Revision as of 23:51, 16 May 2022

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Archives Current Automatic Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Old Manual Archives June - October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February - March 2007 April - May 2007 June 2007 July - August 2007 September - December 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 - 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 January - April 2018 May - August 2018 September - December 2018 January - April 2019 May - August 2019 September - December 2019 January - April 2020 This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it 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 dinosaur 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; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. 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" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), 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). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing 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: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, 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. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review Per following policy discussions: Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Archive 60#Proposing changes to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palaeontology.2FPaleoart review, Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Archive 60#Illustrations violating NOR, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 4#Illustrated reconstructions of extinct species, Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive66#Reconstructed dinosaur images in FAs

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Images in review

Sarcosaurus

Is this restoration of Sarcosaurus (here interpreted as a basal neotheropod) suitable for use in the article? HFoxii (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Any comments? Maybe there are some inaccuracies? HFoxii (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hfoxii it looks pretty good to me, aside from the feet (i'm using the word 'feet' to refer to the part of the leg below the ankle since dinosaurs are digitigrade) being a bit too chunky. everything else looks really good though. Aside from the foot issue, it's a really nice drawing. Firewing The Wyvern (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Firewing The Wyvern: Does it look better now? HFoxii (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ondogurvel

I made a life restoration of the newly described alvarezsaurid Ondogurvel alifanovi. What do you think? User:BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The wing looks kind of odd, like it has two arms stitched together? I can kind of see what you're going for with the wing on the second finger, but above that it doesn't seem to adhere very much to the actual arm. I also kind of doubt those tiny, vestigial second fingers could support anything like a modern bird/dromaeosaur-like wing. FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I made edits to the secondary feathers to make them look like they are attacked to the arm. I also heavily reduced the primary feathers to look more reasonable on the vestigial second finger. What now? User:BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I heavily suggest the addition of a second hind leg, it looks a bit… wrong to me to not have the other one visible. Luxquine (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How does that look with the other leg? Anything else? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you think this can be added to the article yet? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the tiny wing feathers on the second digit are still a bit improbable, but I guess it's fine overall. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it is a bit odd, but it's not like the second manual digit was not just a stump; it was a jointed finger with a claw on it, and while it was almost certainly vestigial I think it is reasonable to have a few small primaries loosely placed on it. I might consider reducing the primaries further seeing that some people find them a bit improbable. I also went ahead and added the restoration to the article's taxobox. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2022‎ (UTC)

I changed the pose a bit and reduced the primary feathers more. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Kelumapusaura

Found this image by Leonardo HerSan while reading about Kelumapusaura. It's very dark and difficult to see the subject clearly. Thoughts? SlvrHwk (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps more suited to a palaeoecology section than being a primary reconstruction. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 15:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• They also have this Rajasaurus image: FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  As per usual, we're an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, and I'm not sure that Kelumapusaura illustration is ideal for encyclopedic purposes. However, the Rajasaurus image might be good on the Lameta Formation or Deccan Traps pages. Just to be sure, though, is it currently thought that large lava flows such as that would have been present during the Cretaceous? I know at least some of the volcanism is now thought to be earliest Paleogene. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  The deccan volcanism is, last I checked, an intermittent occurrence spanning the end of the Campanian (? poorly dated at the bottom), entire Maastrichtian, and early Paleogene. The Rajasaurus fossils themselves are found between two of the flows, so its certainly not an inaccurate illustration. IJReid  17:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Should get the inaccurate tag then. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I misread... FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• The artist has since uploaded more images and added them to articles, so probably good to have them all reviewed here. 13:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Cryolophosaurus
• Cryolophosaurus
• Megapnosaurus kayentakatae
• Kelumapusaura
• Rajasaurus

I wonder what the Cryolophosaurus skull is based on? It seems a little closer to the traditional "carnosaur" skull than new-look Dilophosaurus (especially in the tall snout). As before the landscape is a good image but not suitable for use.

The lack of lips on the Megapnosaurus is a bit of a weird choice. I think the image of the skull is also a little distracting. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging the artist Leonardo HerSan so they know they have to put images for review here before adding them to articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Plantigrade therizinosaurids

So, long time ago I stumbled upon the enigmatic Macropodosaurus and started to collect information about it. Sennikov has published two interesting monographs (2006, 2021) about this ichnotaxon concluding that therizinosaurids are the most likely track-makers and had a plantigrade stance (sadly, critical elements like tarsals, calcaneum, and astragalus are omitted). Decided to re-draw my Segnosaurus to reflect the new paper in the Macropodosaurus article. While I could continue "updating" more of my therizinosaurids, I feel like opinions from others are required. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a minority opinion, though? Russian researchers have many unconventional palaeobiological hypotheses (cf. aquatic Scutosaurus). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems inferring plantigrade theropod walking from tracks is iffy, as indicated by Jens Lallensack's latest paper on the Paluxy River tracks. Perhaps the same doubts can be applied here. I think this would verge on WP:fringe if not confirmed by other researchers, and should not be followed as the default here. It can of course be discussed and illustrated. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I really like to see the originals of these tracks, or at least 3D models of them. It doesn't look like the mechanism we described for the Paluxy River tracks, though. But we can get these somewhat elongate shapes if there is a lot of soft tissue at the rear of the foot, behind the metatarsals (this may be the most likely explanation). It is furthermore difficult to distinguish such tracks from those of crocodylomorphs (Batrachopus). So I think that the evidence available at the moment is still weak. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah thought as much. My main issue with Sennikov's work is the lack reliable mechanical analysis, rather than just comparative anatomy. Still, it's very interesting how reduced the metatarsals of therizinosaurids are. Also yeah, it seems that no other researchers (besides Molina-Pérez & Larramendi 2016 book) have sneaked into the proposal. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think for this particular image, though, if we want to use it as a general restoration, and not an example of this particular theory, it should be made digitrade again. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to upload a separate version with standard leg posture to be used in more general articles, PaleoNeolitic? FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Crap I totally forgot about this! I can certainly try to make a new pair of feet; I'll upload this plantigrade restoration elsewhere. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

African dinosaurs

• Angolatitan
• Arcusaurus
• Australodocus
• Bahariasaurus
• Deltadromeus
• Dicraeosaurus
• Elrhazosaurus
• Ignavusaurus
• Kentrosaurus
• Lesothosaurus
• Lycorhinus
• Malawisaurus
• Massospondylus
• Nigersaurus
• Pegomastax
• Rebbachisaurus
• Spinostropheus
• Tendaguria
• Vulcanodon

Hey y'all! Earlier this year I expanded the "list of dinosaurs by continent" pages, adding life restorations for whatever taxa have some on Wikimedia Commons. However, I realized some of them haven't been reviewed. Over a series of seven posts, I will submit here the files that haven't appeared on the review page. First up, the African dinosaurs.

So far, I only have a few comments:

- The legs of the Arcusaurus appear to be too short.
- The Deltadromeus is depicted as an avetheropod, but most recent analyses place it as a noasaurid, which would make it more gracile.
- Ignavusaurus is highly unlikely to have protofeathers.
- The Spinostropheus appears to have a too boxy skull. As a possible elaphrosaurine, it would have a slender beak.
- I drew the Tendaguria with proportionally long limbs based on Atlasaurus, which has been recovered as a possible turiasaur.

Other than that, I think they're passable. What do you think? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sauropod thoughts: Tendaguria absolutely should not be based on Atlasaurus. Atlasaurus has only rarely been recovered as a turiasaur, and no analysis that has included both taxa has ever found them to be closely related. Tendaguria's proportions should probably be based on Moabosaurus and Janenschia. It has been recovered as the sister taxon of Moabosaurus by phylogenetic analysis, and may be a junior synonym of Janenschia. There's at least one conference abstract indicating that the skull of Malawisaurus was less camarasaur-like than typically portrayed, but that study hasn't been published yet. The front feet of Vulcanodon should probably be less prosauropod-like, given the anatomy of Tazoudasaurus, and the hind legs look a bit overmuscled to me. IJReid's skeletal of Vulcanodon is pretty good, for comparison. No specific comments on any of the other sauropods for now, though I question whether the Australodocus reconstruction is actually at all useful. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I updated the Tendaguria. How's it look now? Miracusaurs (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Still needs a fair amount of work, I'm afraid. The chin should probably be more expanded, as in Mierasaurus and other turiasaurs (for some reason, Turiasaurus is often depicted with a Jobaria-like unexpanded chin, but this is incorrect). The eye is too big, probably shouldn't have a white sclera, and the ear is missing. There should be more of a connection between the back of the forelimb and the torso. The thumb claw seems a bit too high up on the forefoot. The forelimbs look too slender and the hindlimbs too birdlike; sauropod limbs were more evenly columnar, not so tapering. The hind feet are wrong; they should be plantigrade, not digitigrade, and the arrangement of the claws looks wrong. The general shape of the body in the hips-base of tail region looks kind of formless, and the tail seems to taper a bit too quickly. The shading could use some work as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• The Nigersaurus I believe is a model by Tyler Keillor for Paul Sereno, so should be fine, and the Pegomastax is from the Sereno paper that described that species. Unless inaccuracies are obvious, such restorations probably don't need to be posted for review. As for Deltadromeus, I don't think its position will be stable until more fossils are found, and there have been recent papers going in different directions. So like with the skeletal reconstructions, perhaps a restoration showing an alternate take would be a solution. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've said before that for Bahariasaurus, we should have multiple life restorations if we have any at all, and the same probably applies to Deltadromeus. Reconstructions of it as a Limusaurus-like ceratosaur, Masiakasaurus-like ceratosaur, and Gualicho-like tetanuran would be good to have. Unfortunately, this reconstruction doesn't really match any of those, but it also isn't clearly wrong given the...uncertainty...over its relationships. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's clearly based on the old Sereno supervised reconstructed skeleton with the odd horns from when it was considered a "basal coelurosaur", which would probably match a neovenatorid mostly. But note a newer, Sereno supervised reconstruction exists, which appears to be noasaur-like maybe? In the newest Sereno-related paper it's similar, but without teeth: FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like there are a lot of other questionable restorations in the other lists of dinosaurs by continent, should also be reviewed here. Some of them are really inadequate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'll post some in the coming weeks. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Remember to slap the inaccurate palaeoart tag on the images that are found to be wrong but are not fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Miracusaurs (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  Makes it much easier to identify and fix them, thanks. I see one restoration I made was also tagged, feel free to ping me if you encounter them so I can fix them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• The upper beak in Lesothosaurus and those heterodontosaurs looks a bit too extensive to me, though it's a bit of a nitpick. Would be more of a little nubbin in such basal taxa. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Velociraptor

Hi! This Velociraptor reconstruction I did a while back was updated per request on the last image review page, but it was archived before it could be evaluated as paleontologically acceptable. Is there anything you guys would change about this reconstruction, or is it good as is? --Entelognathus (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I still think it could be closer to the skeletals in the proportions of the head and placement of teeth. The nostril seems to be in a pretty random location compared to the location of the bony nostril, and the eye seems a bit too big. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Which skeletal would you recommend for the skull? -- Entelognathus (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Scott Hartman's as usual: And note the fleshy nostril should be placed at the front margin of the bony nostril, and the visible part of the eyeball should fit within the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals by Ezequiel Vera

I came across the following unreviewed restorations by Ezequielvera on Commons, which could be useful once reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Viavenator
• Eodromaeus
• Narambuenatitan
• Pitekunsaurus macayai
• Amargastegos
• Petrobrasaurus
• Discosauriscus
• Kirchnerala
• Madres

Standard comments on lips for Viavenator.

