extinct birds are generally pretty lacking, I may try and get working on some relatively soon. This was the best one I could find. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Definitely needs a scale bar. Could really use an entire overhaul—the silhouette detail is inconsistent (especially with the shaggy Gastornis) and the gradient background is unnecessary and distracting. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the inconsistent silhouettes as mentioned by SlvrHwk, I think its probably worth looking into the licensing around them. I can't say how much modification or difference would suffice but on first glance the Kelenken seems very much to be slightly repurposed from the artwork of Stephanie Abramowicz, while the Phorusrhacos appears like a slimmed down and slightly reposed derivative of the WWB depiction. There are some obvious differences I admitt (Abramowicz's art has less open jaws and a more raised leg), but for cautions sake its probably better to make an entirely new image.Armin Reindl (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the gradient is pretty tedious as well. Its probably worth doing scale charts for several large extinct birds, as they appear to be relatively lacking in commons. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Anji Biota and Archopterus

Hello. Here is a reconstruction of the Anji Biota of Ordovician China, a deep sea glass sponge reef. Mainly featuring Archopterus, so I suggest it be added to that wiki page, seeing as the Anji Biota does not have one of its own. Prehistorica CM (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems nice to me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, very nice recon as always. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Unshowcased works

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a submission for Allodelphis woodburnei, including the dolphin with and without background. If there are any changes I should consider, I'll be quick to work with it. ShamuBlackfish (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthropleura

Hello. I finally got around to finishing my reconstruction of Arthropleura. I based it mostly on the new fossils of Arthropleura sp. from Montceau-les-Mines, although reduced the spines slightly, to represent an older individual, or a different species. I would have also made clean / orthographic renders, but the page is already short and cluttered as is, so first we would have to find a place to put this one. Prehistorica CM (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty nice for me! My concerns are, spine-like humps are known mostly from smaller specimens so not sure if it is also like that for adult one, and antennae segmentation being over 7, although yeah, MNHN.F.SOT002123 seems have more antennae segments than smaller specimen. (problem is not specified in the paper or supplementary material) Do you have opinions, @Junnn11:? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
IMO the spines are still acceptable if it represent older Montceau (potentially new) species. The basal section of the antenna was interpreted as a specifically long 1st segment, but yeah it does not seems to be the case in that specimen. Junnn11 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Arthropleura mammata also probably had similar spines as a juvenile, and I did make sure to reduce their size from the height shown in the CT data. I hope the antennae are not too much of an issue, I think its inarguable that there are more than 7 segments in the larger specimen, but I understand its a weird position for wikipedia. sorry about that. I will also note here that I have done a massive overhaul of the Arthropleura article. I hope that isnt an issue. Prehistorica CM (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Placoderms and Chondrichthyans

My first set of placoderms along with a few other fish with a more updated look, I had help from Richard Carr for a few of the weirder placoderms like rolfosteus and gymnotrachelus. The general proportions are based on the equation from Engelman 2023 but with a bit of wiggle room since one or two were a little shorter than they probably would be.

  • Tubonasus lennardensis Tubonasus lennardensis
  • Gymnotrachelus hydei Gymnotrachelus hydei
  • Rolfosteus canningensis Rolfosteus canningensis
  • Pholidosteus friedeli Pholidosteus friedeli
  • Mcnamaraspis kaprios Mcnamaraspis kaprios
  • Latocamurus coulthardi Latocamurus coulthardi
  • Kiangyousteus yohii Kiangyousteus yohii
  • Heintzichthys gouldii Heintzichthys gouldii
  • Harpagofututor volsellorhinus Harpagofututor volsellorhinus
  • Diademodus hydei Diademodus hydei
  • Bryantolepis brachycephala Bryantolepis brachycephala
  • Enseosteus marocanensis Enseosteus marocanensis

SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No complaints here, and really glad to see these represented. As stated before I especially like the Harpagofututor and Diademodus, and I appreciate the changes made to the latter prior to uploading. Great job as usual! Gasmasque (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Bashkyroleter

Hello all. Can I have another review for my drawing? This time I tried to reconstruct Bashkyroleter based on the skull found on its Misplaced Pages page. For the body, I mainly using Dmitry Bogdanov reconstruction of other closely related species as base reference. And yes, I am aware Dmitry himself had drawn this taxa a while ago... But it is kind of obscured by other species from its location. So I thought I want to try making a more clear reconstruction?

