Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:06, 29 August 2020

Edits to Dmitry Bogdanov's Lisowicia

Any thoughts & criticisms of my edits to Dmitry's old Lisowicia restoration? I've tried to update it match the current view of the taxon, I've also gave it a wax & removed much of the hair, though I have left some "elephantine" patches of hair. Monsieur X (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks better, though there's weird dark patch over the shoulders now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That dark patch was an accident, but I left it on because it kinda looked aesthetically pleasing to me. Now on closer inspection, I have noticed a lot of artefacts where that patch is. I'll remove it & some other small artefacts & blemishes later. Monsieur X (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, there also seems to be some compression artifacts around the feet. And by the way, seems like you got your computer to work again? FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of feet, they could use some padding underneath them if you can manage that. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The hindlimb on the far side looks kind of shriveled - it could use some more musculature as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the critiques, I'll hopefully be able to upload an updated version by Wednesday. I'm now rather busy at the moment with work & other projects, but thanks to this new laptop I'll be able to edit & update images once again! Monsieur X (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've gone back & re-edited it with all your criticisms in mind, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking pretty good, I'd say. The only thing left that might look a bit off is that bulge behind the knee, maybe? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. I made the bump on the thigh smaller & connected it to the rest of leg (Removing it entirety looked rather off). This also gave me a chance to fix some minor blemishes here & there. Monsieur X (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Haptodus garnettensis

As you're all aware, one specimen referred to Haptodus garnettensis (given the nomen ex dissertationae Eohaptodus by Spindler 2015), ROM 43608, has been described as a genus, Kenomagnathus, by Spindler (2020). The dissertation by Spindler (2015) also coins the nomen ex dissertationae Tenuacaptor for ROM 43601, which has also been previously referred to garnettensis. Any have an idea if the images of Haptodus garnettensis are based on the H. garnettensis type material or the Kenomagnathus holotype? If the latter a new image should be created for Kenomagnathus.

Spindler, F. 2015. The basal Sphenacodontia - systematic revision and evolutionary implications. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:105-qucosa-171748

Spindler, Frederik. 2020. A faunivorous early sphenacodontian synapsid with a diastema. Palaeontologia Electronica, 23(1):a01. https://doi.org/10.26879/1023 palaeo-electronica.org/content/2020/2905-early-sphenacodontian-diastema70.175.133.224 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

If we go by the diagnosis and skull reconstructions by Spindler, Kenomagnathus has a taller skull than "H." garnettensis, and the precanine region is convex in the former and concave in the latter. #1 from DiBgd is a good match for "H." garnettensis. #2 from NT doesn't really match either of them - the skull is way too tall and probably needs editing - but the precanine region suggests that it's closer to Kenomagnathus. #3, also from DiBgd, is also closer to Kenomagnathus in that regard, but the snout is way too thin. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If we need a new image, I'd be in favour of modifying one of the images that look most like it to match the new genus. We don't really need three restorations of the same species anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For sure, three conflicting ones at that... If we were to modify one for Kenomagnathus, I think #3 would be best. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I can do that, if someone can point me to a figure? Also on a similar note, I just recreated Bohemiclavulus (which was wrongly deleted), which has a restoration I extracted from this image: My question is, what is I. credneri? Seems to be what was once Naosaurus? I could extract that image too if we know where to put it... FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Remember, Ianthasaurus credneri is a disused combination for the edaphosaurid species Naosaurus credneri from Dresden, Germany, which was declared a nomen dubium by Spindler et al. (2019). You could include a photo or illustration of N. credneri at the Edaphosaurus page for historical purposes because Ianthasaurus is now strictly a North American genus.70.175.133.224 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Here is a very nice figure of skull reconstructions for Kenomagnathus and "H." garnettensis: Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the head on the second DB imageDB.jpg to match that of Kenomagnathus, any thoughts (and who will create the new article?)? FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll create it (but probably won't get around to expanding it for a while). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell - is the journal NC or not? If not, it might be nice to have all of those images on Commons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The PDF says "Copyright: January 2020 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/" which means non-commercial, therefore sadly not allowed on Commons.. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought... it's a bit weird that it links to the BY-NC-SA license but doesn't actually say it in the text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Their about page is also a bit confusing in listing various different licenses for different journals: By the way, maybe the NT image can be modified into Tenuacaptor once that name is validly published... If it doesn't match "H." garnettensis properly anyway, and we already have a nice DB image for that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I found the original description of Haptodus by the way. There is a probably PD image of the holotype here from a 1888 publication, but I can't find the original online. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Luskhan Size Comparison

It's been quite some time since my last size chart, so here's another one: Luskhan, a pliosaur that inadvertently ended up looking like a needlenosed lemon with wings. This appears to be our first image of this taxon. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Not much to comment on anyway since the paper has a good skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Nut cracking Ardipithecus.png

It shows Ardipithecus using a stone hammer and anvil to crack open a nut, but there is no evidence of tool use in hominins before 3.4 mya. Of course, no one is saying that they didn't use stone tools (we tried saying that about Australopithecus and were dead wrong so everyone's cautious of saying that something did not happen). I think the idea came from here who juxtaposed chimps and Ardipithecus behaved similarly and chimps are the most technologically advanced non-humans, and this documenting a chimp using a stone hammer and anvil to crack open a palm nut. Is this, then, a reasonable reconstruction? Also, if it is reasonable, could someone reduce the whitespace?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about this one. The reasoning feels a bit too All Yesterdays-ish (and SYNTH) for Misplaced Pages. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, could someone just erase the rocks and anvils and stuff, because we don't have any free use Ardipithecus restorations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm of two minds here. In general, I think unwarranted, unsourced speculation is to be avoided, and this would seem to be an example of it. On the other hand, the behavior is phylogenetically bracketed by Pan and Homo—but since that seems like a case of SYNTH beyond what's necessary to adequately illustrate the article, I agree that it's probably best not to depict the behavior. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, closest thing I found is this guy "There are no reasons to think that these hands could not efficiently handle basic forms of tools"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty widespread among primates? Even small, tailed monkeys do it: FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a good point, it's more unreasonable to say Ardipithecus did not use tools   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know how to reduce whitespace? Every time I try, the image just gets squashed after I upload it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Try purging the cache... this is yet another one of those inexplicable things that occur with images... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you purge the cache?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Either just refresh the page (your browser should have a refresh button at the upper left), or hover your mouse over the "more" tab at the upper right on any Misplaced Pages page, then you can see "purge". FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Request: Borchgrevinkium size diagram

Hello, it's been a while since I last wrote here. For some reason I decided to get back to paleontology and I expanded Borchgrevinkium. Everything it needs is a size diagram. The only known species, B. taimyrensis, measured approximately 3 centimetres. There's a restoration of it which can be used for the silhouette. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 22:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, I have made the silhouette, but I'm not quite sure what to use for a reference object. A hand would be too big, a thumb wouldn't be recognizable in silhouette form. I'm wondering if some sort of coin would be ideal, but I'm not sure what kind to use. Any ideas? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You can put it next to a profile of someone's face (like their nose or eyelashes)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Slate Weasel, yeah I think the coins are a good idea. I think it would be a good idea to use a dollar coin and an euro coin since both are very known. The smallest coin could be superimposed in the largest. The face is not a bad idea either, but would a nose or an eyelash be seen in a silhouette? Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If the head was in side view, they would be visible, front view not so much. Also, this has me wondering if the British penny I used for scale in the Siamosaurus and Ostafrikasaurus tooth illustrations was the best or most recognizable choice of coin. Then again, it's of little consequence, mostly went with that just because it's exactly 2 cm in diameter and thus more convenient to scale. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately US quarters and euros don't have measurements that are quite as nice. I probably will go with one of these, although I'm not sure which to pick. Also, what would be the preferable method of illustrating the coin: flat bluish silhouette, colored silhouette, clip art? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh, quarters are in the public domain while the €1 is not. I might just go with the quarter then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

By colored silhouette, do you mean like a colored version of the coin? Yes, I think that would be appropriate. I think it could be something like the British penny used by PaleoGeekSquared. Super Ψ Dro 21:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus - here's the size comparison, sorry for the delay. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I also delayed in replying. Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Albanerpeton restoration, and issues with primitve amphibian and tetrapod(omorph) restoration in general

• Albanerpeton
• Prionosuchus
• Inaccurate reconstruction of Acanthostega without scales
• Acanthostega restoration with scales
• Ichthyostega without scales

As some might be familiar, albanerpetonids are covered in small fish like scales, which are preserved as a cloud surrounding the skeleton in some exceptionally preserved fossils. This is true with many other primitive tetrapods and tetrapodomorphs, and doesn't seem to be represented well in many images. Obviously for some species the scale size is small and blurs together at a distance, but even where they should be visible often this is ignored. For more information on temnospondyl scales see this paper. As early tetrapods are essentially fish with limbs the fact that they retain fish like scales isn't exactly suprising or pushing phylogenetic bracketing very far. As a further note, it's pretty much concensus view now that Lissamphibians are indeed derived dissorophoid temnospondyls, not leptospondyls or anything else, and the articles should be updated accordingly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of them look a bit too salamander-like (mainly due to the shine, which makes them look slimy). But yeah, some of it can be explained by distance and level of detail in a given drawing. Most restorations of extinct reptiles don't really show individual scales either. The Prionosuchus looks like it has hints of scales? It could be fixed in some images by just drawing a few scales in strategic places (in shadowy areas, for example, where they would be more accentuated). FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the presence of fossilized scales makes a problem out of the smooth, slick skin as depicted in these illustrations. A 2002 histological study on Australerpeton scales indicates that they were present within (rather than on top of) the skin, unlike reptiles or fish. Comparisons in scale structure were also made with Greererpeton, so it is potentially widespread among early tetrapods. Caecilians also retain tiny scales and they are just as slimy as other amphibians. Lastly, amphibian scales are thin, overlapping structures very different from rigid, thick, and roughly-textured fish scales (Witzmann, 2011), so they likely had functional differences and were probably set in the skin differently. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So should we conclude these are fine? Or are there other issues? FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They look fine to me. The first Ichthyostega may be a bit too generic in its proportions, but since it's depicted as swimming, I don't think it's as problematic as it would be if it was a land-based model. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Blapsium egertoni figurine