Eodromaeus' hands at least need a little flesh for IV and V... Teeth also feel like an afterthought.

I think Eodromaeus is pretty good, or at least better than the current NT restoration. It's entirely possible that metacarpals IV and V were covered with skin at this point in their evolution (though I won't say it's conclusive), and the teeth correspond to the anatomy quite well (large, widely-spaced, longest in the anterior maxilla). The visible fenestrae are the largest issues I see. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I can fix that one if it's useful then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I was considering that there doesn't seem to be enough space for metacarpals IV/V even if they were covered in flesh. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks to be enough to me, from what we know of the last metacarpals they were very small and slender. I would bet that the life restoration was based on Maurissauro's skeletal, which is very good. I have noticed that the head (in the art) may be a little too big, but it's hard to tell if it's outside the realm of variation since all we really have on the taxon is a short paper in Science. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The perspective on Amargastegos is weird. Would that little of the thigh be visible from this perspective? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The Pitekunsaurus also seems to be overly emaciated, and the Narambuenatitan has a too visible fenestra. That should be fixable, though, if those are the only issues. Don't think I'll bother fixing those that already have other restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Something is very off with the head and neck of Narambuenatitan, but I can't place what exactly it is. It looks like a dicraeosaurid. Maybe the head is too large? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

All the titanosaurs have that low-shouldered, short-necked look that titanosaurs were depicted with back when people thought Saltasaurus was a typical titanosaur. They also have numerous randomly-placed small osteoderms, not the rows of only a few osteoderms considered more likely these days. The head seems to be in line with the neck, rather than slightly downturned as is typical of sauropods (this is especially egregious in the Narambuenatitan). The head of the Petrobrasaurus looks almost prosauropod-like. All in all, they have a decidedly retro look that I feel is probably generally inaccurate. The composition of the Pitekunsaurus reconstruction is also confusing; I can't tell if the size differences are meant to be perspective or not. Since these are mostly very general problems, I'm not sure if they're the kinds of things for which revising the images is appropriate. My preference would be to replace them altogether, although obviously we'd need something to replace them with... Ornithopsis (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points. With the effort that is required to fix up these images, we may as well create new ones... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have excised and tagged all three titanosaur images. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that leaves the three non-dinosaurs, and I guess I'll just remove the teeth from the abelisaur so it can at least be usable down the line. As for the Amargastegos, the fat belly would overlap the thigh? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, would it be that extreme? Here's a Stegosaurus muscular reconstruction in a similar view: Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I made the belly protrude a bit less so we can use this image if ever it gets properly named. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Kirchnerala looks ok to me, but as fossil lacks tip of the wing, I don't know the shape of wing is accurate. As seeing other stem-odonatopteran like Argentinala and Erasipteroides, wing of that reconstruction looks a bit sharper but almost acceptable. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Discosauriscus has a few problems. In life, the pineal foramen would have held a pineal eye, which was subtly exposed as a flat/convex structure or covered with skin instead of a pit like in the skull. I also don't know if keratinous nails would have been present as far back as seymouriamorphs, trackways seem to be a bit inconclusive on that question. Most Discosauriscus specimens are paedomorphic animals or juveniles with large external gills, but I believe terrestrial adults have also been found, so that's not a major issue. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it have had webbed toes? And I assume the pineal eye would have filled up the entire pit, unlike what's shown here? I can maybe enlarge the little white spot to cover it all? Could be good to save it so we have an image of an adult, there is also one by NT on Commons, not sure how accurate it is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just from what we know if its habits and modern amphibians, the toes were probably not webbed in terrestrial adults. And yes, the pineal eye would have filled up the entire pit. If we want an image of an adult, DB has a second version of his without external gills. The skull doesn't change too much through ontogeny besides getting a bit less triangular in dorsal view, and the rest of the body is conjectural. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've now updated the Viavenator (hid the teeth and cropped the border), the Eodromaeus (smaller head, less visible fenestrae, more apparent vestigial fingers, white background), and the Discosauriscus (larger pineal eye). Feel free to point out if they need further tweaks, or if any of the other images can be saved with edits. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Viavenator and Eodromaeus look great. I think a more prominent pineal eye is not the best approach for Discosauriscus: the pineal organ is usually barely visible in life even if the foramen is distinct. The tuatara, for example, has one of the most strongly developed pineal eyes, but it's barely noticeable if you compare the skull to the flesh and blood head. I should have clarified that even if the organ fills up the whole space within the foramen, the visible portion would have been small and difficult to distinguish from the rest of the head. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, so perhaps I can just paint over it with the colour of its skin, but with low opacity, so a vague outline is apparent, or should it just be an overall lighter area without an outline? And the visible part should be smaller? FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds good. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Smaller and fainter, how is that? FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Feitianius paradisi

Let me know if anything needs changing. :) Luxquine (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks anatomically fine to me.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking pretty much fine and naturalistic. I'm particularly interested in this style, looks like a mix of traditional line and digital painting (?). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't say much about the accuracy, but the crest reminded me very much of this photo: FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ypupiara

This is a sketch I made of Ypupiara which I added to the article a while ago. I did not know about the review process at the time, but coming across it again I realized it needs to be reviewed. I think there are some things that need fixing (maybe eye position). If you see anything, please let me know. - BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a beak, or just skin texture? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just skin texture, but I can see how it looks like a beak. I'll edit it and make it look less beak-like soon. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t look like a beak to me, there are clearly scales drawn on. I wouldn’t make them more prominent than they already are. Luxquine (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the eye more posteriorly to match what is known about other unenlagiines' skull shape and eye placement. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Retooled megaraptoran

So I yet again returned to my old restoration of Siats, which was probably way too fluffy for such a large megaraptoran, and since that article has another, scaly restoration, perhaps it can be retooled as the small genus Vayuraptor. Any thoughts on this modified version? FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the proportions are too robust for a small stem-megaraptoran like Vayuraptor. Either make it more like a slightly beefy Compsognathus or retool it as a bigger genus like Fukuiraptor or Phuwiangvenator. If the latter, make the snout more elongated and the thumb claw larger. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It may be best to retool it into something like Yutyrannus or another large early tyrannosauroid. They're some of the only theropods which straddle the line between large predators and confirmed extensive feathering. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

How about Tratayenia? It's pretty big, but not as big as Siats. Yutyrannus already has multiple restorations. There seems to be coming a description of a pretty complete megaraptoran soon that may settle their relations with other theropod groups better... FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Tratayenia would probably work after a bit more proportional changes. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Which changes could that be? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe making the snout lower and the hand claws larger, more flattened and curved. Tratayenia was a well-nested megaraptoran, so Megaraptor and Murusraptor are good templates. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Before I adjust details, more like this, Fanboyphilosopher? Will probably also paint it over so it doesn't look so rough... FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I like it, though the right hand may need some re-touching to make it clear that the inner two claws are the bigger ones. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Now updated and renamed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Asian dinosaurs

• Achillobator
• Aepyornithomimus
• Albalophosaurus
• Albinykus
• Amtocephale
• Anhuilong
• Anomalipes
• Anserimimus
• Aralosaurus
• Archaeornithoides
• Arkharavia
• Auroraceratops
• Bactrosaurus
• Banji
• Batyrosaurus
• Bayannurosaurus
• Beibeilong
• Beipiaosaurus
• Beishanlong
• Caenagnathasia
• Ceratonykus
• Chaoyangsaurus
• Citipati
• Dilong
• Dongbeititan
• Dzharatitanis Dzharatitanis
• Erlikosaurus
• Gallimimus
• Gigantoraptor
• Gobihadros
• Gobivenator
• Graciliceratops
• Graciliraptor
• Haplocheirus
• Hualianceratops
• Irisosaurus
• Isanosaurus
• Ischioceratops
• Itemirus
• Jianchangosaurus
• Jianianhualong
• Khaan
• Koreaceratops
• Liaoceratops
• Liaoningosaurus
• Micropachycephalosaurus
• Minotaurasaurus
• Mongolostegus
• Mononykus
• Nanshiungosaurus
• Nomingia
• Oviraptor
• Parvicursor
• Pedopenna
• Philovenator
• Pinacosaurus
• Protarchaeopteryx
• Qiaowanlong
• Qinlingosaurus
• Qiupalong
• Ruyangosaurus
• Saichania
• Saurolophus
• Scansoriopteryx
• Serikornis
• Shanag
• Siamosaurus
• Sinocalliopteryx
• Sinoceratops
• Sinosaurus
• Sirindhorna
• Talarurus
• Tangvayosaurus
• Tianyulong
• Tsaagan
• Wakinosaurus Wakinosaurus
• Wuerhosaurus
• Wulatelong
• Wulong
• Xiongguanlong
• Xuwulong
• Yi
• Yimenosaurus
• Zhenyuanlong
• Zhongjianosaurus
• Zhuchengceratops
• Zhuchengtitan
• Zhuchengtyrannus
• Zuoyunlong

Here's the second round of images of the lists of dinosaurs by continent: the Asian dinosaurs. Apologies if it's quite long, but Asia really is the hotspot for dinosaur discoveries.

My comments:

- The Aepyornithomimus image is from its description, but it looks kinda... off. Maybe it's the weird wings?

I think the biggest issue is that it looks like it doesn't have a chest. The texture is weird but that's expected for images from this particular artist. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Albinykus, Anomalipes, Archaeornithoides, and Bactrosaurus appear to be stuck in the WIP stage, as they lack details. @Levi bernardo:, do you have any plans to go back to them?

I would say the same for Anserimimus, the right leg is a little rough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Amtocephale should have a rim of hornlets around its dome.
- My Bayannurosaurus was posted here before, where I was asked to pose it bipedally. However, because its description found it to be mostly quadrupedal, I changed it back.

What is the basis of the Iguanodon-like hands? Indeed the manus is not complete, but based on what is there and on Ouranosaurus it looks a little large. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The rest of the skeleton, especially the skull, looked so much like Iguanodon so I thought it was possible the hands were just as big as the latter's. But I made them smaller based on your suggestion. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Beibeilong is from its description, but it appears to have pronated hands.