Thank you in advance always...

DD (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/search/?search=Daeng+dino&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image DD (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
If there are no major inaccuracies, I think I am going to upload it to the taxa page... But as always, if it is deemed inaccurate, please just take it down... DD (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Comparing to skeletal reconstructions of other nycteroleters, I don't see any major discrepancies other than the fact that there should be five digits on all limbs (not super clear here). Perhaps more important is that the file should be renamed to specify the species (mesensis) because the genus is considered to be polyphyletic in recent literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Ah yes, I am aware about the 5 digits but it is not quite visible from the angle I drew it.. About the species, I am not aware of the specific species. I will change it then.. Thanks! DD (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Amphimeryx

Another Quercy artiodactyl, this time tiny

  • Amphimeryx murinus Amphimeryx murinus
  • Size chart Size chart

Triloboii (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus by かずたき

This unreviewed image of the recently described azhdarchid Nipponopterus was added to its page without review. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is rough. The wing/hand posture is completely wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems to have an extra arm bone. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Which? I see a scapula, upper arm, lower arm, and metacarpals. That said, it is pretty rough, and not sure about the proportions (the body looks too big). FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
not an extra arm bone per se but having the humerus articulate with the scapula below the vertebral column contradicts every well-preserved pterosaur specimen ever found. In effect, the scapula is where the humerus should be. Body/neck ratio also wrong for azhdarchids... the arm is so wrong that I don't even care about the shrinkwrapped nasoantorbital fenestra. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Port Kennedy Bone Cave Fauna

I have recently been working on reconstructing Port Kennedy Bone Cave fauna, inlcuding Smilodon gracilis, Megalonyx wheatleyi, and Mericonyx inexpectatus. Specifically these were reconstructed in the context of the local Philadelphia area (with the Smilodon and Megalonyx being depicted in the Wissahickon). I noticed that the wikipedia page for the Port Kennedy Bone Cave lacks reconstructions of the animals discovered there, so I suggest these be added on the page.

Prehistoric philly
Miracinonyx inexpectata

Spinosaurid (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing all the taxa you mention? The sloth image also needs a Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The Smilodon in the drawing just look off compared to those of Mauricio Anton (e.g. , , ), even considering the obvious differences in detail and art style, so I would oppose inclusion. The restoration of Miracinonyx looks a lot better, but again there are issues with the tail, which looks crudely drawn like it shrinks where it joins the body, unlike that of say the living cheetah. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Andrewsarchus life reconstruction

Uploaded by @Mikailodon and added to the Andrewsarchus article without review. Figured it was best to post it here, seeing as the original full-body life construction was replaced for being too speculative (since Andrewsarchus is known exclusively from craniodental elements). Borophagus (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The texture of the skin looks a little off. I'm not sure of any mammal that has skin texture like that. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The skin was inspired by rhinos, since it was a large land mammal. The related hippo is also somewhat in the mix. Mikailodon (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
If those are intended to be oxpeckers, I am not sure that any passerines are even known from contemporary strata. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The accompanying article(?) lists them only as "tick birds", so I'm assuming that was the intention. Looking into it, there doesn't seem to be any records of Buphagus in the fossil record (let alone from any of the locales Andrewsarchus comes from), and there is no molecular data on their date of origin or even point of divergence from other muscicapoids. If they don't represent buphagids, they must represent a clade we have no evidence for, which would make them completely made up. Either way, very speculative. Borophagus (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
These are just speculative, and may or may not be traditionally be oxpeckers, they’re at least just random birds. Also, oxpeckers are not really the only "tick birds," egrets and magpies are a couple that will often hitch a ride on large animals to eat their parasites. Mikailodon (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh thank you! Glad you love it. Mikailodon (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if we do not exactly know what it looked like beyond the head, its close relatives can restore a close picture, which is what I tried doing here. Nothing else too speculative. Mikailodon (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
This was discussed previously regarding Dmitri Bogdanov's reconstruction, which was deemed too speculative. Contrary to what you state, Andrewarchus has no known close relatives, and any detailed reconstructions of its postcranial anatomy should be considered very tentative to the point of diminishing educational value. Yours additionally includes entirely fictional passerine birds, something which is generally best to avoid to avoid misleading unaware, casual viewers. Misplaced Pages isn't a paleoart gallery, for better or worse, and even reconstructions that are visually appealing and within the realm of possibility may not see use due to there being more encyclopedic alternatives. Frankly I am of the opinion that if this were to be suitable for the page, Bogdanov's reconstruction would be as well, and its more clear silhouette and lack of fictional species would make it a preferable alternative. Gasmasque (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Alright, although the birds aren’t fictional, they’re just speculative. Mikailodon (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Du Toit's torrent frog