This image was added to both Ommatidae and Blapsium by Tatelumps (talk · contribs). This figurine apparently originates from the 2015 Pixar film The Good Dinosaur? If true I am genuinely suprised they would choose to depict such an obscure Jurassic beetle. I know we have FoP issues with models of dinosaurs in parks, so I would like to know if similar issues apply to miniature models. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly a problem being the copyrighted likeness of a movie design/copyrighted toy, so should be DRed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that it is a toy from a children's film I don't think it's likely to be up to WP:PALAEO standards regardless, so no huge loss. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, even if it were non-copyrighted, I don't think it could be used to represent Blapsium either. I'm pretty sure the author of some Wiki out there just looked up a list of extinct beetles and picked one. The beetle is not identified in any official sources, which is not surprising given how little scientific rigour the film has (not that it needs it anyway). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I just assumed that Pixar pulled a random name out of a hat rather than a wiki user, my bad. I've nominated the image for deletion regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Request: whiten background for an Irish elk

Can anyone make the background color white instead of off-white for this Irish elk skeleton?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Artwork depicting Pleistocene mammals of South America

It looks like these works depicting various South American mammals of the Pleistocene haven't been reviewed yet, any thoughts on them? BTW, I took the liberty of editing the nose of the Macrauchenia from the first image, as well as sharpening the overall image just a tad. Monsieur X (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we usually review images from journal articles, since they're supposedly already peer-reviewed, but the fix looks good! But those horses look a bit scrawny... FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Counillonia and Repelinosaurus (and co.)

• Counillonia
• Repelinosaurus
• Ufudocyclops

The other day I finished illustrating the two Laotian dicynodonts described last year, Counillonia and Repelinosaurus, and figured the articles could maybe use the images since it's otherwise pretty bare bones for them. They were each based on the holotypes where possible, with the referred Repelinosaurus specimen used to fill in the gaps where needed, and related taxa as basis for the mandibles. Baring in mind previous comments on the extent of dicynodont beaks, I've tried to 'blend' the texture of the upper beak into the rest of the face in the manner of a tortoise, rather than clearly demarcating beak from skin. This goes more so for Repelinosaurus, which was based on the more robust and undistorted LPB 1993-2 specimen that was explicitly described with rugose maxillae and postorbital bars. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Another dicynodont from 2019, Ufudocyclops! Like the Laotian dicynodonts, I figure the article could use some actual images of Ufudocyclops instead of just referring to images of Stahleckeria. Once again, it's based on the holotype skull and the two referred specimens, particularly a fragment of mandible to roughly get the shape of the anterior jaw right. Assuming the lack of critiques means the other two are good to go I may go ahead and add them to their articles, but any comments for fixing them are appreciated. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 03:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

...And I went ahead and whipped up a scale diagram for Ufudocyclops too, why not? This is my first attempt at a scale diagram like this, and it's mostly modified from the scale diagram of Stahlackeria (File:Stahleckeria_potens_scale.svg), pioneer dork and all, due to their close relation (and I figured it would be easier than starting entirely from scratch). I modified the head to match the skull of Ufudocyclops (based on my life restoration above) and scaled the whole thing down to match the skull measurements for the holotype given in Kammerer et al. (2019), with other appropriate alterations to the diagram made as needed. Hopefully it looks organic and not something frankensteined together, and I'm fairly pleased with the result, but it's still all a new medium to me. Any thoughts? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 01:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing inaccurate with any of these. The eye of Counillonia looks a bit peculiar to me, but otherwise, they look good, the Ufudocyclops portrait in particular; I'm not sure how visible the ear would actually be but that's definitely not clearly inaccurate. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff, with hindsight I can see what you mean about the eyes and the ears, especially with how the latter changes in appearance between the Laotian dicynodonts and Ufudocyclops. I've gone in and fixed both Counillonia and Repelinosaurus up a bit, including changes to the eyes and ears, as well as the general rendering, particularly on the Repelinosaurus, so they should hopefully look better now. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• Anteosaurus
• Anteosaurus landscape
• Mojcaj's Titanophoneus

Here's something a wanted to do for a couple of years now! Any thoughts on my edits to Bogdanov's Anteosaurus restorations? I hid the teeth under lips, removed the ear holes, made the skin around the skull less tight looking & cropped & sharpened the first image. Monsieur X (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, the lower "lip" looks pretty smooth compared to the upper one, perhaps also give it some shading so it looks like it protrudes more along its length? If what I'm saying is even understandable... FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I do get what you mean. Funny enough, I did actually think of putting some more "texture" or something to the chin, but didn't think anyone would noticed due to how compressed & pixely the originals were. Anyway, I'll fix it up tomorrow. Monsieur X (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, another thing I noticed with DB's images is that they often don't have an entirely white background, but is would probably be best if they did, since many of them are used in cladograms, for example, which looks odd with these sometimes bluish or greyish whites. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't get where Bogdanov got those proportions from at all. The anteosaur with the most complete skeleton, Titanophoneus, looks nothing like that and very little of the postcranial anatomy of Anteosaurus is known. Compare with my Anteosaurus . I never got around to finishing getting my image reviewed, and looking back at it I'm dissatisfied with it so I might revise it. In particular, I gave it too much of a sprawling stance and I wouldn't give it visible ears if I redid it. As for your edits, the lips don't look great to me, but I don't have any other significant issues aside from my fundamental concern about the proportions Bogdanov gave it. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps he based the proportions of the animal on more distantly related Dinocephalians? Anyway, I've tried to change the length of the body & tail to better match Titanophoneus, though I was being a bit conservative. Also, I won't edit the second image until the first is critiqued. I would also like to apologise for taking so long to respond. Monsieur X (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, where does the claim that Titanophoneus has 60 caudals come from? Kammerer's review of the Anteosauria indicates that a complete caudal series is not known. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As you might be able to guess, I still think the tail and body look rather short. I also think the hind legs look a bit short, but that might be a product of it being in a crouched pose (it's worth noting here that dinocephalians walked with their hind legs nearly erect). Orlov (1958) reports that there are 38 caudals preserved in Titanophoneus specimen PIN 157/1 and estimates the complete sequence of caudals as having contained at least 60: "Общее число предкрестцовых позвонков у титанофонеуса не менее 33; хвостовых сохранилось 38, но, по-видимому, было более 60." When I did my own Anteosaurus reconstruction, I took that into account; I don't think I could make the tail significantly shorter while remaining consistent with the fact that there are 38 preserved caudals and Orlov's interpretation that numerous caudals are missing. Remarkably, Orlov's Titanophoneus skeletal (the classic one that everyone copies) actually has too short of a body compared to the number of vertebrae he reported; his skeletal has only 26 presacrals of which 5–6 are cervicals, contrasting with his statement that it had 33 presacrals of which 7–8 are cervicals. Again, I took this into account when making my own. It's also worth mentioning that anteosaur trackways have tail drag marks, indicating a tail long enough to reach the ground in an upright-limbed walking pose. I am, incidentally, working on revising my Anteosaurus reconstruction right now, and will post it here at some point if it's desired. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed the sentence "Lectotype complete skeleton" in Kammerer's review. Fair enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be all for your updated Anteosaurus reconstruction Ornithopsis, so do upload it when you're ready. Monsieur X (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made the tail, body & even the neck longer on Dmitry's restoration. Any more critiques & criticisms that I should take into account? I have a sneaking suspicion that I should've made the tail even longer.... Anyway, all this talk of Titanophoneus has made me think that some of images for the genus may need to be reviewed/re-reviewed. Monsieur X (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. The tail could probably be longer, but it now looks long enough to be at least consistent with what's known (after all, according to Orlov, less than two-thirds of the tail is preserved so there's probably some room for interpretation in the exact length). The limbs now look a little short to me, particularly the hind limbs, but that might just be the crouched stance. My one significant remaining critique is that I think it would look better with the teeth fully covered by lips. I'll post my revised Anteosaurus for review when I complete it, which might not be for a few weeks—I'm juggling a couple of projects at the moment. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I also updated Anteosaurus landscape some time ago. For the sake of simplicity, I've also placed my edited version of Mojcaj's Titanophoneus here. Any thoughts & critiques? Ornithopsis, I'm a bit cautious to fully close the mouth of the Bogdanov's Anteosaurus due to a previous mishap with Dmitry Bogdanov's Titanophoneus. But I might do it if I get the OK from other users as well. Monsieur X (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I thin it looks fine, we can archive if no one else comments. As you say, if the animal hasn't fully closed the mouth, the lips wouldn't hide the teeth completely, so we shouldn't be overzealous, it'll make the animals look weird. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Atlanticopristis in need of updating

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

Carnoferox (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your comments on life appearance. Given that we have soft tissue outlines of sclerorhynchoids (whether they form grade or otherwise) it's not very parsimonious to reconstruct them as sawfish clones.