Should be kept even if we create a modified version. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

While that's probably how it was drawn, I think it can coneivably be explained away by perspective, if we imagine the lower arm is directed away from the viewer. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- According to its description, Caenagnathasia was found with a toothed beak, so the artist restored it like a wading bird with big feet. I'm not sure the beak thing is true, so the speculative ecology looks quite unlikely.

Sues & Averianov (2015) describe some mild fluting on the occlusal edge of the beak but it's less pronounced than Caenagnathus. The legs are probably relatively easy to fix, and the mouth is closed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The left hand of the Chaoyangsaurus appears to be pronated.
- Light green is unlikely for the unfeathered parts of Dilong. It also has exposed teeth.
- I reconstructed Dongbeititan as a non-titanosauriform sauropod following Mannion et al. (2013).
- The Dzharatitanis comes from its original description that found it to be a rebbachisaurid, but it has since been reinterpreted as a titanosaur. I have no idea what to do with the image. Should we tag it as inaccurate or speculative, or make a new one?

This seems like an acceptable image to use for historical purposes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest issue with the Dzharatitanis image is that I've nominated it for deletion. It's a piece by Andrey Atuchin, not Averianov, and its been published in multiple places by Atuchin as not freely-licensed. Discussions of it can continue on the nomination page, but I think its a case of Eurekamag incorrectly attributing the authority and license of a figure from the paper to the press release art of a different license and author. IJReid  17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied at nomination, but my take is that we don't know for sure unless one of us checks with Atuchin. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

- Gobihadros is also from a paper, but it has a claw on the fourth finger.

Removed the fourth fingers. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

- Graciliraptor should have longer hind wings to better match Microraptor. Also, the bottom-most leg feathers erupt diretly from scaly skin; as evidenced by Microraptor, microraptorians had feathers until their feet.
- The left Irisosaurus in the image from its description has a seemingly pronated hand.

I straightened the hand out so that it can now conceivably be explained by perspective, if we imagine the arm was lifted somewhat to the side. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Isanosaurus is a model from a Polish "dino-park". Its front limbs appear to be a failed attempt at eusauropod-like hands (unless it's just funky lighting), and it has a protofeather crest, which is unlikely for sauropodomorphs. There's also a barely-visible text watermark in the bottom right corner.
- The texture of the Itemirus looks too much like skin instead of feathers.

I don't know about that, it feels like a good attempt at emulating shoebill integument (sans the beak). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Jianianhualong is another press release/paper artwork, but the proportions of its wings are strange. (Primaries shorter than secondaries?)

I don't think this is entirely unreasonable. I kept the restoration while I was writing the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Koreaceratops lacks the "sail" on its tail.

I really do not like how it is swimming. The original description makes the same ecological inference for Protoceratops, for which the majority opinion is of a function in display (cf. work of Hone et al.). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The pose of the Liaoceratops seems to imply it was facultatively quadrupedal, but I'm pretty sure basal ceratopsians were obligate bipeds.
- The armor on the Liaoningosaurus appears to be drawn as a carapace and not as plates embedded in the skin.
- I drew the plates of the Mongolostegus based on Wuerhosaurus. I agree that the latter's plates are broken, but I just can't see them as tall pentagons or teardrops like Stegosaurus, so I came up with a compromise.
- I originally drew the Pedopenna with a kakapo-like color scheme, but I changed it to a more burrowing owl-inspired one after I realized primitive feathers probably couldn't be green. Either way, both are fitting as Pedopenna was likely mostly terrestrial.

It seems to have a way too large eye, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I checked and it matches well with the sclerotic ring of Scott Hartman's updated Anchiornis. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

But again, you need to base it on the inner diameter of the ring, not the outer, as it appears to be here, compared to Hartman's diagram. The visible part of the eyeball in the living animal would not exceed the inner diameter. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Philovenator doesn't have primary feathers.
- Pinacosaurus should have claws.
- The Protarchaeopteryx looks too much like a modern turkey, down to the blue skin on its face.
- Qiaowanlong is depicted as a brachiosaurid, but most phylogenetic analyses place it within Euhelopodidae.
- I drew Qinlingosaurus as a titanosaur based on Tracy Ford's identification.
- IIRC, Qiupalong should have no feathers on the legs and in the immediate area surrounding it, based on the excellent specimen of Ornithomimus with integument impressions.

This seems close enough. One would not expect every single species in a clade to have the same integument pattern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Ruyangosaurus was drawn by Nima Sassani, who has an... unusual idea of sauropod phylogeny, so its depiction as a lithostrotian may not be accurate.

The image is from a preprint, so it unusually straddles the line between academic literature and user-generated content. I think caution is warranted. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Saurolophus comes from a paper about its scalation, so the color pattern is likely accurate, but the pinky is missing. Same goes for its North American counterpart.
- Sinoceratops is missing the distinctive bumps lining the top of the frill.
- The Sirindhorna image comes from its description, but its temporal fenestra is quite obvious.

Painted it out and moved the eye up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- The Tangvayosaurus is a model in Savannakhet, Laos. It's also a literal retrosaur.

Beyond saving, could be any sauropod. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- There is apparently an undescribed specimen of Tianyulong that shows it with a long tail with a "fan" of spines at the tip. Our restoration should probably be updated to reflect that.

I don't think so, as this is not in the literature yet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Wakinosaurus has visible fenestrae. Also, it seems to have a prominent pubic boot *wink wink*

I have a suspicion that it's a copyvio, as is usual the case at such a small resolution, but can't verify it... FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It's actually made by Ezequiel Vera, who used to go by maniraptora on DeviantArt. But I do see how it looks like it was grabbed from a 90's-early 00's dinosaur website. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, why is the Commons version then credited to a Thiago Lourenço Menezes? Seems the image may have just been taken without persmission from the author? FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Wuerhosaurus looks like it has only one row of plates.

This image is beyond saving, the anatomy is bizarre. I don't know what's going on with the lanky forelimbs and oversized beak. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The wing of the Wulatelong is odd. Where do the primaries begin and the secondaries end?
- While amazing, Emily Willoughby's Yi qi is the incorrect color. Analysis of melanosomes suggest it was mostly black but yellowish-brown on the head and wing membranes.
- Zhuchengtyrannus appears to have whiskers?

Seems like just filaments. I don't see this as being clearly wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I updated the proportions of the drawings I made (Arkharavia, Batyrosaurus, Bayannurosaurus, Dongbeititan, Mongolostegus, Pedopenna, Qinlingosaurus, Tsaagan, Yimenosaurus, Zhuchengtitan and Zuoyunlong) before I posted them here.

Aside from that, I think all of them are okay. What do you think? Are there other errors? Should anything else be changed? Miracusaurs (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Beishanlong is probably a little less deinocheirid-like than it should be.

Minotaurasaurus has a jugal horn that looks a little small and not quite right.

Enlarged it somewhat, but I don't think we can say much about the accuracy of the shape as long as the bony core would fit within it, seems kerartin could change it dramatically. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Mononykus is missing vestigial manual digits, not covered by a plausible amount of skin or feathers either.

I think it's worth tagging the artists when we know they're active, so tagging PaleoNeolitic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Now added 🤏. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Parvicursor seems like a nice image for palaeoecology but it obscures a lot of anatomy - in fact, pretty much all of the parts that are known...

Saichania has extra claws.

Removed fourth claws and green tint. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Scansoriopteryx works fine as a historical restoration (same with Epidendrosaurus) but I think there should be a reconstruction more like Yi.

Sinocalliopteryx, head seems a little small.

Made the head bigger and the neck shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Zhuchengceratops doesn't look like a leptoceratopsid, it looks like a derived ceratopsid.

Zuoyunlong has an innovative colour scheme, but it also obscures some detail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, sauropod thoughts:

• The Anhuilong looks somewhat shrinkwrapped, but otherwise reasonable at a glance.
• Arkharavia is too incomplete and of too poorly-known phylogenetic position to meaningfully reconstruct.
• The holotype of Dongbeititan preserves sixteen cervical vertebrae, and is missing some, so it probably had Euhelopus-like proportions. Moore et al. recovered it as closely related to Euhelopus. Basing it off of Euhelopus seems like our best bet to me.
• The Dzharatitanis reconstruction should be marked as historical. I would discourage creating an alternate reconstruction of Dzharatitanis at the moment, given the ambiguity of its phylogenetic position.
• Based on Tazoudasaurus, vulcanodont-grade sauropods did have somewhat eusauropod-like manus, although I'm not really sure what's going on with the manus in this image, and we can't really rule out tufts of feathers in something like this. I would hesitate to mark this Isanosaurus as inaccurate, and as it's a photo of a model we probably shouldn't alter it, but it's perhaps not ideal if we had an alternative.
• The Qiaowanlong reconstruction should be marked as historical.
• Qinlingosaurus is probably too enigmatic to meaningfully reconstruct.
• That Ruyangosaurus is based on the artist's hypothesis that Ruyangosaurus is a lognkosaur, which is not supported by any peer-reviewed literature. Ruyangosaurus is probably euhelopodid-grade, and so is unlikely to have had osteoderms. Note that the preprint the image comes from recieved fairly substantial criticism, including the fact that the authors overlooked an extensive description of referred material of the taxon (COI disclosure: I was one of the people who made critical comments). Not quite sure what it should be marked as, but it arguably not accurate and not really historical either, and I don't think we should try to alter it.
• The Tangvayosaurus looks like a pretty generic retro roadside dinosaur to me.
• I don't feel Zhuchengtitan should have osteoderms, as Opisthocoelicaudia doesn't seem to.

Ornithopsis (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dongbeititan updated. As for Zhuchengtitan, I gave it osteoderms based on Alamosaurus, which has been recovered as close to Opisthocoelicaudia. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Dongbeititan looks better now. Seeing as Zhuchengtitan is likely to be closely related to Opisthocoelicaudia in particular, and it's controversial just how closely related Opisthocoelicaudia and Alamosaurus are, I think it's best to specifically base it off of Opisthocoelicaudia, rather than adding in features from Alamosaurus. IIRC, no titanosaur osteoderms have yet been recovered from Asia. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Zhuchengtitan updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Amargasaurus soft tissue and anatomy

An interesting new study shows that there is no evidence that the neck "spines" of Amargasaurus (and likely Bajadasaurus and Pilmatueia) were covered in keratinous sheathing. Instead, they likely held a "cervical sail" similar to many older illustrations of this taxon. This is course has implications on our current paleoart:.