  • Illustration of a live Du Toit's torrent frog Illustration of a live Du Toit's torrent frog
  • Chart showing the sizes of Arthroleptides species Chart showing the sizes of Arthroleptides species

Ok I realize this isn't exactly paleoart since this species survived into modern times (and might not even be extinct yet) but I figured I'd put it here anyways, if there's a similar review page for illustrations of extant fauna then I don't know about it. This species was last seen in 1962 and the preserved specimens have lost their original color so I had to restore it based on field notes, so there's some element of reconstruction like in paleoart rather than referencing photos of live individuals (which to my knowledge do not exist). Olmagon (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Dongnanosuchus

Armin Reindl (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


Unreviewed images by Tourmaline Ctenacanth

  • Tuanshanzia linearis Tuanshanzia linearis
  • Grandilingulata qianxiensis Grandilingulata qianxiensis
  • Tuanshanzia fasciaria Tuanshanzia fasciaria
  • Proterotainia sp. Proterotainia sp.
  • Tawuia & epibionts Tawuia & epibionts

These images got removed from their respective pages for being unreviewed, so the obvious answer was to post them here and get them reviewed. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely notebook lines are unneeded, needs to get rid of. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, however, in my experience, attempting to remove these notebook lines is not only difficult but also makes the images worse. I'll need to create some new illustrations at some point. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Should I keep adding new illustrations here or should I make new sections for them? Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I’d say make new sections for them. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
alright. I'll do that then. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way to make it automatically add the date and time to the new section because I had to add that manually last time. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Titanoides new life reconstruction

Little(ish) fella to replace the old Bogdanov art

Life reconstruction of the paleogene pantodont Titanoides primaevus.

Zhombah (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks very good, but the file is a bit low res. Is that the original or did it get compressed? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't typically work at a super high resolution (simply out of habit), but i could absolutely resize the image. The conversion to a .png format may have caused some compression. Zhombah (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Koonaspides

Koonaspides

At Ta-tea-two-te-to's request. Qohelet12 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems so nice to me, matches with morphology descripted in Jell & Duncan, 1986 (it is inaccessible, if someone want to see I can send in Discord) and modern anaspidids. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, probably it would need extra uropods as modern members have 2 pair of that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Pteranodon

Pteranodon

Please review for accuracy. Go easy, this is my first pterosaur! UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it has pteroids. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the texturing's just weird in general. The brachiopatagium looks essentially undifferentiated from the skin of the body. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Pteroids added. How should I differentiate the brachiopatagium? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps just a crisper line. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the brachiopatagium would have had feathers on it, that would probably do the trick. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The distal phalanx is more strongly curved in Pteranodon than other taxa but the rounded wingtips thing usually feels overdone. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
tail should be much less chunky. Not sure how i feel about the wing posture either. When flying they would have wings extended near perpendicular to the body, so the angle between the metacarpal and first wing phalanx should be much less sharp Skye McDavid (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Eramoscorpius

Eramoscuorpius

Ok, I guess I can now update Odaraia and Arthropleura, although it may take some time. Qohelet12 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the new artwork! Just take your time for the updates.
The only issue of this reconstruction is the fingers of right pedipalp, which should curve inward instead of upward. In scorpion's pedipalpal pincer, the curvature is perpendicular (to inward) to the arrangement of the fingers (free finger latero-ventral, fix finger dorso-mesial). It's better to explain by these images. Junnn11 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation!, I have already fixed it. Qohelet12 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


Liulaobei Formation size chart

Liulaobei Formation size chart
Liulaobei Formation size chart (digitally altered)

Here is a size chart I made of various organisms from the Tonian aged Liulaobei Formation. This formation doesn't yet have an article, but it might fit with the Huainan biota (it is part of the Huainan Group), though I think that it might constitute a different biota. Also, I don't know about whether or not to keep the texture of the sketchbook. I don't think it can be removed without making the text/scale bar look out of place.

Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I made an alternate version in Krita that I think looks a lot cleaner. I'm unsure what to do with the old one though. I might make the digitally altered one an edit to the old one. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Changchengia

  • Changchengia stipitata Changchengia stipitata
  • Changchengia sp. 1 Changchengia sp. 1
  • Changchengia sp. 2 Changchengia sp. 2
  • Changchengia sp. 3 Changchengia sp. 3

Here are all the Images I made for Changchengia. The Chuanlinggou Formation forms still currently have the lines since I made them a while ago, but I made the C.stipitata illustration more recently. I was originally going to leave the C.stipitata illustration with the paper texture, but there were some smudges of the paper so I decided to remove the background digitally. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Skara anulata

Skara anulata

I have been wanting to make this recon for a long time, so here it is. The next one now is Odaraia. Qohelet12 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Could I add it to the Skaracarida page? Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I think it would be good to wait and see if @Junnn11 has any comments on the accuracy. Qohelet12 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Alright. Tourmaline Ctenacanth (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I see no obvious issues. Yery detailed work! Junnn11 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Ooh, Skara finally gets a reconstruction! Also, I could probably expand the Skaracarida page; gives me something to do other than Precambrian stuff. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Jiangxisuchus

Armin Reindl (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Nipponopterus

Hello! Here's my hypothetical restoration of Nipponopterus. Please let me know your thoughts! I hope everyone had a wonderful new year!

Life restoration of Nipponopterus mifunensis.

SpinoDragon145 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What is it doing? FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It’s using its forelimbs to launch itself into the air in order to start flying. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That's not what a pterosaur launch sequence would look like. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, if it's using the legs for take-off, they would never stick up into the air like that, the feet would always be directed towards the ground. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake! I should've looked back at the launch sequence to make sure I was accurate. I'll see what I can do to fix this. Thanks for showing me the diagram too. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Agapornis longipes

Agapornis longipes

Hi, I've created this illustration of the extinct lovebird species Agapornis longipes. The pose is based on this photo of Agapornis roseicollis, and the leg proportions are based on the figure from the paper. The coloration is based on Agapornis roseicollis as well as Agapornis nigrigenis. Does it look good to use? Di (they-them) (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks nice, the eye seems like it could be rounder? And I'd probably make the flight-feather anatomy more specific, it's very unclear now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure thing, I'll work on that. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I have updated the file with the improved eye and feathers. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Much better! While some might argue it's pointless to reconstruct colour scheme for such a bird, the literature is full of this kind of speculative restorations, so there's plenty of precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Request: Pachycrocuta brevirostris life restoration, and a review of Nobu Tamura's restoration

restoration of Pachycrocuta brevirostris by Nobu Tamura

Compared to the life restoration on Maucio Anton's website (which also includes excellent skeletal reference material ), Nobu Tamura's restoration looks wonky. Particularly noticable things include the upper profile of the head, and the shape of the neck. Would be nice to get more accurate restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate Uncus dzaugisi reconstruction

Artist's interperetation of U. dzaugisi

Uncus is likely a nematoid yet this reconstruction has scalids and a proboscis (similar to a priapulid) while these features don’t seem to appear in the fossils. These features should likely be removed in favour of a relatively featureless front end, like the fossils of Uncus show. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I second this Fossiladder13 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: would you be able to fix this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but if I remove the proboscis, what to do with that seems to be the part of it that seems to be within the body, the red innards? And what are scalids? FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Scalids are those spines on the proboscis that scalidophorans are named for.
And perhaps the interior part of the proboscis could just be made into generic gut (I.e. shrunk) with a small opening at the front for the mouth. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Should the tentacles be removed also, essentially rendering the depiction nematode-like? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Probably, seeing as Uncus is likely a stem-nematoid. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
yeah, Uncus would've probably heavily resembled nematodes given its likely taxonomic position. Fossiladder13 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What would be a good reference photo? I can modify it, but I know barely anything about this group. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)