That being said, I disagree with your comments on phylogenetics. Sclerorhynchoids have been unstable historically and they have come out close to Pristis at times. I am wary of pushing the Villalobos-Segura et al. topology too strongly at the expense of NPOV. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The phylogenetic analyses of Villalobos-Segura et al. (2019a;b) are the first to include sclerorhynchoids as far as I know. Previous papers placing sclerorhynchoids with pristids were not based on any analysis, so they should be disregarded. Carnoferox (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? Granted, it appears to just be Sclerorhynchus, but the analyses of these two papers both include sclerorhynchoids: There is probably an argument to be made for taxon and/or character sampling but I'm not sure it's grounds to totally reject this work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

They include a single sclerorhynchoid (Sclerorhynchus), not multiple sclerorhynchoids. Taxon exclusion is of course a problem with these analyses; Villalobos-Segura et al. (2019a;b) not only include more sclerorhynchoids but also other batoids. Additionally, the dataset of Claeson et al. (2013) (which was re-used by Underwood & Cleason ) is missing important characters like rostral denticle replacement, wood-like rostral cartilage, etc. that distinguish sclerorhynchoids from pristids. It is also missing the 8 synapomorphies that sclerorynchoids share with other rajiforms. I don't think these analyses are anywhere near good enough to challenge the findings of Villalobos-Segura et al. and can be safely ignored. Carnoferox (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. The lack of those taxonomically significant characters in Claeson et al.'s work is definitely cause for concern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen some images of Onchopristis with this skate-like anatomy circulating on the internet and was wondering what it was based on, so nice to see an explanation! Wasn't even aware that we had such substantially-preserved sclerorynchoid fossils. I'll get to work on making a new restoration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You could even include dermal denticles like those seen in Onchopristis and Ischyrhiza, since I think Atlanticopristis is more closely related to them than to Sclerorhynchus. Carnoferox (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just overhauled the restoration. Thoughts, Carnoferox & Lythronaxargestes? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I was waiting for Carnoferox to reply but I guess I'll sign off on it myself. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty. Btw, he didn't comment here but suggested to me on Discord that the colour pattern is probably not the most plausible given the animal's niche, ecology and relationships. I'll be re-colouring this with a more skate-like pattern when I have time. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Request: Scanisaurus size comparison and maybe other stuff

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

The material referred to Scanisaurus is very limited, everything we have on its appearance (about 4 to 5 meters long, relatively short neck for an elasmosaurid) can be found in my current draft. The only decent modern restoration of this genus in particular can be found on the page labelled as page 155 of this open-access paper, maybe that could be useful for making a size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I made a quick restoration myself, should be fine since I followed what was in the 2018 paper for everything, but some of you might want to have a look at it anyway. All that's needed now is a size diagram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a size chart modified from my Aristonectes. Do things need changing or is this satisfactory? It doesn't seem like the remains are very substantial. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good! No accuracy concerns here since the fossils, as you say, don't tell us a whole lot about its appearence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Askeptosaurus Size Comparison

Here's another random Triassic reptile size comparison, this one depicting Askeptosaurus. I made the human silhouette pale gray to put more focus on the reptile. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be more visually clear if the silhouettes do not overlap. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Like this? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that looks nice. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Effigia Size Comparison

Here's an Effigia size comparison. Effigia looks really weird, although that's probably due to it being a pseudosuchian trying really hard to be an ornithomimid. My main questions are - 1: that's a really prominent Mt V in the Nesbitt & Norell skeletal. Is that probable or would it have been swept forwards and level with the other metatarsals? 2: Despite the scale bar clearly indicating a ~3m animal, Nesbitt (2007) estimates a length of only 2m. Which estimate should I follow? Or is this due to multiple specimens? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Nesbitt remarks that "Metatarsal V could articulate to the anterolateral surface or the posterolateral surface of tarsal 4." That, combined with the morphology of the metatarsal, might be why it's reconstructed like that.

The larger and more complete of the skulls is 17 cm long. I'm inclined to believe that there is a mistake in the scale bar; if you scale the skull to 17 cm, what is the full length? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

2 m (6.6 ft). Revised accordingly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here's another pseudosuchian size comparison, this one for Terrestrisuchus. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs osteoderms? Also note that Sereno and Wild produced a (proportionally) very different reconstruction of Terrestrisuchus to Headden, see Fig. 5 here: Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better to follow the Sereno & Wild skeletal for proportions? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Crush 1984 has a skeletal and a range of size estimates (p. 151) which might be helpful... I suppose the discrepancy comes from scaling multiple specimens. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Crush skeletal looks intermediate between the two others that we've discussed, so I think that I'll use it as a reference when I get around to updating the chart later on this week/month. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes, I've completed the update and added a second silhouette to show the range provided by Crush. How does this look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Additionally, unless anyone objects, I will begin to add some of the size comparisons from earlier in the month with positive or no feedback to their respective articles if there's room (Kronosaurus, Sachicasaurus, Grendelius, Keilhauia, Hauffiopteryx, Arthropterygius, Clidastes, Effigia, and Parasaurolophus in particular) tomorrow. Sorry if the huge amount of material I submitted was overwhelming! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hauffiosaurus Size Comparison

So... pliosaurids have returned - and they're now vivid purple. I've scaled H. longirostris, but I didn't include it since I couldn't find length estimates for it. Hopefully I've reinflated the torsos sufficiently. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

White seems to have reported a skull length of 680 mm for H. longirostris here: Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't extrapolating a TL estimate from skull length be an WP:OR issue? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Benton reports 5 m TL with 70 cm skull (which is consistent with White): Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Done! It's not quite at the 5m mark, but it's pretty close (anyways, I'd guess that 5m is an approximation). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

New Lemurosaurus reconstruction

The current life restoration on the Lemurosaurus page is perhaps a bit zoologically improbable and/or terrifying to small children, so I decided to make a new one. What do you all think? I'm aware that this is not the Dryptosaurus reconstruction I said I'd do on the dinosaur page a few weeks back; I hit a roadblock on that one but hope to finish it soon. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly looks better. Based on for example this diagram, the back of the mandible should be deeper? Your shading makes it look like its depth is the same for its entire length. It also seems to be much narrower right behind the "chin" which isn't visible in the restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have revised the lower jaw (and tweaked some of the bosses). How does it look now? Ornithopsis (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If there's anything else I need to change, let me know, but I'm going to add it to the Lemurosaurus page now. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but just noticed this image, the Lemurosaurus looks even odder here: FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They all look really odd   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably going to do more therapsid reconstructions over the coming weeks, so I'll keep those in mind. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Old pterosaur image

This 19th century illustration is commonly seen in textbooks. Because of this, I think it is useful to evaluate its accuracy. The pterosaur doesn't seem to be a real species - or is it an inaccurate Scaphognathus?. Are the shapes of the brachiopatagium and uropatagium correct? I thought the wing was slightly more 'rounded' and the (cr)uropatagium didn't touch the tail. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Also needs a bigger propatagium, I reckon. It does look like early reconstructions of Scaphognathus : remember, the holotype does not preserve a tail so it would have been restored based on other Pterodactylus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks pretty similar to File:Pterodactylus antiquus soemmerring.png from 1817. The Pteradactylus article says it's inaccurate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind the new policy on historical images we have. We shouldn't edit this image whether or not it's inaccurate; if somebody wants to make a new version of this image that's fine, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it has always been an unwritten rule that historical images remain historical. But yeah, those teeth, the pose, and the robustness of the skull and neck vertebrae makes it pretty clear it's Scaphognathus (which was of course also considered Pterodactylus back in the days). FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Anomalocaris reconstruction inaccuracies

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

This is probably not going to be fixed, should we just tag and archive? FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Scleromochlus reconstruction

Bennett has produced a new reconstruction of Scleromochlus as a sprawling basal archosauriform. Could someone modify this existing reconstruction or produce a new one? Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What particular modifications do you think are necessary? I assume that Bennett's assessment that Scleromochlus had a sprawling stance and a nearly plantigrade foot are the main ones, but are there any others? I feel like it's worth mentioning that Bennett's assessment that it is not an avemetatarsalian has been met with some skepticism among researchers online (e.g. ) so it might be wise to not assume that Bennett's reidentification of it as a stem-archosaur is definitive. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Bennett also identified osteoderms, so those would have to be added as well. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The osteoderms have been known since Benton's 1999 redescription of the taxon (and were observed in the original description but interpreted as gastralia). I'm not sure why Tamura's reconstruction lacks them, but it might just be the low detail of the image. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

With all these modifications, it would probably be easier to draw it from scratch... The original is almost too rough to spend time saving. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

American lion (Panthera atrox)

Hello, I find these images of the American lion to be far too pale, paler even than the African lion. These are otherwise nice images but not easy to recolour. What do people think of this attempt by User:PawellMM at the Graphics Lab? ~ R.T.G 09:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The retouching of the second image by Sergiodlarosa introduced far too much blue where the previous image was only slightly saturated. As well, I think the discussion of their colour shouldn't be divided between here and the talk page it was on already, so I'm declining to comment on that. IJReid  18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be kept here, as this is more widely watched by the relevant people. But as I said on the article's talk page, if we want to follow that paper, which only presents a minority view, we should follow it more precisely. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Euparkeria

This image differs a lot from Gregory Paul's skeletal reconstruction, having a more robust body (and tail), an excessively rectangular head, strange legs and a seemingly digitigrade stance. Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of this illustration. The jaw seems detached from the cranium, the ear hole is missing, the back has an unusual arched shape, and there are too many osteoderm rows. I'm much more fond of Taenadoman's interpretation. Nobu Tamura's newer CGI version is also decent. I'd be fine with slapping an inaccurate label on this one, we've got better equivalents so touch-ups would not be necessary. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of NT's newer version before I archive this section, am I the only one annoyed by the odd perspective where the plant in front of it somehow covers its head? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible anachronism

The Commons description doesn't mention the species, but it's used on Argentavis (which went extinct 7 mya), Megatherium (which appeared 5 mya), and Glyptodon (which appeared 2.5 mya)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The image description clearly states that the image represents the Pleistocene, which renders the argentavis identification the most unlikely. I would suspect that the bird represents either a smaller teratorn or a condor. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think any of them were identified in the original upload, but we can be sure it's Megatherium at least, since the same drawing of it was uploaded separately. But it lived alongside Glyptodon, didn't it? We can just remove the reference to the bird, might be a condor, who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cryptoclidid Size Comparisons