What would be the best approach here? Should new illustrations be created, or would it be best to modify the existing ones? The size/skeletal diagrams should be easy enough to change. I added the current "sail" restoration above in case there are any comments regarding accuracy, in light of the new research. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any sense in switching over all our restorations off of one study. We should just make sure both reconstructions are represented and mention the study adequately in the text. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This study is the most thorough investigation of the issue to date, however, so I'm inclined to think we should give it greater weight. Perhaps we should create modified versions of some of the user-submitted artworks (but not replace the originals) to show the sail hypothesis. I don't think we should outright replace any of the spiny versions with sailed versions, however, except perhaps in the case of the user-submitted skeletal diagrams and scale charts, where we really only need the one image and I think we should favor the sail hypothesis for those. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be some misinterpretation of the paper (or I'm misinterpreting SlvrHwk's statements), from what I'm reading the authors support a cervical sail. They argue that exposed keratinous sheaths are incongruent with the histological data. So they are in favor of something akin to a Dimetrodon, Edaphosaurus, Spinosaurus, or chameleon sail, with the neural spines covered by a thin sheet of ligament-packed tissue. This seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me, though I'm not sure exactly how it would look with the super modified spines of Bajadasaurus. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I see why you were confused! I adjusted my comment, so hopefully that makes more sense now. It seems that little scientific work has actually been done regarding this until now. Leaving the restorations with only spines would be contrary to current research, making them innacurate, if I understand correctly. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Like any recent paper it's always smart to wait for a consensus and not fall into recency bias, but I personally would strongly support a cervical sail. They have good arguments against the horn-covered neural spines, which were always an unorthodox interpretation relative to soft tissue correlations in other taxa. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you that I did consider an update already. Tho much like Fanboyphilosoopher said, I personally chose caution for the time being, electing to wait for researchers to read the paper and at least a tentative consensus to form (i.e. are there any sauropod workers strongly opposing the idea or is it generally thought plausible by other researchers). Of course should this discussion result in favor of change, I'll gladly update the skeletal with a more solid structure (alternatively I could add a "sail" using grey rather than black if people thing this may be more appropriate) Armin Reindl (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how they claim Pilmatueia had elongated spines, but according to our skeletal, no cervical neural spines have been recovered. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Although we don't have the respective spines from the neck itself, both the authors of the type description and even of this new paper favor that the mid-cervical of Pilmatueia would have supported an Amargasaurus-type neck spike. In the same vain, prior to Bajadasaurus, Pilmatueia was thought to be Amargas sister taxon (before things got shaken up a little). Armin Reindl (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's an ongoing debate, so nothing is "the truth". As long as we show both versions, as we do, it should be fine. That of course doesn't mean that new artwork couldn't be produced. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Our current "sailed" Amargasaurus illustration doesn't have enough claws on it's hind feet. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Weird, almost look like it has hands for feet. Anything else about it that needs to be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If I may suggest, perhaps I could submit a piece for the page in order to take the new paper into account. I noticed there is artwork already on the page with a sail reconstruction, but with all due respect for the artist, perhaps it's time for a more detailed illustration. Here Ive got a work in progress with just the line work completed. Color and Lighting will be added after critique. Fred Wierum 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and this looks great! It might just be the angle, but the skull of the left Amargasaurus looks disproportionately shorter than the other. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ive redrawn the faces so they should be fine. I have a question about the sail. Should it be one sail, with soft tissue filling the space between each pair of spines, or should it be two sails with space in between running own the middle? Fred Wierum 02:55 10 April 2022 (UTC

Perhaps Jens Lallensack, who wrote the article, has some input. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Any news from Jens about the subject? This subject is going to be left in the dust if we cant finalize it soon. Fred Wierum 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless anyone directly objects, I think it can be added already. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed the sail to a unisail for the time being. If the Double sail is prefered, I made that version too so I can change to it easily. Fred Wierum 01:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Pyroraptor and Atrociraptor

• Pyroraptor olympius life reconstruction
• Pyroraptor olympius standard skeletal
• Pyroraptor olympius skeletal as an unenlagiine
• Atrociraptor marshalli skeletal

I've created a set of illustrations of Pyroraptor olympius, originally intending only to publish the life restoration, but while researching it I ended up creating skeletals that might also be worth using in some way. There are two skeletals of Pyroraptor, one depicting it as a generic dromaeosaurid and the other illustrating what it might look like as an unenlagiine (which is a possibility, though uncertain at the moment). The Atrociraptor skeletal is a bonus that I thought would be nice to have on the wiki now that the taxon is getting new media attention. Mettiina (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, one thing I'm wondering, it seems like you've made even the wing and tail feathers very loose and "downy", so I wonder what that's based on? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

As we don't have preserved dromaeosaurid feathers from the Late Cretaceous I'm basing their appearance on modern flightless paleognaths that retain and still actively use their wings i.e. ostriches and rheas. They seem like a good model for how dromaeosaur feathers may have changed in fully terrestrial lineages after giving up the gliding lifestyle. Based on the recent study on the feathers of Anchiornis it seems likely that the pre-flighted maniraptorans didn't really have the tightly zipped feathers of volant birds to begin with, which could mean they only evolved after advanced powered flight was achieved, so probably in pygostylians. Mettiina (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice, sounds sensible. Quite different from how dromaeosaur plumage is generally restored these days, where fluffiness is almost pushed to the max. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That life reconstruction is absolutely stunning. Kudos! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And speaking of Atrociraptor, I retooled an older generic dromaeosaur restoration I had done as that genus years ago, and while I have since toned it down, I wonder if the overly grouse-like ornamental and fluffy plumage is too much and should be modified? FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Berezovsk stegosaur

Here is new life reconstruction of stegosaur (Stegosauria indet.) nicknamed "Yurashka" from the Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) Itat Formation at Berezovsk Quarryy, Krasnoyarsk Krai (West Siberia, Russia). This is a remake of an older model File:Stegosauria indet. from Itat Formation.jpg. The reconstruction is based on Averianov & Krasnolutskii (2009) paper and skeletal by Ivanbel. In addition to improving the overall quality of the model, it was decided to make the model more stegosaurid-like, based on the results of our own phylogenetic analysis. Although this is an original study, no one has classified the Berezovsk stegosaur as a basal stegosaurian, so everything is fine. The phylogenetic position of the Berezovsk stegosaur is unclear, and such an interpretation is equally probable of the basal position. The walking animation is based on trackways from the Morrison and La Puerta formations. I think that this reconstruction could be added to the Itat Formation article. Also, perhaps the walking animation is appropriate for the Stegopodus article. HFoxii (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC) (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov)

A competent restoration. But the walking animation is not appropriate for Stegopodus unless tracks are superimposed underneath. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

European dinosaurs

• Acanthopholis
• Ajkaceratops
• Anoplosaurus
• Aragosaurus
• Arcovenator
• Arenysaurus
• Atsinganosaurus
• Bradycneme
• Camelotia
• Cetiosaurus
• Cumnoria
• Dacentrurus
• Demandasaurus
• Draconyx
• Dracoraptor
• Dubreuillosaurus
• Duriavenator
• Erectopus
• Europasaurus
• Eustreptospondylus
• Haestasaurus
• Heptasteornis
• Horshamosaurus
• Hungarosaurus
• Hypselospinus
• Juratyrant
• Liliensternus
• Lohuecotitan
• Lusitanosaurus
• Magyarosaurus
• Marmarospondylus
• Miragaia
• Ohmdenosaurus
• Paludititan
• Pareisactus
• Piveteausaurus
• Proceratosaurus
• Riabininohadros
• Sciurumimus
• Tastavinsaurus
• Torvosaurus gurneyi
• Wiehenvenator

Not April Fool's: this third round of "list of dinosaurs by continent" images needs reviewing. Presenting, the European dinosaurs.

My comments:

- Anoplosaurus is just one of the many WIP's abandoned by Levi bernardo. Ironically, true to its name, it has no armor.
- Is it just me, or are the jaws of the Arcovenator too thin?

Compared to Majungasaurus... I think the image is fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Arenysaurus is a model, but it has no crest as expected for a lambeosaurine.

A dedicated restoration is probably needed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Atsinganosaurus appears too robust for a lirainosaurine, but it could be reworked into an opisthocoelicaudiine as indicated by Gorcsak's titanosaur analyses. The lighting should also be cleaned up.
- I drew Bradycneme and Heptasteornis as alvarezsaurids based on Thomas Holtz's book, the latter reinforced by Hartman et al., 2019.
- Camelotia has pronated hands.
- I've heard that Cetiosaurus has more than one claw on its hands, but I'm not sure if it's true.
- Dacentrurus is just... weird.

I took the liberty of removing this image from the page. Yikes... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Draconyx was updated based on a comment left when the image was removed from its page. HFoxii, just a note: artistic quality shouldn't be a major reason to delete an image. This is not an art competition.
- Erectopus is an interesting case. It's the official coat of arms of Louppy le Chateau, France, but the dinosaur on the shield is clearly traced from the image from the now defunct Jurassic Park Institute website, most likely because it's the first result on Google Images. What do we do about this?

I mean... I don't think this can be considered a restoration or copyvio proper. Best to leave it IMO. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

- Europasaurus comes from a popular image that's often been used to illustrate the Mesozoic. While the sauropod is passable (except for a few extra claws on the forelimbs), the blue dinosaurs in the background are more concerning. According to the description, they're Iguanodon, which did not live with Europasaurus. They also look like silesaurids.
- Haestasaurus has sometimes been recovered as a turiasaur, so the Camarasaurus-like proportions may not be totally accurate.
- Hungarosaurus is a model in, well, Hungary.

For such a unique taxon, a better image is definitely needed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Liliensternus seems to have paired crests, although contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence of such a feature.
- Lohuecotitan is a model in Cuenca, Spain. It's also one of the most accurate sauropod models I've ever seen.
- Magyarosaurus comes from a Romanian stamp credited to "R. Popescu", but it's plaigiarized from Dougal Dixon's World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures.
- Piveteausaurus has visible fenestrae.

Lips too, and perhaps skull shape. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Riabininohadros is depicted as a hadrosaurid, but its formal description finds it to be indeterminate within Styracosterna.
- The arms of Torvosaurus gurneyi are too small and too thin.

Additionally, I also updated Bradycneme, Draconyx, Heptasteornis, Horshamosaurus, Lusitanosaurus, Marmarospondylus, and Pareisactus before posting this here.

Bradycneme - what is its status? I realize Holtz referred it to the Alvarezsauridae but I feel like it may not be clear enough to definitively restore it as a member of a specialized clade. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

What are your thoughts? Should anything else be changed? Miracusaurs (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As per usual, my sauropod thoughts:

• Aragosaurus: It should probably have somewhat more raised shoulders, as Aragosaurus had a proportionally longer forelimb than Camarasaurus.
• Atsinganosaurus: This doesn't look particularly robust to me, so I don't really see much of a problem with it.
• Camelotia: One of the reasons this is tagged as inaccurate is that it depicts Camelotia as a quadruped, but based on its relatives such as Melanorosaurus and Antetonitrus, Camelotia was indeed probably a quadruped. The manus are indeed inaccurate, however.
• Cetiosaurus: Why would Cetiosaurus have more than one manual ungual? Even stuff as basal as Tazoudasaurus seems to have only the one, and manual material isn't known for Cetiosaurus. The strongly anteriorly tapering torso and ramrod-straight horizontal neck strike me as questionable, but I'm not sure if it's strictly inaccurate.
• Demandasaurus: Looks fine.
• Europasaurus: In addition to the claws and biogeography, the head seems oddly-shaped.
• Haestasaurus: We don't really know exactly where this falls phylogenetically exactly, so I'm not sure we can say Camarasaurus-like proportions are inaccurate. This isn't too unlike Moabosaurus proportionally, so I don't think there's really a problem.
• Lohuecotitan: Looks fine.
• Magyarosaurus: This image portrays the stamp, not the animal per se, and so is not really within the scope of what we do here.
• Marmarospondylus: This is yet another taxon that is too incomplete and of inadequately-constrained phylogenetic relationships to meaningfully reconstruct.
• Ohmdenosaurus: Looks fine.
• Paludititan: Probably too osteoderm-heavy; the general view is that titanosaurs probably had only one pair of osteoderm rows, and certainly not an extensive cover like non-stegosaur thyreophorans.
• Tastavinsaurus: The reconstruction isn't particularly good, but it's hard to say whether it's particularly inaccurate, strictly speaking.

So that's what I've got. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated Magyarosaurus for deletion. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional thoughts:

• Acanthopholis suffers from the grievous mistake of too many claws. But perhaps more egregious is the taxobox image: what is this???
• Ajkaceratops, like Zhuchengceratops, suffers from NT's historical tendency to make basal ceratopsian heads way too small.
• Cumnoria has been sunk into Camptosaurus, so maybe it should look something more like C. dispar? Bigger head, for one, and shorter legs. Looks like a generic 90s iguanodont right now.
• Eustreptospondylus' tall skull doesn't feel very megalosaurid-like, especially juxtaposed against IJ's skull reconstruction on the page.
• Hypselospinus mostly looks fine save for the bent tail, is that possible?
• Miragaia is clearly wrong. Specimen MG 4863 shows spines on the anterior tail , not plates as shown here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Suchomimus Restoration Illustration

Hello, it's been roughly a year I believe since I first sumbitted my Sucho sketch to the review page and Im here with a finalized piece. I've got the updated image here to see if there's anything that needs correcting. --Fred Wierum 21:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, there is a recent trend of restoring spinosaurs with lips covering much of the teeth, which we of course don't have to always follow, but looks a bit like the one in the background has the teeth more covered, or perhaps that's just the angle? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that's the angle or just me forgetting about the teeth. I can add more white in that area to make the teeth more visible. Fred Wierum 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a big deal in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the new paper on Spinosaurus’ bone density made a small change to the appearance of the sacral vertebrae in both Suchomimus and Baryonyx, giving them a “dip” of sorts. I don’t see that represented in this image, so it might be a good thing to include that? I have no further notes on it, the art is magnificent! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this chart here, The dip is present in Baryonyx, but there isnt any material it seems to claim a dip in Suchomimus other than its association with Baryonyx? I also dont see the dip in other past skeletals so I opted for not adding it in. Fred Wierum 15:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the red part is supposed to be the known material in that chart, which would seem there is material indicating such a dip in Suchomimus? Doesn't seem to be present in older diagrams, but perhaps it's based on different material? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression the orange bits were missing material given the Spinosaurus had the legs orange too. If I remember correctly, we dont have the legs for Spino. Fred Wierum 21:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: From the caption of the figure in question: "Skeletal reconstructions are based on single individuals (holotype of Baryonyx and neotype of Spinosaurus), exception made for Suchomimus (see Supplementary Information for further details); preserved bones are highlighted in orange."
The Supplementary Information further explains, "The skeletal reconstruction of Spinosaurus is based on the neotypic and holotypic skeletons, whereas that of Baryonyx is based only on the holotype. The reconstruction of Suchomimus is based on three previously published individuals (G51, G94, and G70). As in Baryonyx, the caudal series of Suchomimus is highly fragmentary; therefore, the reconstruction of this region is speculative and inspired by Ibrahim et al. and Barker et al."
Hope this helps clear things up. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So, dip or no dip? Fred Wierum 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Wiki's current skeletal diagram and the diagram in the new Spino paper are based on the same material, just arranged/interpreted slightly differently. I would personally go with the dip, since that's the most recent research, but I don't think it really matters. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps PaleoGeekSquared, who wrote most of our spinosaur FAs, has some input. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see an update on this piece. It looks absolutely stunning! As for the sail dip in the new skeletal, I've been very curious about this myself so I'm going to ask one of the authors about it now. The fact there hasn't been any notch/dip depicted in previous skeletals makes me wonder how solid the reasoning is behind it, besides the presence of one in Ichthyovenator, or if it's pure speculation. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the skeletals from that paper also reconstruct baryonychines with deep tails, possibly based on the paddle of Spinosaurus. So there's another question: Deep or shallow tail? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone got any suggestions? I'm okay with either. Fred Wierum 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone got any comments on the Sucho hip dip and tail? I'd like to get this part of the illustration decided soon before this section gets lost behind all the newer reviews. Fred Wierum 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's ok for now, but would it be possible to modify it if there comes more definite evidence for this in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Most definitely. I dont check Wiki often at all for notifications, but if you can reach out to me on Twitter, DeviantArt, Artstation, or Discord, please do. Im more than okay with updating completed illustrations. Fred Wierum 18:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if your Carnotaurus needs an update in light of this paper, Fred Wierum? FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought about revisiting the Carnotaurus, if not just completely redoing it. Fred Wierum 18:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs

• Archaeodontosaurus
• Ornithomimoides Ornithomimoides
• Pradhania

Not really much from this fourth round of dinosaurs: the Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs.

- Ornithomimoides is the exact image from the Jurassic Park Institute.
- Pradhania was updated by me before I posted it here.

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Second one certainly needs to be nominated for deletion on Commons. The eye of the third one seems many times too big, should be more like: FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ornithomimoides nominated for deletion. Also, the proportions of Pradhania's skull match almost exactly to Scott Hartman's Massospondylus. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the visible part of the eyeball should only correspond to the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring, like in the Massospondylus I linked, which also seems based on the same skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Weird. I checked earlier and I was sure the eye size matched the sclerotic ring. But I still made it smaller. Miracusaurs (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Only that there are many more Indian and Madagascan dinosaur images, or are these only the ones that might need improvement? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

These are just the images from List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs that haven't appeared on the image review page yet. Feel free to check that page for any other images you think have to be improved. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Alwalkeria
• Lamplughsaura
• Masiakasaurus Masiakasaurus
• Rapetosaurus

• Alwalkeria could be given lips.
• Lamplughsaura has pronated forelimbs?
• Masiakasaurus needs to be tweaked to be more like other noasaurids:
• Rapetosaurus still seems quite wonky. The taxon has osteoderms, does it not? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Anhuilong skeletal diagram by Skye McDavid

I made a skeletal diagram for the Anhuilong page. Based on photos of the bones in Ren et al 2020 Outline is based on various more complete Mamenchisaurids. P2N2222A (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The head looks a little rough. I'm not aware of any mamenchisaurids with skulls like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

good point. modified the head slightly P2N2222A (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The musculature on the front limbs (especially near the top) seems lacking. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

an expert I consulted with while making this made the same recommendation. fixed P2N2222A (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Almond Formation Ceratopsian

This is a skeletal of the known elements of the taxon. I used the AMNH's photo of the specimen the missing elements were based on Anchiceratops holotype, CMN 8535 and "Bistaceratops" . The scale bar was lifted from Farke (2004)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanoceratops (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Montanoceratops! I have a few critiques regarding your illustration:

• The dark gray fossil material is confusing. Since it's preserved bone, it should probably also be white (or maybe light gray).
• The words "Scale Bar" below the scale bar are unnecessary.
• It's best to leave off the signature/watermark, especially in this scenario, where the depicted fossil material belongs to a ceratopsian, but certainly not Montanoceratops! It could potentially be confusing or misleading. Additionally, watermarks like this are discouraged on Commons - see here and here.
• Why is it labeled as "gen. et sp. nov.?"? Has that assumption been published, or is it WP:OR? I would probably stick with "Chasmosaurinae indet.", as listed in Farke (2004), unless a more recent paper has said otherwise.

Hope this helps! -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

1. http://research.amnh.org/paleontology/search.php?action=detail&specimen_id=46239
2. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Holotype-skull-of-Anchiceratops-longirostris-CMN-8535-A-right-lateral-view-B-dorsal_fig4_262938879
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328676803_NEW_EVIDENCE_FOR_PREDATORY_BEHAVIOR_IN_TYRANNOSAURID_DINOSAURS_FROM_THE_KIRTLAND_FORMATION_LATE_CRETACEOUS_CAMPANIAN_NORTHWESTERN_NEW_MEXICO
4. Andrew A. Farke; Ceratopsid dinosaurs from the Upper Cretaceous Almond Formation of southwestern Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Geology 2004;; 39 (1): 1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/gsrocky.39.1.1

Thanks SlvrHwk I tried to take all your comments into consideration. I removed my name and added exif data to the image, I added a key for the material (the color would be impossible to change with my software and I've seen professional skeletal artists with the same color scheme). I removed "Scalebar". I decided to keep gen et sp. nov. because It has been found in the "Bistaceratops" paper as well as another phylo I forgot the source of as a new taxon. I talked with Farke and he said that the main reason he assigned the taxon as indet. was due to the lack of Epiparietals. I also wanted to keep it because the wiki article I am using this article on Almond formation states this is also a new taxon. however, to be less biased a question mark is included to gen. et. sp. nov. to convey that isn't agreed upon that it is able to be distinct.

North American dinosaurs

• Abydosaurus
• Albertadromeus
• Albertavenator
• Albertonykus
• Alcovasaurus
• Anasazisaurus
• Angulomastacator
• Ankylosaurus
• Anodontosaurus
• Apatoraptor
• Aquilarhinus
• Aquilops
• Arrhinoceratops
• Astrophocaudia
• Bambiraptor
• Bistahieversor
• Brachylophosaurus
• Bravoceratops
• Brontomerus
• Camposaurus
• Chasmosaurus
• Claosaurus
• Coahuilaceratops
• Coelophysis
• Coronosaurus
• Crittendenceratops
• Diabloceratops
• Dineobellator
• Dromiceiomimus
• Einiosaurus
• Eotrachodon
• Eotriceratops
• Falcarius
• Fosterovenator
• Geminiraptor
• Gojirasaurus
• Hanssuesia
• Hesperonychus
• Hesperosaurus
• Judiceratops
• Koparion
• Labocania
• Leptoceratops
• Leptorhynchos
• Machairoceratops
• Martharaptor
• Mercuriceratops
• Monoclonius
• Nasutoceratops
• Nothronychus
• Ojoraptorsaurus
• Ornitholestes
• Orodromeus
• Pachyrhinosaurus
• Parksosaurus
• Pentaceratops
• Prenoceratops
• Probrachylophosaurus
• Prosaurolophus
• Rugocaudia
• Sauroposeidon
• Saurornitholestes
• Seitaad
• Siats
• Spiclypeus
• Spinops
• Stellasaurus?
• Styracosaurus
• Talos
• Tanycolagreus
• Tawa
• Thescelosaurus
• Troodon
• Utahceratops
• Vagaceratops
• Xenoceratops
• Zuniceratops

I was supposed to post this yesterday but I felt sleepy. So here it is. The fifth round of dinosaurs: the North American ones.