Here are a couple more marine reptiles, two cryptoclidids with really weird body shapes. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The rear paddle and tail fluke of Tatenectes appear to differ from the reconstruction of O'Keefe et al. Any particular reason? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The hind paddles I think are just a result of perspective, I can try and make this more obvious. I honestly forgot why I changed the caudal fin... I'll make it more cryptoclidid- and less non-polycotylid-xenopsarian-like soon. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Here are a couple of elasmosaurids (not quite cryptoclidids, but cryptoclidoids), consisting of an update (Hydrotherosaurus) and a new one (Kawanectes). Caudal fins assumed to be present based on Brancasaurus, Styxosaurus, and Albertonectes. Size estimates based on the handy table in the Kawanectes description paper. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, admittedly a little belatedly, I have also updated my Elasmosaurus so that it is based on other elasmosaurines instead of Hydrotherosaurus. Comments? Also, HFoxii, you may have to re-upload the translated version. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That looks plausible. Just in time for a few hours on TFA! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Request: Cartorhynchus size comparison

I've done quite a bit of work in expanding Cartorhynchus and I think it could use a size comparison. A (somewhat low-res) skeletal is available in Fig. 2 of this paper: Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've made the silhouette. Would you prefer the animal in the water or on land? I probably won't finish the size chart until Friday (I've been really busy lately). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In water, I think. Shows the anatomy better (even if it's just a silhouette). No worries, thanks for the help. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Here it is! Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is great, thanks! Looks good to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Images for Tatenectes

• Reconstructed pelvis
• Bogdanov's Megalneusaurus
• Life restoration

I've recently been expanding Tatenectes, and it's currently on the verge of GAN. I have three images that I'd like to add to the article, but they have yet to be reviewed.

• Here is a work in progress for the life restoration. Coloration, more detail, and some refinements will be done eventually. This is based on the O'Keefe et. al. (2011) skeletal. How does this look? Comments on style as well as accuracy are welcome.
• I've drawn a restored Tatenectes pelvis based on Fig. 6C in O'Keefe et. al. (2011). I've inserted a color key into the file description. Comments?
• Dmitry Bogdanov's Megalneusaurus has yet to pass through review. I notice that it's missing a caudal fin (or at least has a very strange one), but Peloneustes, Rhomaleosaurus, and Seeleysaurus should be sufficient to demonstrate that a fin should be present. Is anything else amiss with this image? Does anyone wish to try editing it (I'm not super-good with editing Bogdanov's images)?

Also, does anyone have any recommendations about an image for Paleobiology? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgeable about plesiosaur anatomy unfortunately, but I think the restoration looks good! There was a recent paper claiming plesiosaur tail fins were horizontal, I wonder whether that is controversial? I can try to edit the pliosaur fin, any references for how it should look? As for the pelvis, I wonder if it would be clearer on a white background? The outlines of the individual bones are kind of obscured (I know they are implied, but it make sit a bit hard to make out the shapes I think). As for paleoenvironment, any maps showing how the ocean it lived in looked at the time or something? That was nice in the Elasmosaurus article, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, for some reason I always thought that the caudal fin had three lobes, one on each side and one on top (not sure why). I'm not really sure what to do here, perhaps Lythronaxargestes might know? It doesn't seem like we have any maps of the Sundance Sea, unfortunately. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The vertical and horizontal arrangements would be mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what to think about Sennikov'S argument. It is based to a large extent on an analogy with manatees, and he seems to think that the tail had an active role in locomotion. He also makes conclusions about the Seeleysaurus haplotype but it is not clear whether he has examined it first hand. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

For the paleobiology, a diagram showing the cross-section of the body, ideally compared with a "normal" plesiosaur, would be perfect I think, since this is the most distinctive feature of the genus. I guess this would be an easy one to make for you? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a diagram showing a pachyostoic bone? A bit hard to imagine how it looks. And I misread, that's why I suggested an image for paleoenvironment instead, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Something like this, perhaps? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes exactly, looks great and will be a very helpful illustration I think! Though I agree with FunkMonk that a white background looks cleaner and would fit better into the article, but decision is yours of course. I maybe would place the scale bar to the lower right corner, respectively, so that it is clearly separated from the drawing (right now, at first sight of the thumbnail, it looks a bit as if the scale bar would be part of the cross-section, which is slightly distracting). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the scale bars to the top right corner, since they fit better there (I put them in the torso initially since there was a big cavity there). I do prefer the black backgrounds since I personally find that they make the bones stand out more (and help remove some of the ambiguity introduced by outlines), although I can change them if anyone is really, really opposed to it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, but you do lose some variation in line thickness that otherwise look nice within the outline. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've uploaded the life restoration, comments? Hopefully it looks okay stylistically. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks nice! FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Doswellia Size Comparsion

I've never done a size comparison of a non-ornithodiran archosaurian (that I remember) until now. How does this one look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The scale looks fine if you're using the standard Doswellia lateral view skeletal first published by Weems (1980). I would personally make the legs more robust, though that's more personal preference than anything. I would also specify that it's based on Doswellia kaltenbachi, rather than Doswellia sixmilensis. The dorsal view in Weems (1980) may be an interesting opportunity for top-down size comparison, and would also be good for depicting the unusual width of the animal. Lastly, Doswellia is a non-archosaurian archosauriform like Vancleavea, just to let you know. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Half of me's still thinking that Doswellia is an abberant carnivorous aetosaur instead of a proterochampsian. I've strengthened the limbs a bit. I may eventually add in a dorsal view. Here are three new size charts for the time being, and a REAL aetosaur (Aetosauroides), which is actually my first pseudosuchian size comparison. It's quite a bit smaller than the specimen's estimated length in the paper, but it is still within the size range provided, so I hope that's okay. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

All three look good to me, tho I'm not an aetosaur expert. IJReid  18:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I would maybe add another foot of Ixalerpeton on the ground. I'm not sure it was saltatory. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's fine to show the animal jumping, although I was unaware that there was some doubt about lagerpetids being saltatorial. I can add another leg if you really want. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I believe there is a larger specimen of Aetosauroides - the specimen PVL 2052/1 (skull) had an estimated length of 25 cm, along with a body length estimate of 2 m, in Casamiquela 1967. It is reported to be "1 1/4 times larger than" what I take to be the holotype. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Updated! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me on both counts. There is no formal discussion of Ixalerpeton's saltatorial abilities in the literature so this is not a deal-breaker for me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 10:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Silesaurus
• Ixalerpeton
• Aetosauroides

Drawing of a cave painting of Megaloceros giganteus at Cougnac

Another unusual one at WP/Paleoart today, a drawing from a photograph (which can be found here). I'm not sure if cave paintings have ever featured here before. I tried to authentically portray the line thickness for the charcoal, which is why the line thickness varies so much, the left edge of the drawing isn't actually drawn, but is part of the cave morphology. The image is a bit warped as it isn't drawn on a flat surface. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be fine, I had a similar image in the Columbian mammoth article (Relationship with humans section), I had uploaded a trace someone else did, but I ended up retracing it myself to be safe (see discussion under image review here:). FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the copyright status of File:Lascaux, Megaloceros.jpg and File:Élan aux bois 2.jpg?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The first one is a selfmade photo of a user who seems to have photographed a replica on flat surface, so that should be fine, and the photo should also get a PD old tag along with the CC tag. The second one is also usermade, so that should be fine, and it illustrates the point of cave paintings on non-flat surfaces. If that photo had just been found on a Google search and uploaded as PD, it probably wouldn't fly because the cave walls (if it is not just a cave replica) are obviously not flat. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status of images of paleolithic artwork

I have questions regarding the copyright of images taken of Paleolithic artwork, (which I suppose can be considered to be paleoart in some sense, given many of the depicted animals are extinct). My question is whether they would be considered public domain as images of art (as the artists of the work are long since deceased), or the respective copyright of the image taker. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Nevermind, the answer is no as the Canvas is 3d, per commons discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if the rock surface is flat, it is as 2D as a painting. I think we would mainly have problems if a painting was painted across a bulging rock area where the photographer would actually have to be able to take a choice of angle. But we shouldn't show for example rock formations in the same photo, and only crop to the painting itself. Likewise, if the frame of a public domain painting is showing in a random image we find on Google, the frame should be cropped out, because the photographer holds the copyright to that 3D part of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Longisquama

This image has not been reviewed yet. Tamura's more recent Longisquama reconstruction seems slightly different anatomically (though it's too small to properly compare). If there are no problems, this is the only good Longisquama image that is not a fossil photograph (the only skeletal reconstruction posted here was declared inaccurate by its own author. I wonder if the dinosauromorph-like legs in this life restoration were based on that skeletal?) Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility, although we don't know any leg material for Longisquama so we can't really say for sure. I also see what looks to be some shrinkwrapping of an antorbital fenestra, which is unlikely to have been present. We aren't fully sure about its relations (it could be a basal drepanosaur), though I would bet that it had a much more sprawling posture than currently depicted. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We could cut the new one out if we think it's better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the visible fenestra and a dinosaur like hallux on one foot. So I'll archive soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Paranthropus robustus pelvis

This is an illustration of the ventral partial pelvis and sacrum of DNH 43 assigned to P. robustus based on the image from this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd think for most readers, it would be very hard to make anything out. Labels? Scale bars? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Added labels, but it says the dimensions for the sacrum are 35.1 mm (1.38 in) in length, 87.2 mm (3.43 in) in width, and 78.8 mm (3.10 in) in height and I'm not entirely certain what each measure refers to exactly (is height anteroposterior or superoinferior?).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, if the published figure doesn't have a scale bar, it's probably best not to guess. But the labels are an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