- Alcovasaurus is reconstructed like Stegosaurus, but it may have looked more like Miragaia.
- Anasazisaurus is drawn with a short, Brachylophosaurus-like crest, but as a close relative of Kritosaurus (possibly even a second species of the latter), it should have a bigger crest.

That's literally how the skull is reconstructed in the literature, though? Plus at least part of the nasals and premaxillae are preserved. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- No comments about the anatomy of the Anodontosaurus, but the line on the right side should be cropped out.

Compared to the holotype, the head armour looks a bit off (D in ): asca is too small, nascas are too small and too numerous, loca is too small. Also, the pointedness of the tail club is not obvious, but I don't know how one would fix that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- There's something off about the wings and tail of Bambiraptor, but I can't put my finger on it.

I think it's a texturing issue. But based on Hartman's 2022 skeletal of Bambiraptor, the arms look a little too big . Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- Brachylophosaurus doesn't have the crest sticking out just behind the eyes.

It has a really short tail, it should be at least 50% longer . Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- The skull of Camposaurus is weird. Also, could it even curl its tail like that?
- Dromiceiomimus needs wings, especially if it is synonymous with Ornithomimus edmontonicus, to which a feathered specimen has been assigned.
- Eotrachodon has five fingers, including claws on the thumb and pinky.

The skull is not tall enough . Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- Fosterovenator has weird proportions. Given that its description is contradictory as to its phylogenetic position, it's uncertain which ones are correct.
- Hesperonychus looks like a eudromaeosaur, even though it is pretty much agreed to be a microraptorian.
- We're not really sure if Labocania is a tyrannosauroid (or even a tyrannosaurid as it seems to be depicted as). It's also shrinkwrapped.
- Leptorhynchos lacks primary feathers.
- Martharaptor is just... weird.
- Monoclonius is depicted as eating a modern-type flower, but I'm not sure if they existed in Campanian North America.
- The wings of Ojoraptorsaurus are rendered weirdly, and its coloration is exactly like a modern cassowary's, down to the blue neck.
- I'm not sure blue-green would be possible for the scales of Parksosaurus.
- Probrachylophosaurus is depicted with feathers, but multiple "mummies" show that hadrosaurs were exclusively scaly.
- Rugocaudia was updated by me before I posted it here.
- I doubt that Spicylepus, and other ceratopsids, had such spiky backs.
- The Stellasaurus illustration first appeared in a paper about Rubeosaurus (or Styracosaurus ovatus), and combines the nasal horn of Stellasaurus and the frill spikes of Rubeosaurus. So which genus should this image represent?
- The Thescelosaurus image comes from a paper, but according to David Attenborough's recent documentary, Thescelosaurus was most likely scaly.

Preliminary comment before I look at the others... I really don't think a documentary's claims, based on a partial specimen, are admissible evidence... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit off that they would use a scaly leg to infer that the entire animal was scaly. Errr, modern birds? FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I always thought the legs of that Troodon made it look very unbalanced, like it would tip backwards. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I can try make a new Troodon illustration for the page. I can start after the Amargasaurus and Suchomimus pieces are finalized. Fred Wierum 20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds cool, could perhaps be based on the Two Medicine Formation Troodon specimens that are also sometimes assigned to Stenonychosaurus, in case that some day is described as a new genus, then we'll have a restoration of it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Re Parksosaurus blue-green scales, unless my knowledge is outdated(?), it's only simple monofilaments like hair that cannot create blue or green due to them being structural colours. There are reptiles alive today that have blue and green scales.Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's my impression too, unless we have scales that somehow have an indication of pigmentation, as the supposed red of Borealopelta, then I don't see how we could exclude the possibility. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Whilst on the subject of colour, online there are images of a brightly coloured Indian Giant Squirrel with fur that looks like it's getting into the blues... Be interested to know what's going on there.Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Abydosaurus - Nostril position and snout shape are unconvincing.

Albertonykus is quite rough. The skull doesn't look anything like other alvarezsaurids, the torso is way too shallow, and there's some kind of weird cropping error on the tail feathers.

Angulomastacator could be a parasaurolophin, so perhaps a deeper skull and crest more similar to Parasaurolophus is warranted? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued.

Arrhinoceratops doesn't match the skull ROM 1439 . The frill is way too tall, as the squamosal should connect at the level of the orbit; I don't know what's going on with the lone episquamosal either. The epossifications are nowhere nearly as spiky. The postorbital horns should be curved. The nasal horn should be curved. The lower jaw should be taller.

Bistahieversor looks like it has dislocated arms and no premaxillary teeth? May have visible fenestrae as well.

Brontomerus has always bothered me a little. I think it's the nostril position, large scales, and tail pose (could it even do that?)

Chasmosaurus should have a slightly more pointed P3, and I'm pretty sure the postorbital horns should be recurved too .

Coahuilaceratops looks hunchbacked, is it foreshortening? Also the squamosal and jugal again don't match up to the paper's lateral view reconstruction but given that it's happened twice now I'm starting to think that I'm missing something about ceratopsian anatomy.

Coronosaurus has extra claws... I think?

I think it's just the scale lines on the fourth and fifth fingers that make it look like that. The "claws" appear to be the skin colour? FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure. Could be kept as-is then. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Diabloceratops seems to have asymmetrical postorbital horns but that may just be an artistic issue.

Einiosaurus has a jugal that's a little too pointed and is missing large facial scales. I also find the elevated tail implausible.

Eotriceratops has the tall frill and elevated tail issues again. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Falcatakely

Hi, I made this restoration of Falcatakely, the toucan-like enantiornithean. The colour and general proportions resemble those of a toucan, making them quite similar (perhaps too much? It has become sort of a paleo-meme to depict it this way). The reference paper is included in the description (only the skull is known, the rest is speculative). A version without background is also available if it is preferable. Any thoughts?--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it looks really good artistically, the thing I'm wondering about is the number of teeth, I haven't read the paper, but do we know whether the few teeth preserved would have been the only teeth in life? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There also seems to be some speculation that it's the skull of Rahonavis, in which case it would have had a bony tail? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The skull only preserves a single tooth in the premaxilla, and the total number in each premaxillae is left uncertain. However, the elongate maxilla is edentulous, so at most it would be a limited to a few additional premaxillary teeth at the very front of the snout (as hypothetically illustrated by the authors here ) so I'd say this number is fine. As far as the skull belonging to Rahonavis goes, that remains speculation outwith the published literature*, and I think we should follow the "official" enantiornithean interpretation until demonstrated otherwise. Illustration's good to go, I'd say.

(*And it's not the only one either, Cau has also commented Falcatakely comes up as a noasaurid using his dataset, and Mortimer has speculated on affinities with Sapeornis). DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. As DrawingDinosaurs said, the authors of the description paper state the presence of additional teeth is uncertain, while its classification is discussed in blogs but not yet in papers (the Rahonavis connection seems to be speculative for now). Perhaps one or two teeth can be added to the upper jaw though. The paper contains a restorationa of the skull with 1 tooth and another of the snout with 3 teeth.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would put a few more in the premaxilla. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I added 2 extra pairs of teeth in the premaxilla, reflecting the image shared before.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Cau & Madzia (2021)'s redescription of Borogovia found some support for a Sapeornis+Falcatakely clade, so it's not entirely speculation anymore. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the update. That would imply adding a tail fan, right? I don't know if we can keep this version for now to reflect the original description and update/change it in the future, if another hypothesis gains support.--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not, since its affinities are still unclear. But I do suggest removing the outer tail feathers, since afaik only Paraprotopteryx has four tail feathers. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, busy week. I have removed the external tail feather, leaving only 2. There are more genera with a higher number of tail feathers (I can think of Shanweiniao), but it is true that more of them have only two. I will add the restoration to the article, let's see how this bird's classification changes through time. Thanks for the review--El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The long-tailed "Leaellynasaura" problem

All of these images, which are featured on numerous pages, are labelled as "Leaellynasaura". However, they depict the extremely long tail of specimen NMV P185992/P185993, which cannot be referred to Leaellynasaura because it has no overlap with the holotype..This specimen could also belong to Atlascopcosaurus (which it also has no overlap with) or a new genus and species. While these images are suitable depictions of this indeterminate ornithopod, continuing to call them "Leaellynasaura" is highly misleading. Unfortunately, it will be challenging to relabel and remove all of them. Carnoferox (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This one could just be reverted to the earlier, short tailed version. I added the longer tail on the request of someone at a previous review. I'm not sure I agree the images are misleading though, if we don't know exactly how Leaellynasaura looked, these are as good a guess as anything, no? Restorations of fragmentary animals are routinely based on more complete relatives, even if we don't know how many features they really shared. That next to last one looks like a joke, though... FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That one is pretty ridiculous. Tail is twice as long as it should be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that reverting the Nobu Tamura one and keeping it alongside the PaleoEquii one would be the best course of action. Both possibilities accurately represented, and with both a scaly and filamented one as a nice bonus. If the Atlascopcosaurus page was ever sufficiently expanded, the PaleoEquii piece could be put there with a caption acknowledging it as a Leallynasaura but talking about the uncertainty as to which taxon had the long tail. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the original NT version a bit too short-tailed, though? Perhaps it should be a middle ground? I also shrank the eye and made other fixes in the long tail version. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't know Leaellynasaura looked like that, no, but we don't know it didn't look like that either. I don't see any need to change it; perhaps the ambiguity could be acknowledged in the captions where appropriate. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Out of the three different postcranial morphotypes in the eumeralla and coequivalent beds, two of them (diluvicursor and postcranial morph 2) have a short tail, and only one (postcranial morph 1) has the elongate tail. So parsimoniously Leaellyna is more likely to have had a shorter tail, but we cannot be sure. Theres at least three cranial morphs (leaellyna, galleono and atlascopco) with the potential for another (qanta), and at least three postcranial morphs, so matching any two together right now isn't really doable, we are waiting on that undescribed specimen with both crania and postcrania to begin being able to associate them together. However, some of these drawings seem to have a more acceptable tail length already, like NT's and the scale diagram. IJReid  16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't confuse parsimony and probability. It requires equally few assumptions to assign any of the three postcranial morphs to Leaellynasaura, so parsimony doesn't give us a reason to choose any of them over the other. Parsimony tells us that we shouldn't assume that there's an undiscovered cranial morph that corresponds to the long-tailed postcranial morph. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, so the lack of proof that the long-tailed morph corresponds to Leaellynasaura is not in itself evidence that Leaellynasaura had a short tail. All we'd really need to do, if anything, is caption the long-tailed Leaellynasaura with something to the effect of "reconstructed with a long tail based on the specimen NMV P185992/P185993, which may or may not belong to Leallynasaura". Ornithopsis (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

About the "we don't know what it looked like" argument: the point of Misplaced Pages illustrations is not to be overly speculative. This length of tail is unique among ornithopods and shorter tails are the norm. Restoring Leaellynasaura with a shorter tail is more conservative and more in line with general practice here. Implying that this specimen should be referred to Leaellynasaura, or even used to reconstruct it, is misleading. Because there is no overlap between the two, their exact relationship cannot be established. While they are certainly both ornithopods, that doesn't necessarily mean they were closely related. Carnoferox (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be the first person to complain about excessive speculation, but I don't see this as unreasonably speculative. We know that there was a long-tailed ornithischian in the Eumeralla biota, and it's reasonably likely to correspond to one of the named cranial morphs. There's nothing wrong with at least some of our depictions of Leaellynasaura being long-tailed, and it would arguably be more speculative and misleading to depict all of the taxa based on cranial material with short tails. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The best compromise I can think of is to show both a short-tailed and long-tailed recon side-by-side for Leaellynasaura with an explicit disclaimer, and do the same for Atlascopcosaurus. Carnoferox (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not misleading since there are sources that have made the connection between the long tailed specimen and Leaellynasaura. Whether that is correct or not, we simply don't know yet. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to show both possibilities for both taxa, but it isn't strictly necessary, as long as the articles on each taxon are clear about the uncertainty. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with only mentioning it in the text is that most people don't read the text and only look at the images. The reason why long-tailed Leaellynasaura has become a prominent paleoart meme is precisely because artists copy other images and don't actually read about the specimens. Carnoferox (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recall you had no problem with depicting Plectronoceras swimming, despite the fact that it's hypothesized that it was negatively buoyant and could only leave the seafloor for short periods. I think that that depiction of Plectronoceras is more misleading than a long-tailed Leaellynasaura is, so why are you so opposed to depicting Leaellynasaura with the long tail that might've belonged to it but see nothing wrong with art implying a benthic organism was nektonic? Ornithopsis (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how that deflection is relevant to this discussion. Your assessment isn't even correct. The artwork of Plectronoceras you're referring to is on a blank white background and doesn't really imply any behavior. Carnoferox (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

My point is that I don't see why you find illustrating both possibilities so necessary here when you've previously dismissed similar concerns. And regardless of the exact behavior being portrayed, the artwork of Plectronoceras is clearly not showing it resting on the seafloor. As I said above, I'm not opposed to illustrating both possibilities here, but I think a long-tailed Leaellynasaura is not nearly as wrong as you're making it out to be. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me how it is "clearly not resting on the seafloor". There is no background! It could be just about to land on the seafloor, hovering slightly above it, or burying its arms in the substrate for all the viewer knows! Besides, showing one behavior doesn't negate another behavior. Showing one morphological feature (long tail) does negate another (short tail), at least in the minds of most viewers who don't read the fine print. Carnoferox (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Even ignoring the tail, there are other issues I can see with all but the PaleoEquii and NT restorations. Primarily that the skull is far too short and round, when all elasmarian evidence we have points to a more hypsilophodontid skull or even more elongate, instead of strongly convex and proportionally short. That skull issue isn't present in the DannyC restoration either, but that one has issues with the ankles and feet being too slender. IJReid  01:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't need them all anyway, so I think the inaccurate ones can just be tagged and left. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Chorrillo Formation Dinosaurs

• Isasicursor
• 
• Nullotitan
• 
• Maip
• 
• Chorrillo Formation

With the recent description of Maip, I thought it would be appropriate to make size comparison diagrams for the named dinosaurs of the Chorrillo Formation. All three pages (Isasicursor, Nullotitan, and Maip) are low on images, so perhaps a new version of the skeletal diagrams could be made without the human scale for use on the page. This way there could be separate skeletals/size diagrams.

• For Isasicursor I depicted multiple specimens since there are fossil remains belonging to a range of individuals and ages. If it is preferred to only have a single specimen, I can remove the smaller ones. The largest specimen matches the paper's skeletal quite well. As a side note, the skeletal diagram seems to have inaccurate hands.

  I don't know how I feel about those additional specimens. I skimmed the paper and couldn't find size estimates or additional scaled skeletal diagrams asides from the one above. It's getting a little into OR territory. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Nullotitan has a somewhat unusual humerus : tibia/fibula length ratio, so if the proportions of the limbs look off, that's probably why. The describing authors give a vague length estimate that the holotype "almost probably surpassed 20 meters long". I primarily used Patagotitan to fill in the missing parts.
• A somewhat unrelated comment for Maip (and Megaraptora): The Megaraptora taxonomy template nests Megaraptora under Orionides. Basically all recent studies have agreed that the clade is a member of Coelurosauria, and the new Maip paper reinforces this. Is it time for the taxonomy template be updated?

Thoughts or comments? - SlvrHwk (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Avetheropoda indet. even if we're still being cautious? I don't think anyone takes the idea of them being megalosauroids very seriously these days. My impression of the megaraptoran phylogeny situation is essentially that one dataset finds them to be carnosaurs and the other dataset finds them to be coelurosaurs, and which of the two clades they're recovered in is largely a product of which analysis is used, rather than new data persuasively resolving the issue. Has there actually been any progress? Or is it just that recent papers have used the dataset that finds them to be coelurosaurs more often than the dataset that finds them to be carnosaurs? Ornithopsis (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Maip paper used one dataset and the disagreement still exists in other work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• I dislike how the official Maip skeletal has white contours overlapping the silhouette, which makes it hard to tell them apart from the bones... I thought first some huge hyoid was preserved... FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Kileskus aristotocus

The model of the Middle Jurassic tyrannosauroid Kileskus has finally been completed. It is based primarily on this skeletal. The idea to have only minor plumage on the head and neck is speculative and based on the tropical climate of the habitat as well as possible morphological variability. Yutyrannus and Dilong had prominent feathers on their necks and heads, respectively, so if necessary something like this can be done here too. The Kileskus article already has a pen drawing of this theropod, but the color model is of course on another level. Moreover, the author of the drawing (Ildarotyrannus) acted as a consultant when creating the model. In general, with further expansion of the article, both reconstructions can be used. (The model was created as part of a joint project Prehistoric Production. Direct author is Petr Menshikov) HFoxii (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks cool, the anatomy of the fingers seem a bit underdefined though, compared to the toes, where the joints are more apparent. And on the toes, it seems there is some deformation in the mesh on the toes of the lifted foot that gives them a bulge just before the claws, doesn't look like that in birds. Looks like an artifact of bending the 3D toes perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Is everything okay now? HFoxii (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it looks much better, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated Compsognathus

A 2009 image was updated last year. It hasn't been reviewed but is already in use. Kiwi Rex (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The position of the right foot is somewhat strange. I think it needs to be rotated outwards. Perhaps the snout could be longer but I'm unsure of this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Variraptor in vivo reconstruction

I saw that there's a list of dinosaurs that are still missing in vivo reconstructions. I wanted to give my contribution with this Variraptor mechinorum. I used Bambiraptor and Zhenyuanlong as references.

Looks cool, I wonder if all the white space above is necessary? Will make the image take up more space than necessary in an article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I cropped it and fixed some shading. Thanks! Adramelech89 (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

South American dinosaurs

• Adamantisaurus
• Adeopapposaurus
• Aerosteon
• Alnashetri
• Alvarezsaurus
• Amygdalodon
• Anabisetia
• Andesaurus
• Aniksosaurus
• Atacamatitan
• Austrocheirus
• Austroposeidon
• Bicentenaria
• Bonapartenykus
• Brachytrachelopan
• Buitreraptor
• Dreadnoughtus
• Drusilasaura
• Erythrovenator
• Gondwanatitan
• Huinculsaurus
• Ilokelesia
• Leonerasaurus
• Ligabuesaurus
• Maxakalisaurus
• Mirischia
• Murusraptor
• Notocolossus
• Pamparaptor
• Panphagia
• Patagonykus
• Quetecsaurus
• Riojasaurus
• Saturnalia
• Spectrovenator
• Talenkauen
• Unenlagia
• Yamanasaurus
• Zapalasaurus
• Zupaysaurus

Here's the sixth round of dinosaurs: the South American ones.

- Adeopapposaurus doesn't have the keratinous beak it's hypothesized to have.
- Aerosteon is depicted as a generic allosauroid rather than a megaraptoran.
- Alnashetri appears to be a cropped version of the Albinykus by the same artist, so my comments for the latter apply here as well.
- Regardless of its phylogenetic position, the big blocky head of Aniksosaurus just seems off to me. It also has no feathers, possibly because it is stuck in the WIP stage.
- Austroposeidon has a small hand claw, but iirc lognkosaur-grade titanosaurs had no hand claw. The lighting needs to be cleaned up.
- Although its color was already dampened by FunkMonk, Buitreraptor still looks a little too flashy.
- Erythrovenator looks way too fluffy for a basal theropod.
- The skull of Gondwanatitan looks too much like a diplodocid's.
- No objections about the anatomy of the Huinculsaurus, but its tail appears to be incompletely drawn.
- Ilokelesia has many feathers, but Carnotaurus shows that abelisaurids are mostly scaly.
- Murusraptor lacks an elongated thumb claw.
- Pamparaptor is bright blue, which is unlikely for primitive feathers. It also doesn't have primaries.
- What's up with the posture of that Panphagia?
- If you look closely, Quetecsaurus has a row of filaments, which are unlikely for large sauropods.
- The legs of Saturnalia appear to be directed impossibly forward.
- Talenkauen is extemely shrinkwrapped. I can see its ribs!
- Unenlagia needs primaries. Its feathers might also use some lengthening.

Additionally, Bonapartenykus, Drusilasaura, Ligabuesaurus, and Zapalasaurus were updated by me before I posted this here.