They say the sale is "1x" (twice the size). Assuming they didn't change their print format recently, the page size is ISO 216 Size 4. According to their Guide for authors , 2-column figure width is 18 cm. So the scale for the Figure width would be 9 cm. Figure width cannot clearly be seen since the figures have no border, but it is the same as the width of the text columns and horizontal bars elsewhere in the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not a scan though, so I'm not sure if the digital version of the article is accurate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the pdf version?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I was referring to the pdf version; I think it should be correct if they didn't change their page format in the last 20 years. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thylacoleo restoration by SERGIO GAUCI

Added to the article by SERGIO GAUCI without review. While it doesn't look too bad in thumb view, close up it looks terrible as it is composed of copies of the same hair image that look like they've been stretched in MS paint. The hind legs also look unaturally thin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The teeth also look way too protruding, and to have been taken directly from a photo? FunkMonk (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Moa size comparison

Added by @Joe's Ventures: without review. Quite a nice image imo, with correct foward neck posture, though some of the outlines do look a little rough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also the head of the coastal Moa is missing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slate Weasel: do you think you can whip up a cleaner version of this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: the image I used for the sillouete has its head facing forward, making the head not as odvious, you guys are free to tidy it up if you like — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe's Ventures (talk • contribs)

what images did you get the silhouettes from?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the Dinornis is derived from this Nature paper, Coastal Moa from an image of a lifelike restoration from Te Papa Crested Moa from a restoration by Paul Martinson Upland Moa from another Paul Martinson restoration Little Bush Moa from yet another Paul Martinson restoration Eastern Moa is derived from this image of unknown origin by Scott Reid of drawingwithdinosaurs, Mantell's Moa from yet another Paul Martinson restoration. Heavy footed Moa from Cenozoic life blogspot. As far as I can tell, none of these images are under a derivative license. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Can you confirm that silhouhettes made using copyrighted images aren't allowed on commons? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.deviantart.com/zoobuilder21/art/Moa-Dinornithiformes-Size-Chart-838159761 here is a lit of all the refrences i used, i know Paul himself has seen it and has not tired to issue any copyright issues onto me

Looking at the Nature paper, the Dinornis with the raised foot here has a silhouette which exactly matches that of the one in the paper. Silhouettes are copyrightable, and the Dinornis image in question has a license that does not allow it to be modified or published under CC BY-SA 4.0. We cannot use such images without explicit permission from the author (in this case, all of the authors). While the proportions of an animal must match up with those of the known material, the silhouette needs to be original. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The coastal moa image is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, I shall start a deletion request now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there is certainly a copyright issue. A silhouette directly based on a copyrighted image probably won't fly, so they would have to be redrawn. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

well that sucks, i apologise for any issues with copyright, i can send the orgninal imagine if you guys wat to edit it or make your own

Canid size chart request

Hi, I was told by FunkMonk that requests regarding extant fauna are also accepted here.

Would it be possible to make a size chart (with human silhouette) of the grey wolf, golden jackal and red fox using these three images as templates? Wolf, Jackal and Fox.

Obviously, the image will be very eurocentric, but I may get around to projecting one for North America and Africa.

Anyway, the shoulder heights are:
Grey wolf = 80 cm
Golden jackal = 45 cm
Red fox = 35 cm.

Thank you in advance! Mariomassone (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, since it is unlikely there will ever be a similar request page for extant animals, and since we have already had size comparisons that incorporated extant animals here before, I thought it would be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Eosimops restoration

I found this image of Eosimops a while back. Looks a bit emaciated compared to other Pylaecephalid restorations. On that note, are there any images of Eosimops fossils to see if it's anatomically accurate? Monsieur X (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

At a glance, the neck is almost certainly too long and the overall shape of the head seems incorrect, and it's artistically rather lackluster overall. Definitely needs improvement, and there's a 2013 paper that redescribes Eosimops that would doubtlessly be useful. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I can give it a try if someone can list all that needs to be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Toxoprion Life Restoration

Here is the link to the work in progress (WIP): . The lower jaw is based on a CT restoration (Fig. 6). Upper jaw curvature has been based on Edestus, which may not have been a good thing (perhaps Sarcoprion would be better?). Postcranium is a cross between Caseodus and Fadenia (Fig 12 & 30). Any input? Do we have any Pal(a)eozoic fish experts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to think it had an Edestus-like arrangement with upper and lower whorls instead of a Helicoprion-like arrangement with only a lower whorl? Ornithopsis (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I will change it. Should I include a short row of teeth as seen in Parahelicoprion and Sarcoprion? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ornithopsis, is this version () better? Also, I'm wondering if the lower jaw might have been a lot deeper than I currently have restored it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fish expert, so I'm not really sure. I do think the updated appearance looks better—as far as I can tell, Edestus is unusual in having similar tooth whorls on the upper and lower jaws (compare to e.g. Ornithoprion and Helicoprion), hence my asking if there was a good reason for the original Edestus-like appearance. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of Archaeopteryx discoveries

The timeline should be updated thanks to new discoveries of Archaeopteryx specimens since 2007. It also should take into account the renaming of "Pterodactylus" crassipes as Ostromia and the erection of Archaeopteryx albersdoerferi for the Maxberg Archaeopteryx specimen.68.4.252.105 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Bruktererpeton, Mystriosuchus, and Ctenacanthus

• Bruktererpeton
• Mystriosuchus
• Ctenacanthus
• Bandringa

It's pretty unusual for me to do so many life restorations, but here are three more. I may eventually color some of them. Any comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an additional creature: Bandringa. I will eventually give it a more creative color scheme (and probably a big green eye, as seen in many modern lineages of deep-sea cartilaginous fish) and perhaps a background. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's very difficult to find a good source of information on Bruketerpeton. I see you have a source but I honestly have no idea how accurate it is considering its age and how it is a popular science textbook rather than a peer-reviewed study. The illustration doesn't look like it has glaring errors relative to Gephyrostegus, though I am unsure of whether the eardrum would be visible. Most animals with eardrums evolved them independently and have specific adaptations of the stapes and temporal region coinciding with such adaptations. Gephyrostegus doesn't have any real evidence for such features, due to stapes not being preserved and the temporal region having an unspecialized and broadly concave rear edge. As a close relative, I doubt Bruktererpeton would be any different. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remove the eardrum (it looks like our current Gephyrostegus life restoration also has an eardrum, so I'm guessing that it needs to be removed too). I'm pretty sure that the skeletal in the book is taken/redrawn from a scientific publication (many of the skeletals are credited as being from The Osteology of Reptiles, for example) although they don't cite their source beyond stating that the author is Boy. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Mystriosuchus supposed to have had a tail fin?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No,see the 2017 archive for more details. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

We should probably remove the tailfin mention on the article then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fanboyphilosopher, should Bruktererpeton have claws? I noticed that the DiBgd restoration of Gephyrostegus has them, while my Bruktererpeton doesn't. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, claws didn't really evolve until amniotes. Casineria has been claimed to possess claws based on the tapering and curved unguals, but Marjanovic & Laurin (2019) showed that the tips of the unguals were not pointed, unlike the case with true claws. They also placed Casineria within a gephyrostegid grade of tetrapods, along with Bruktererpeton. So I think that tapering and curved (but not keratinous) finger tips would make sense for Bruktererpeton. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just so this doesn't get forgotten, are there any more comments are these restorations good to go?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I realized that the head of my Mystriosuchus doesn't match the perspective of the body, so I'll have to fix that (probably by changing the angle of the neck). I also have to upload my colored Cobelodus (see above). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

More Marine Reptile Size Comparisons

Sorry for my long periods of inactivity, I'll try to be more productive (although I may not succeed, as I'll be pretty busy for quite awhile). Anyways, here's another Liopleurodon update. I replace the old flat skull with the Noè et. al., 2003-style head, in addition to giving it a Rhomaleosaurus-style caudal fin. How does it look? (As a little side-project, I did a very rough scaling of the Monster of Arramberri using Liopleurodon and got a pliosaurid that was a little over 9m.) Additionally, I plan to upload some more marine reptile size comparisons once this one's approved (these include Muraenosaurus, Pliosauridae, and Sachicasaurus, not to mention updates coming for Ichthyosaurus and Eurhinosaurus). I'm also open to requests. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Here is the Eurhinosaurus update. Looks more like a real animal now. The skull's based on Jaime Headden's skull diagram, which we still haven't uploaded here yet. Any comments on the updated size comparison? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Gallardosaurus Skeletal

One more weekend in October means one more skeletal. Here's my first non-archosaurian skeletal - Gallardosaurus. I don't have a whole lot to say about it that can't already be found in the file description. However, there appears to be what looks like part of Cv5 preserved in the specimen, but nothing about this is said in the paper, so I've left it in light gray. Was this the right choice? I'll ping Eotyrannu5, who's done a much more complex pliosaur skeletal, for input. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I asked someone else to comment on this one, since I'm not a marine reptiles guy, and he said it looked fine, so I will echo that sentiment. IJReid  16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Megatherium

• Posted by 92.249.200.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• The IP has also posted dinosaur paleoart discussed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review#Ankylosaurus, Edmontonia and Suaropelta which are plagiarized. Also, what happened to the claws on his left foot?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Concerns are probably best addressed on DeviantArt to the user Sphenaphinae. I have reason to suspect that the IP and Commons user Sphenaphinae are not who they claim to be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I requested him to put up the images he put up. You can message him on Deviantart about it.