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I will probably hide the teeth of the Zupaysaurus at some point, though it's not a direct inaccuracy. The Aerosteon should probably have a more megaraptoran skull, might try it. Isn't the Buitreraptor just grey now? FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Buiteraptor looks faded pink to me, and there's still some flamingo pink that wasn't painted over. Maybe make the whole thing light gray, like a heron? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I desaturated all the pink now, I think. I have a colourblindness that makes pink pretty hard to see... FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I also gave the Aerosteon a more megaraptoran head and claws. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The patches of spines along the neck, back and tail of Drusilasaura look a little off. Maybe have one continuous row? Or just the first section of spines on neck? Ligabuesaurus seems to have a very thin neck and chest. The head also looks very short. Figure 4B from Bellardini et al. (2022). would be a good reference. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ligabuesaurus updated. Also, the spines of Drusilasaura were deliberately done like that as a tribute to cisiopurple's old Duriatitan. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that quite hit the mark. I think the chest should be deeper overall. But I think Ornithopsis is the best person to weigh in on what is still off (with this and the other sauropods here). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated again. Is it better now? Miracusaurs (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant around the pectoral girdle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Chiappeavis magnapremaxillo

Please let me know if there’s any mistakes with the proportions and grading of the tail. Luxquine (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A little hard to see what's going on. Is that the left wing folded and right wing raised? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Could probably use some dynamic range to make it clearer what's going on, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Dinosaurs by User:YellowPanda2001

• Spinophorosaurus (used in Irhazer Shale)
• Overoraptor
• Trierarchuncus (classified as inaccurate paleoart, used in List of North American dinosaurs)

Moved from paleoart review. Works by @YellowPanda2001:. Are these enough accurate to use? I feel like the outline is a bit ambiguous, and I got opinion that Spinophorosaurus seems to have too skinny limbs by FunkMonk. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The legs on the maniraptorans are similarly a little spindly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We discussed some of these a while ago, the sauropod's legs are also very thin. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand about dromaeosaurs, they could not raise their arms above a T-pose stance. Luxquine (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Overoraptor appears to be closely related to Rahonavis, which has been hypothesized to be capable of powered flight, suggesting highly mobile forelimbs. I also dislike how it looks like it has plumulaceous wings. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hadrosaur fixes

I'm currently looking to fix some hadrosaur restorations that had been marked as inaccurate, so posting them together here to keep it at one place. Feel free to add other hadrosaurs that seem like they could be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Nipponosaurus

This restoration was already fixed once, but still looks a bit wonky, so was tagged again, and I've now tried to address the issues with this edit: Bigger beak, shorter body and tail, as well as other fixes. Any thoughts? Pinging LittleLazyLass, who has worked on the article, and IJReid who I believe tagged one of these. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the image, but still feel free to point out further issues. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Maiasaura

This restoration was tagged as inaccurate, but the description is pretty vague, so might need a more detailed description of what needs to be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the comments here would be the digitigrade(?) feet and the shoulder position. The latter is something thats reflected in the hadrosaur updates Hartman did to his skeletals, I don't know the original source but it may be on his blog for why. As for the feet, they are shapeless right now, and don't show any of the three-splayed-toed morphology, with the heels too high off the ground. IJReid  00:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Paralitherizinosaurus

• Paralitherizinosaurus
• Desaturated version
• New

I know illustrations from scientific literature are generally not reviewed, but I thought this case might warrant an exception. The bright blue, purple, and pink integument on Paralitherizinosaurus from Kobayashi et al. (2022) seems highly unrealistic and unlikely. The neck also seems a bit short, compared with the paper's skeletal diagram and related taxa. Perhaps PaleoNeolitic would be interested in making a more realistic restoration? - SlvrHwk (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The colours are a head-scratcher indeed. It is a shortcoming in many of Hattori's CG artworks. As for the neck, though, therizinosaurids seem bereft of good neck material other than Nanshiungosaurus, Neimongosaurus, and Nothronychus, which are all distant enough that I think some variation seems acceptable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we could make a separate version with those colours sucked out. Perhaps desaturation to grey/white would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried it out, it can be done with "replace colour" in Photoshop, problem is some of the background uses the same colours, so it's a bit more complicated. Maybe someoene else wants to give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I ended up with the one I added below, doesn't look too bad I think. But I wonder, where is the high res version on Commons from, the one in the paper is much smaller? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Hattori's website. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, unless it's also CC licenced there, I think that's a bit iffy... May have to shrink this one down to the size of the one in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah not a big fan of this reconstruction in both personal and objective terms. I can certainly try making a new one. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Time has paid off and a brand-new Paralitherizinosaurus is here. The claws make it look pretty much like a miniature Therizinosaurus 🤨. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Cool! If I have time, I might make a size diagram in case the page is ever expanded. SlvrHwk (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Australian dinosaurs

• Atlascopcosaurus
• Austrosaurus
• Diluvicursor
• Kunbarrasaurus
• Muttaburrasaurus

Not much for the seventh and final round of dinosaurs: the Australian ones.

- Atlascopcosaurus is a model, but it has pronated hands.
- Austrosaurus is, unfortunately, stuck in the WIP stage.
- Diluvicursor is from its paper, but the back individual has pronated hands.

And thus concludes the dinosaurian journey around the world.

What do you think? Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In general for inaccurate models, I guess we just have to accept how they are and for example only using them in history or culture sections, unless we can somehow crop out inaccurate parts without it looking weird... FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

But what if such inaccuracies are so minor that the casual reader won't notice them at first glance, such as pronated hands that you can only see when you click on the image? Miracusaurs (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the case I guess, same with skeletal mounts. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, Kunbarrasaurus obviously lacks a macuahuitl but again it should be kept for historical purposes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Would Kunbarrasaurus have necessarily had a macuahuitl? It's tail isn't completely known and such a structure is currently only known to exist in Stegouros, so phylogenetic bracketing can't be used to imply its presence. --Slate Weasel 15:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Either way, I don't think it needs fixing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What we do have from Kunbarrasaurus does not indicate the same degree of extreme shortening of the tail seen in Stegouros, so it stands to reason that's a derived trait to the clade of Antarctopelta and Stegouros. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "pronation" observed in the model and Diluvicursor aren't really a problem. On the model at least, the elbow looks to be facing partly outwards and the hands are flexed to point inward at the wrist, leading to the palms facing posteromedially (but not entirely posteriorly). IMO, this position is achievable without crossing of the radius and ulna, so to my eye it's fine. It's harder to tell exactly what's going on with the background Diluvicursor, but from what I can make out the palm is not facing all the way down and the fingers are flexed, so again I think this is within reason relative to the overall arm posture. Certainly at least the foreground individual definitely has the right position, and given that's the one people are paying most attention to I'm not that worried about the other one either way. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think hand orientation in a background animal you have to look closely to even notice is reason enough to throw out an otherwise perfectly good (and gorgeous) reconstruction from the published literature. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Guaibasaurus

What about this one? It depicts Guaibasaurus as an early sauropodomorph, following the most recent phylogenies --Maurissauro (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The artist JohnnyMingau has added some other images that would need review: FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, how are you? I'm a brazilian paleoartist a few years, and in all my arts I consult paleontologists and papers to do them right. I already have some art in Misplaced Pages, but were put by Maurissauro. Now I created an account to do it by myself. Dinosaurs and others animals clades from South America are subrepresentated, so I'm doing new arts about this animals to enrich the pages. The same way, Maurissauro, who is a paleontologist, is doing skeletal reconstructions of this animals too. Hope you like. JohnnyMingau (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For the pieces I have the knowledge to comment on, they look great. The eye of the Sacisaurus may be a bit too large but we don't have sclerotic rings for it or any relatives to really be able to tell how large the visible eye should be. Nothing at all for the other pieces, they look great. IJReid  03:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, regardless of the sclerotic ring, it looks like the visible eyeball fills up the entire socket, which would never be the case. FunkMonk (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

To do the Sacisaurus eyes, I used @Maurissauro skeletal reconstruction as basis, that is in the page of Sacisaurus. Don't have too much of the skull preserved, but in skeletal reconstructions the socket is large enough to do the eyes in this size, even compared to others silesaurids skulls, without ocupy too much the socket. Thank you for the feedback. Hope to contribute adding more paleoart in South America clades with low or none images. JohnnyMingau (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the eyes are too big and I know that @JohnnyMingau didn't represent them taking up all the space in the orbit. The sclerotic ring that I reconstructed in Sacisaurus follows the pattern seen in dinosaurs like Herrerasaurus, Syntarsus and Macrocollum, to name a few. Being a small animal (about 1 meter long), it is reasonable that it possessed large eyes, and this is also hinted by the morphology of the preserved postorbital. Maurissauro (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

But the eye socket or the outer diameter of the sclerotic ring itself is not what determines the size of the visible eye, it is the inner ring of the sclerotic ring that determines it. So you can pretty much never fill up the entire eye socket when restoring a reptile or bird, you need to look at what the probable size of the sclerotic ring would be, and then only restore the eye as the size of its inner diameter. As you mention Herrarasaurus, if you look at this skeletal, the visible part of the eyeball would be twice as small as the eye socket, not filled to the very edge as shown here. Even if you look at the skulls of large eyed birds or reptiles, such as owls or chameleons, the visible part of the eyeball never exceeds the size of the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. It is an extremely common palaeoart mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I know how the sclerotic ring works, and it seems to me that @JohnnyMingau knows as well. I hope this settles this matter. If there's anything else, let us know. Maurissauro (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, FunkMonk. I do paleoart for years and I know about this. I studied enough to know that the sclerotic ring determine the size of the eye, and I did this in Sacisaurus. If I used the entire socket, the eye would be too much huge, much more then its in the art. The skeletal of Herrerasaurus that you show us, its from Maurissauro too, and I already used it to to a Herrerasaurus once. JohnnyMingau (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the overlay illustrates the uncertainty I had with the eye being too large. Whether the sclerotic ring is too thin or large is beyond anything we should worry about here, the visible eye fits within it and therefore isn't too large. IJReid  18:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

But what was used for that overlay? Still looks a good deal bigger than what would be indicated by Scott Hartman's Silesaurus. May be a matter of no one really knowing what size the sclerotic rings of silesaurs were, but I wonder why it should be so huge in the Sacisaurus skeletal compared to Hartman's Silesaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, Sacisaurus is a small animal (less than half the size of the largest Silesaurus), with a wide orbital region implied by its postorbital morphology, and its sclerotic ring was reconstruted directly based on several small to medium-sized Triassic/early Jurassic dinosaurs which preserved the ring. Here is a comparison between Hartman's Silesaurus and my Sacisaurus. I wouldn't describe mine as 'huge' in comparison to his. Silesaurus does not preserve neither the sclerotic ring nor the postorbital for direct comparison. So in this sense his 'guess' is as good as mine. If you prefer his over mine, fine, but at this point I don't think you can say which is one is more correct. Maurissauro (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Carnotaurus Restoration Illustration

Remaking the Carnotaurus illustration due to the 2021 integument paper. This is the initial construction sketch. Just getting across anatomy and placement of the osteoderms before starting the final illustration. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, those things are feature scales, not osteoderms. Overall it looks great in my opinion. Maurissauro (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good, and in case you haven't seen it, there's a 3D model accompanying the paper that could be used as reference: FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)