Yeah, the foot claws should be there, the shortish hair seems nice, though, alluding to Mark Witton's recent blog post. Can't say much about the identity issue, but contacting the Deviantart user seems the only way. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

New distribution map for Zygolophodon

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

Shi-Qi Wang; Xiao-Xiao Zhang; Chun-Xiao Li (2020). Reappraisal of Serridentinus gobiensis Osborn & Granger and Miomastodon tongxinensis Chen: the validity of Miomastodon. Vertebrata PalAsiatica in press. doi:10.19615/j.cnki.1000-3118.20031070.175.133.224 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Images by Concavenator

The user Concavenator has uploaded some nice paleoart, which should still be reviewed here to be safe. I'll add dinosaurs here too, just to keep it in one place. Mostly looks good as far as I can see, but the Camarasaurus perhaps has too many hand claws, and the Concavenator has too sunken skull fenestrae? FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mylodon
• Entelodon
• Deinotherium
• Australopithecus
• Concavenator
• Camarasaurus
• Decennatherium, Tetralophodon, Machairodus

As far as the ones I can comment on go, Deinotherium and Australopithecus look alright, the Camarasaurus is good beyond the hands, and the Concavenator looks good to me, fenestrae as they are, except the for seemingly identical fingers and possibly the feathers. IJReid  00:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the toes are too short in the Entelodon? The hind feet look a bit too stumpy, compared to for example this skeletal of a relative: FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

They kinda remind of Disney cartoons (especially Australopithecus which sort of looks like Baloo when he was dressed up like King Louis in the Jungle Book), which isn't something wrong, I just thought it's kinda funny. I don't really understand your comment about the Entelodon hooves. I will say for Australopithecus that that is a very muscular child with a very wide range of facial movement and expressions for such an early hominin (though that may just be the Disneyfication)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see what you mean with the "Disney" style, but that shouldn't be a problem for most of them, as long as the anatomy is correct. But yeah, the apes probably shouldn't be smiling as much... As for Entelodon, it's not so much the hooves, more the distance between them and the toe-foot joint (compare with the same distance in the front feet), there should be "more toe" before the hoof begins. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is the Australopithecus mom be swinging at the very end of a small tree branch with a baby precariously perched on her back? They had a pretty humanlike physique, they wouldn't have been so adept at swinging around in the trees as orangutans, and do even chimps hold their babies on their backs when climbing or do they hold them on their bellies? Also, what's in the background for the ground sloth one?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't say about the primate, but it seems to be fossil dung and skin next to the sloth. We have other such photos. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of these restorations look good, though I do agree that the Entelodon looks off. Not sure what's going on with the Concavenator, but it looks like it has a sail on its on arms, rather than quills, spines, feathers or whatever it had. I think the Camarasaurus tail looks a bit short, but that could just be me. The visible fenestrae, the identical fingers & visible front toes are easy fixes though. I also feel like it's for the best to spilt the images of Decennatherium, Tetralophodon & Machairodus.

Yeah, I agree the last image should split out, we can do that soon if they're all accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Palaeoart of Szymon Górnicki

• Charging Woolly rhinoceros
• Silesaurus
• Metoposaurus
• Lisowicia
• Paleorhinus
• Cyclotosaurus
• Stagonolepis based on Scott Hartman's skeletal
• Smok comparison

Szymon Górnicki uploaded his art to various articles without having them reviewed, any thoughts & criticisms of his work? They look pretty decent in my eyes, though the Dinosaurian version of Smok appears to have a pronated hand & overall looks a bit off in my opinion. Monsieur X (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Lifting the arms of Smok could also put the hands in that position I think. In any case, it seems to have claws on the fourht and fifth fingers, which it probably wouldn't, and the perspective of the toes seem weird. Also, seems like the Lisowicia has skin covering its, err, tooth beak? I now see many of our other dicynodont restorations also show this, but is that likely? Also, Lisowicia has three very similar restorations, is that warranted? FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The croc-line reconstruction of Smok probably shouldn't be digitigrade. It also should only have three manual unguals, not five. It also looks a bit long-legged and short-bodied to me but I haven't checked the measurements. Lisowicia should not have a visible external ear, and even if it did have one it wouldn't be in that position. In at least Sangusaurus the caniniform process of the maxilla appears to have been covered by a beak, but I don't know if that can be applied to other dicynodonts. I see no value in having all three illustrations of Lisowicia on the page as is; only one—preferably the scale image—is needed. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why there's so many Dicynodont restorations that cover the beaks with skin. I thought it was just a paleoart meme that caught on somehow, or perhaps it was based on the platypus' skin-covered beak? Anyway, I definitely think that there's too many similar looking restorations on the Lisowicia article, The two prior were enough. The location of the nostrils looks a bit strange compared to the other restorations. Monsieur X (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of finding any better sources, I found a Twitter discussion in which Christian Kammerer provides evidence for a keratinous sheath covering the caniniform process in Placerias , explicitly in the context of the beak covering the processes. The position of the nostrils doesn't look too problematic to me personally. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, seems we'll have quite some work ahead of us if that conclusion ever sees print.. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Did Paleorhinus really have that short of a tail? I must admit that I know little about phytosaurs. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In a strictly lateral view the tail is definitely too short, having compared it to Hartman's reconstruction which it appears to be based on. I think the intention was for the end of the tail to be foreshortened away from the viewer, though it doesn't quite come across that well. A few other anatomical bits and pieces to mention; Silesaurus and Stagonolepis have the same manual ungual problem as Smok, and the ear on Metoposaurus is in a funny position, and should correspond to where the otic notch would be.DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as published sources go on the dicynodont beak issue, the redescription of Sangusaurus explicitly indicates that the beak probably extended onto the caniniform process (describing the position of the posterior margin of the beak correlates as being on the posterior margin of the caniniform process), and gives no indication that this is an unusual extent for the beak correlates. Diictodon is also described as having keratin on the caniniform process . Lystrosaurus has also been figured with a beak covering the caniniorm process . Crompton and Hotten (1967) describe the beak extending to the Mundplatt, a membrane they suggest extended to the posterior margin of the caniniform process. All in all, it seems clear to me that dicynodont beaks did include the caniniform process, and I can't find any indication it was otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, anyone for rounding up our dicynodont restorations that show the skin covered part of the beaks so they can be corrected? We could just do a section with a gallery where anyone can add images as they find them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Macrauchenia trunkless

It appears that macraucheniids had more conventional looking nostrils, something similar to a moose if this relatively recent study comparing the skulls of various extinct & extant herbivorous mammals is anything to go by.
(LINK) Perhaps these two images should be edited. Other Macrauchenia restoration on
Wikimedia should probably be labelled inaccurate, as they depict the genus with odd elephantine trunks. Monsieur X (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The study I read (see talk page) also proposed a saiga-like snout, which isn't that far off from what's shown. Could be a bit shorter, though, but I think it's kind of too early for us to do anything, it seems to be very preliminary ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I had a look at the talk page and I think we should split the difference. Perhaps someone should edit shorter saiga antelope-like trunks on the mother & calf Macrauchenia, but edit Nobu Tamura's restoration to show moose-like nostrils. Either way, I do believe that the other Macrauchenia restorations on the site are rather inaccurate by modern standards. Monsieur X (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

NT's restoration is pretty much saiga-like already, so I don't see why it would need to be modified, though. If anything, it should be a bit shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

True, but I was thinking since it was rather simple looking in comparison to Olllga's, it would be more easier to edit. Should I put out a request for a new image instead? Monsieur X (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Of a moose-like snout? Well, no one will stop you, hehe. Personally, I'd like to see some more studies on the issues first, and it seems some are underway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I was thinking more in the lines of a image comparing the two ideas, but I might sit on that idea for moment. I could be wrong, but I think the traditional view of Palorchestes might also be going through similar scrutiny. But I'll leave that discussion for the Palorchestes talk page. Monsieur X (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe something like this old Diplodocus (now Galeamopus) diagram, showing all versions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That's the perfect example of how to go about! Now the hardest part is finding an artist to do such a thing. Monsieur X (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Rextron does South American mammals, maybe it could be interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll ping @Rextron to see if they're interested (I hope this works, never pinged before). Much easier than explaining it all on their talk page. Monsieur X (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the late answer, I've been busy. Hmm, looks like a interesting idea, to show the skull and the trunked and trunkless versions. I guess that the trunkless version should be the moose model recently proposed, although in Darin Croft's book "Horned armadillos and rafting monkeys" appears a version with normal lips and narials located very high in the head, the reasoning behind it model is not explained there, just why it probably lack of a trunk. Well, I can make some sketches, by the way there is a diagram that would be very useful: --Rextron (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! An interesting article, it does highlight the need for more peer reviewed studies on age old ideas that go unquestioned or unchallenged. I have seen other artists with similar ideas for Macrauchenia, though I have no idea if there are more studies on this subject at the moment. As for the comparison image, I think it should be similar to the "diplodocus" chart, with the skull and the three different interpretations. Like the the old flexible elephantine trunk depiction, the small saiga antelope-like trunk and the more recent moose-like suggestion. Monsieur X (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I finally can start this. Here is my idea for the "moose" version of Macrauchenia , any thoughts?--Rextron (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly content with this interpretation. Now it looks like a camel with moose-like characteristics. Which seems to line up with our understanding of Macrauchenia. With the taxa appearing to be generalists, like the two mentioned. Calling FunkMonk, do you have any opinions or criticisms? Monsieur X (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, I wonder if that "slope" of the head should begin further anterior, though? Seems like it begins even before the bony nostrils, comparing to this interpretation: FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ooops! I forget to delete some fur in that part, now it looks like this: Here is a version with the skull that I used . --Rextron (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool, still quite some bulge, but who knows how big it would have been... FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have the same doubt, what if was a inflatable structure? ;) Anyways, later I'll modify it to make the trunked version.--Rextron (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I've gone back & edit the images myself, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit of the first image mostly looks reasonable. However, the edited version of NT's image makes Macrauchenia look like a bog-standard mammal without an expanded snout. I think both should be revised so that they look closer to Rextron's interpretation posted above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was being a bit conservative, I'll fix it up tonight & remove those artefacts near the head.Monsieur X (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've edited Nobu's illustration, definitely looks much better. I don't know why I hadn't paid more closer attention to Rextron's diagram & artwork when I was editing Nobu's art, compared to when I was editing Olga's artwork..... Any more criticisms & critiques? Monsieur X (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks much better. That's it from me for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's one that was just posted without review. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I wasn't initially sure about the placement of the nostrils, though I think the artist has restored the animal yawning or perhaps braying like a horse or donkey, which would explain the nostrils. It's definitely a lot more stockier than some other restorations, but I have seen other artists also restore them this way. My only complaint would be somewhat wonky looking feet (Not sure if its missing a toe on each foot or if its just a perspective thing). The image itself also needs to be cleaned up a bit. Monsieur X (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Megaceroides algericus skull

An extremely obscure one today, a bizarre Megaloceros relative with the most extreme cranial thickening of any known mammal, and one of only two deer species ever to have inhabited Africa , and suprisingly recently with latest known dates of 4500-4000 BC. The image is directly redrawn from this image, so I don't think there should be any serious accuracy concerns. The skull is of a really old individual which is why there are no visible sutures. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the whole horn in there? It's visually a bit confusing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is how the photograph itself is so it's not that easy to work around. Only the proximal cylindrical part of the antler is preserved, so I'm not sure there would be much to show regardless. A partial proximal antler ia shown on fig 15 of the paper, but I'm not sure how how it would be orientated relative to this specimen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Stenorhynchosaurus Size Comparison

One more pliosaurid for April. I think that I may also have size charts for Sachicasaurus, Peloneustes, and Attenborosaurus buried somewhere - I'll see if I can dig them up in May. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nakalipithecus

This skeletal reconstruction was drawn in 2015 and doesn't cite any sources, and because only a mandible and teeth are known, extrapolating other anatomical details such as posture or a sagittal crest of a Miocene ape is, in my opinion, unsafe because post-cranial anatomy is poorly known for Miocene apes, and I'm unaware of one with a sagittal crest. Also, the front view of the skull is far too narrow. This is the actual mandible   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've made a drawing of the holotype. Since I literally just traced it, I'm gonna assume it's good to go and put it on the article. I figured I might as well mention it here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the OR is extreme enough for that complete skeletal that it might be grounds for deletion. Nice drawing of the jaw. Looks like it was done freehand? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I traced it on my iPad using a note-taking app   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Parocnus serus skull

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

Diprotodon skeletal mounts and skulls

It has come to my attention that most museum display mounts of the skull of Diprotodon are inaccurate, and are based on skulls that have been distorted by crushing, due to the heavy pneumatisation of the cranial portion of the skull. Accurate models and drawings based on uncrushed skulls are displayed on the right.

The paper the 3d model and drawing are from states that the nasal turbinates were not restored, but I don't think this is a huge issue for external morphology. EDIT: fully rotatable 3d model of uncrushed skull is here Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the problem the projection of the nasal bones?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the external nasal bones are among the most likely parts to be broken off, so they are debatable. I think one of the main issues is the ventral-anterior dorsal-posterior bar on the cranium that connects to the Zygomatic bar and the orbit in the museum specimens, which simply doesn't exist on the uncrushed specimens and is an artifact of dorsal-ventral crushing of the endocranial sinuses, this also causes issues with the overall profile of the top of the cranium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

here's a fully 3d rotatable model of the uncrushed skull from the paper, which should make what I am saying clearer, having looked at the 3d, what is a bar structure on the museum models is actually a relatively sharp edge transitioning to the depressed front of the cranium behind the vomer, which is somewhat reminiscent but different to the museum specimen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The best we can do is probably use a photo in the taxobox where the error is less apparent. I doubt we'll get an up to date mount any time soon, if one even exists. We can add a tag like the one here on Commons photos where it is obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Squalicorax restoration

Made another prehistoric shark, this time Squalicorax falcatus. It is based on the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), with features like the fins' shapes being derived from modern lamnids (due to their comparatively close affiliations compared to other extant sharks with anacoracids) and requiem sharks (as many species likely filled ecological niches and behaviors akin to S. falcatus). And yes, the upper caudal fin is suppose to curve in the angle it is shown in. The coloration also echoes the latter group, with species like the silvertip shark and oceanic whitetip shark serving as prime inspirations. As with my ginsu shark reconstruction, I aim at replacing the older Squalicorax art currently present on the wiki page, as it is rather inaccurate and aesthetically unpleasing, at least in my opinion. I hope this shark will get get better representation in paleoart than it has in the past, so I appreciate the potential for this to make it into the article. --Damouraptor (talk | contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess Macrophyseter should have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Damouraptor First I would like to ask if you actually have access to Shimada and Circumurri (2005), as last time I checked I think it was paywalled and in order to get that skeletal reconstruction someone ought to have posted it elsewhere. (If you don't have access to the paper, just let me know and I'll see what I can do (I'm not a scientist, I'm simply an ordinary person who managed to get access to a lot of papers)) But you are certainly correct on the assumption that Squalicorax is essentially a lamnoid that was carcharhinoid-like, and I really like how you tried to reflect this. However, I would like to note that Squalicorax is still a pelagic shark and that it must have features that any pelagic shark has including fins and bodies designed for long distance and at times fast swimming.

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

Still, don't let this artwork down! It's so much better than that unpleasantly creepy current one and just simply needs a few easy tweaks that can be done without going back to the drawing board. I absolutely love the texture inspired from whitetip sharks and your willingness to make art to represent extinct sharks. With some easy changes, this one probably could make it into the article. Macrophyseter | talk 20:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Damouraptor: Just a reminder after almost a year and a half, are you still planning on making the tweaks or has this been abandoned?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have made much activity in any of his relevant plantforms since late 2019, it's possible that he may have stopped doing paleoart for at least some time. Macrophyseter | talk 06:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe someone else could do the final fixes? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I made changes as the image made by Macrophyseter suggested. What are your thoughts? ESonho (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My suggestions were rough eyeballs with the intention of the assumption that Damouraptor would know what I would mean and go from there using the research he would be making. As a result, it was never supposed to be the most accurate tweak and at this point I have noticed some details that might be a bit contrary to what we know about the shark's anatomy (including some anatomical contriadictions that I overlooked such as the width of the pectoral fin and the size of the caudal vertebrae). If you can, see if you can get a copy of Shimada and Cicimurri (2005), which is the paper that details the anatomy of Squalicorax and has a nice skeletal reconstruction. Here's a pasteboard of the skeletal reconstruction . Macrophyseter | talk 06:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Thanks for the response, I'll do it based on Shimada and Cicimurri this time. ESonho (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Made new edits on the original image after reading about some of the anatomy and following the silhouette of the skeletal reconstruction in Shimada and Cicimurri (2005). I didn't touch the top of the image very much at this point, but what are your thoughts? ESonho (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Peloneustes Skull Diagram (And Some Other Things)

I've recently been preparing an expansion for the Peloneustes article (you can see it here), so I thought that this would be a good time to upload this diagram. I've had this image for a while (ever since I worked on Gallardosaurus). I followed the reconstructed skull diagram in Ketchum & Benson (2011) pretty closely, since Peloneustes actually has a pretty decently preserved skull (pliosaurid crania apparently cave in quite frequently postmortem). I scaled it to this specimen (NHMUK R4058), although I could scale it to a different one. Comments? Feedback on the article draft would also be welcome, I worry that it's too extensive. It also appears that one of my main sources, Andrews (1910-13), is in the public domain. Is there any special procedure for uploading stuff from BHL?

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

Peloneustes skull looks good. The length of the description is not unheard of, but I think it's a bit too jargony right now. Focusing on autamorphies and comparative anatomy will probably help you cut it down.

I did a Ctrl + F for 2.8 m in the Massare paper... this figure seems to be based on their assumption that skull (or "jaw") length is 20% of preflexural length in Ichthyosaurus. What this would mean is that the preflexural vertebral column is four times the length of the skull. From eyeballing Hartman's skeletal this doesn't seem to be the case. One possibility is that Hartman's skeletal is not I. communis — there is, after all, more than one species. This plaster cast of what should be a complete I. communis specimen matches the 20% ratio: Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

On BDL or archive.org uploads, I zoom is as much as possible before downloading the images there, and then I crop and colour correct them. Here is an example from the same paper I think, at archive.org: FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The pliosaur skull looks fine, I don't know enough to comment on the Ichthyosaurus, but I am aware that the Megalosaurus has a jugal preserved. From that through cross-scaling via Torvosaurus you get a lower skull roof and consequently a more Torvosaurus-like long and deep snout. IJReid  16:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Megalosaurus: The jugal (it's green instead of blue, this was mainly to distinguish which institution the specimen came from, something that won't be present on the finished skeletal diagram) seems to cross-scaled correctly with Torvo. I do notice that it articulates with the maxilla more posteriorly than in Hartman's skeletal, so that may be part of the weirdness. I'll look into it. Here's the version with Wiehenvenator parts: . --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobu Tamura's Titanophoneus & Anteosaurus

• Anteosaurus
• Titanophoneus

I recently remembered a discussion about how short the tail was on Dmitry Bogdanov's Anteosaurus for something that was supposedly "croc-like". I had a look at various other Anteosaur restorations & found that Nobu's artwork to be lacking said long tail. His Anteosaurus also appears to be missing the various "bumps" or "warts" found on the skull. Speaking of the skull, it does seem a bit long. Monsieur X (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A Panoply of Parvipelvians

Here are a bunch of parvipelvian size comparisons. I scaled G. mordax, but I didn't include it since I could find no length estimates/skeletal diagrams with scale bars. The scale bars in the Keilhauia figure were off by a considerable margin. Ichthyosaurus was quite complicated to update. Hauffiopteryx was pretty straightforward. I'm also throwing in Arthropterygius, since it got no feedback when I first sent it through here. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't say much about accuracy, but I wonder if we could get Acamptonectes in there? FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly sometime over the next few days, it would have to rely pretty heavily on Ophthalmosaurus and Baptanodon though. I was going to see if anyone else wanted to make the size comparison, but considering that nobody's made one in 355 days since first requested, I may as well take a stab at it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, it doesn't help there doesn't seem to have been any published length estimates of it? But if we know the length of the skull, it could be extrapolated from relatives? I wonder if it would be considered too much original research... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My rule of thumb would be to avoid making a size chart unless a length estimate exists or some sort of size-indicating diagram (i.e. the one in the Grendelius paper) appears in a peer-reviewed academic source. I realize that I violated this with Choconsaurus, it seems... oops. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It can probably wait then. The article is also pretty image heavy as is. I didn't add a size comparison for Catopsbaatar for the same reason, no overall size estimates exist. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Megatherium range map

Based on these maps, I tried to avoid using straight lines to make it more natural looking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In the second source and your map, its range appears to extend a bit further to the southwest. Do you know why this is? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's because of different levels of interpolation of the range from the single find in central Chile, as indicated on the first image. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A new range map, this time for Macrauchenia and Xenorhinotherium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Kronosaurus Size Comparison

Here's something that I'm very excited to share - a size komparison of Kronosaurus queenslandicus! Our current size comparison is a bit odd-looking, with missing teeth, no trailing edge on the hind flippers, and no caudal fin (which can be inferred to exist through Peloneustes, Rhomaleosaurus, and cryptoclidids). I relied heavily on the Devourer of Gods thesis while creating this. One thing that I noticed is that the "Plasterosaurus" silhouette only came out at ~12 m when scaled to the 2.6 m mandible - perhaps scaling it to the 2.9 m report would be better? To create a rough "skeletal" for reference, I sliced up a photo of the mount in GIMP and reassembled it with McHenry's skull. After making this, I'm considering making charts for Sachicasaurus & "K." boyacensis. Any comments on this size comparison? Please analyze it brutally - Kronosaurus can be a contentious taxon. Also, does anyone know if any work's being done on the "Richmond pliosaur" (actually a polycotylid)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Kronosaurus Korner website confirms that it's a polycotylid and explains that the "Richmond pliosaur" nickname was made back when scientists thought that polycotylids were pliosaurs. . As far as a know, the specimen is still taxonomically undescribed but the website states that phylogenetic analyses were made on it. For my take on the reconstruction, it is much better than the old one currently in the article. I haven't studied too much about Kronosaurus, but I have a few comments. First, I think that there should be some indication given in the diagram that the Harvard Mount is inaccurately long since people might think that the mount is depicted as the "upper estimate" of Kronosaurus. Second, it seems to me that the parietal crest for the MCZ 1285 proper reconstruction looks too short. Great job on the diagram! Macrophyseter | talk 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! What exactly should the parietal crest look like? Right now it's both slightly longer and taller than in the McHenry (2009) skull reconstruction (although I'm not sure that that reconstruction accounts for the fact that pliosaurid posterior crania tend to cave in significantly). The labels can be changed pretty easily, perhaps to something like 'MCZ 1285 - Historic Reconstruction' and 'MCZ 1285 - Revised Reconstruction'? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to note we have a photo of the "Richmond pliosaur" on Commons, which sat unidentified on Flickr for years with only a Swedish description. Not sure what we can use it for until the specimen is described, though... FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Macrophyseter, I've made the parietal crest a bit taller, akin to what I did in the Sachicasaurus and "K." boyacensis size comparisons below. I've revised the labels, too. How does this version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me! Macrophyseter | talk 05:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a size comparison of one of Kronosaurus' Colombian cohorts, Sachicasaurus vitae. Sachicasaurus is huge, complete, and published in a freely licensed paper, so its size comes with a greater degree of confidence than that of Kronosaurus. It's about 10.1 m long here, which is close to the estimate of 10 m provided by Páramo-Fonseca et. al. (2018). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you also checked the bodily proportions against tables 1 and 3? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean 2 and 3? Not until I read your comment, but going by table 2, the neck seems okay, as does the precaudal series based on rough guesses & added cartilage after Kronosaurus. Table 3 deals with appendicular elements, most of which are in perspective here and therefore don't have determinable lengths. Table 1 was used to scale the skull, and with it, the animal. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I did mean Table 1. I was concerned that you may have used the specimen's photograph directly. That's fine then. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That is what I tried to do initially, but I realized that something wasn't right when the scale bars for the skull and body didn't match by a significant margin... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here's the third promised pliosaurid - "K. boyacensis (which may in the future become Sachicasaurus boyacensis). It came out at about 9.7 m, a bit on the lower side but well within the range recoverd by McHenry (2009). The silhouette is based on the photogrammetric reconstruction, Kronosaurus, and Sachicasaurus, with the proportions cross-checked against the provided measurements. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Models by Peter Menshikov

• Tullimonstrum gregarium
• Aetosaurus ferratus
• Jachaleria candelariensis
• Pseudochampsa ischigualastensis
• Grendelius pseudoscythica
• Goniopholididae indet. from Berezovsk coal mine (Itat Formation)
• Austriadactylus cristatus
• Austriadactylus cristatus
• Tashtykia primaeva
• Atopodentatus unicus
• Rhamphorhynchidae indet. from Berezovsk coal mine (Itat Formation)
• Rhamphorhynchidae indet. from Berezovsk coal mine (Itat Formation)

Here are the new models by Петр Меньшиков (Peter Menshikov). He plans to create animation with them. Are there any errors? In the future, I will add even more files to the gallery. HFoxii (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Grendelius is really lumpy, the quadrupeds are all missing their manual unguals, and the Austriadactylus is missing a rudder and its teeth don't match up with the fossils. I haven't done any rigorous comparisons yet, so there may be even more anatomical problems present. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 17:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Grendelius and Austriadactylus updated. HFoxii (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not fond of the wing membrane on the latter. Should attach at the ankle? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A new version of the file has already been uploaded. HFoxii (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Do claws of Jachaleria and Aetosaurus look better now? HFoxii (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure aetosaur osteoderms were not subcutaneous. That's what it looks like for this model. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the new version better? HFoxii (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Glaring issues outstanding: aetosaurs have quite sizeable teeth, and the fourth and fifth fingers should not have claws. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

And now? HFoxii (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There appears to have been a misunderstanding. The fourth and fifth fingers are at the outside of the hand, like your ring and pinky fingers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Today were uploaded models of Tashtykia primaeva (known only by teeth and based on relatives), Rhamphorhynchidae indet. from Berezovsk coal mine and Atopodentatus unicus. HFoxii (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In general aesthetic terms, the splotchy skin patterning and dark background make these restorations look unappealing, which detracts from their potential educational value. In specific terms, proterochampsians lack a fifth toe on the foot and have an enlarged second toe, unlike what the Pseudochampsa piece illustrates. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The dark background can be replaced with white. HFoxii (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ophthalmosaurus Size Comparison

After a few plesiosaurs, it's time for an ichthyosaur! Here's a new Ophthalmosaurus size comparison. The current size comparison has a few problems, including the label (O. discus is a jr. syn. of O. natans, and O. natans is most likely Baptanodon). Despite the label being O. discus, it seems to clearly be based on File:Ophthalmosaurus BW.jpg, which is O. icenicus (and Ophthalmosaurus proper). The head shape in the current chart also gives the impression of gills, which Ophthalmosaurus/Baptanodon obviously didn't have. I drew my Ophthalmosaurus based on Scott Hartman's skeletal and the skeletal diagram in Lawrence (2008). Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific specimen with a size estimate that can be used? Might want to check that McGowan & Motani source cited by Lawrence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of File:Ophthalmosaurus BW.jpg, it seems the eye should be modified, since it seems to take up the entire sclerotic ring, when only the inner ring should define the visible part of the eye? I've been thinking of this for years without knowing what to do, hehe... And the old diagram also has this issue, maybe we could use it for Baptanodon after all if fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I modified the above image by making the eye smaller and removing the ear opening, which I haven't seen illustrated in other ichthyosaurs... FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• And another thing, a new paper is out about Mixosaurus fins, and it has a skeletal which shows a different configuration than in our restoration. Something we should fix? FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, since a non-bilobous tail has been illustrated previously, we may as well keep this as a historical example. Does this imply anything for Cymbospondylus, though, which is sometimes found to be more derived than Mixosaurus (although more basal just as frequently, it seems)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ankylorhiza reconstruction

Just started work on a life restoration of Ankylorhiza since the article's devoid of images (and surprisingly didn't even exist until a few days ago). Here's what I've got so far for the early sketch; comments are highly appreciated since mammals aren't my forte, but I tried my best using the paper's skeletal and reference images of living dolphins and other whales. I know Macrophyseter and Dunkleosteus77 have done a lot of editing on cetacean articles before, maybe you guys have some thoughts? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks to be consistent with the skeletal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. Macrophyseter | talk 21:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! The restoration's been fully rendered and uploaded now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bit of creative liberty coloring it somewhat like that of a common dolphin, but I think it's good! Macrophyseter | talk 21:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hyperodapedon Size Comparison

Here's a (somewhat random) size comparison depicting the rhynchosaur Hyperodapedon gordoni. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Beelzebufo Size Comparison

Here's a Beelzebufo size comparison, any thoughts? I'm not very good at drawing frogs, so I'm not sure how realistic the flesh outline is. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You can try making a silhouette out of File:Beelzebufo ampinga comparison.svg or File:Beelzebufo BW.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that in the first image, the outline of Beelzebufo is clearly derived from Nobu Tamuras drawing in the latter image, but is totally uncredited. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added more bulk, how does this look? Frog skin doesn't hug the bones closely at all, it seems. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says it's similar to the African bullfrog, which has an 80° angle from the lip to the belly, as opposed to the 35° angle here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to emulate the African bullfrog a bit more, does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It still looks kinda unfroglike. Do bullfrogs actually lift themselves off the ground like that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think so. I've distended the belly a bit more, and also rested the knee on the foot, as modern frogs often do. Previously I had it crouched like a more nimble frog (i.e. dendrobatids). Does this look froggier now? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)