Not April Fool's: this third round of "list of dinosaurs by continent" images needs reviewing. Presenting, the European dinosaurs.
My comments:
- Anoplosaurus is just one of the many WIP's abandoned by Levi bernardo. Ironically, true to its name, it has no armor.
- Is it just me, or are the jaws of the Arcovenator too thin?
- Atsinganosaurus appears too robust for a lirainosaurine, but it could be reworked into an opisthocoelicaudiine as indicated by Gorcsak's titanosaur analyses. The lighting should also be cleaned up.
- I drew Bradycneme and Heptasteornis as alvarezsaurids based on Thomas Holtz's book, the latter reinforced by Hartman et al., 2019.
- Camelotia has pronated hands.
- I've heard that Cetiosaurus has more than one claw on its hands, but I'm not sure if it's true.
- Dacentrurus is just... weird.
- Draconyx was updated based on a comment left when the image was removed from its page. HFoxii, just a note: artistic quality shouldn't be a major reason to delete an image. This is not an art competition.
- Erectopus is an interesting case. It's the official coat of arms of Louppy le Chateau, France, but the dinosaur on the shield is clearly traced from the image from the now defunct Jurassic Park Institute website, most likely because it's the first result on Google Images. What do we do about this?
- Europasaurus comes from a popular image that's often been used to illustrate the Mesozoic. While the sauropod is passable (except for a few extra claws on the forelimbs), the blue dinosaurs in the background are more concerning. According to the description, they're Iguanodon, which did not live with Europasaurus. They also look like silesaurids.
We could just relabel them as generic iguanodonts or something? I can remove the extra claws, but I think those iguanodonts could be left as just unidentified, surely something of the sort would have lived there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Haestasaurus has sometimes been recovered as a turiasaur, so the Camarasaurus-like proportions may not be totally accurate.
- Hungarosaurus is a model in, well, Hungary.
- Liliensternus seems to have paired crests, although contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence of such a feature.
What popular belief? It's not restored like that due to any kind of evidence, just possible phylogenetic position. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lohuecotitan is a model in Cuenca, Spain. It's also one of the most accurate sauropod models I've ever seen.
- Magyarosaurus comes from a Romanian stamp credited to "R. Popescu", but it's plaigiarized from Dougal Dixon's World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures.
- Piveteausaurus has visible fenestrae.
- Riabininohadros is depicted as a hadrosaurid, but its formal description finds it to be indeterminate within Styracosterna.
- The arms of Torvosaurus gurneyi are too small and too thin.
Additionally, I also updated Bradycneme, Draconyx, Heptasteornis, Horshamosaurus, Lusitanosaurus, Marmarospondylus, and Pareisactus before posting this here.
Bradycneme - what is its status? I realize Holtz referred it to the Alvarezsauridae but I feel like it may not be clear enough to definitively restore it as a member of a specialized clade. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Aragosaurus: It should probably have somewhat more raised shoulders, as Aragosaurus had a proportionally longer forelimb than Camarasaurus.
Atsinganosaurus: This doesn't look particularly robust to me, so I don't really see much of a problem with it.
Camelotia: One of the reasons this is tagged as inaccurate is that it depicts Camelotia as a quadruped, but based on its relatives such as Melanorosaurus and Antetonitrus, Camelotia was indeed probably a quadruped. The manus are indeed inaccurate, however.
Cetiosaurus: Why would Cetiosaurus have more than one manual ungual? Even stuff as basal as Tazoudasaurus seems to have only the one, and manual material isn't known for Cetiosaurus. The strongly anteriorly tapering torso and ramrod-straight horizontal neck strike me as questionable, but I'm not sure if it's strictly inaccurate.
Demandasaurus: Looks fine.
Europasaurus: In addition to the claws and biogeography, the head seems oddly-shaped.
Haestasaurus: We don't really know exactly where this falls phylogenetically exactly, so I'm not sure we can say Camarasaurus-like proportions are inaccurate. This isn't too unlike Moabosaurus proportionally, so I don't think there's really a problem.
Lohuecotitan: Looks fine.
Magyarosaurus: This image portrays the stamp, not the animal per se, and so is not really within the scope of what we do here.
Marmarospondylus: This is yet another taxon that is too incomplete and of inadequately-constrained phylogenetic relationships to meaningfully reconstruct.
Ohmdenosaurus: Looks fine.
Paludititan: Probably too osteoderm-heavy; the general view is that titanosaurs probably had only one pair of osteoderm rows, and certainly not an extensive cover like non-stegosaur thyreophorans.
Tastavinsaurus: The reconstruction isn't particularly good, but it's hard to say whether it's particularly inaccurate, strictly speaking.
It seems unclear. If it is a bagaceratopsid (e.g. per [2]), it should look like [3]. On the other hand [4] finds it closer to Ceratopsidae, in which case it would look like [5]. Perhaps stick with the former just to illustrate a single hypothesis? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I might return to it later on, there are also other things like odd limb proportions that could get a further tweak... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Cumnoria has been sunk into Camptosaurus, so maybe it should look something more like C. dispar? Bigger head, for one, and shorter legs. Looks like a generic 90s iguanodont right now.
Eustreptospondylus' tall skull doesn't feel very megalosaurid-like, especially juxtaposed against IJ's skull reconstruction on the page.
This life restoration of Acrocanthosaurus was created as a part of the Prehistoric Production project. While we already have some restorations of Acrocanthosaurus, since Petr Menshikov's models are licensed under a Creative Commons 4.0. license, I think it makes sense to look into this. Also, it is problematic that Dmitry Bogdanov's drawing currently used in the "Description" section does not show the whole animal. The blue tongue is speculative and can be recolored if necessary. HFoxii (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
With the recent description of Maip, I thought it would be appropriate to make size comparison diagrams for the named dinosaurs of the Chorrillo Formation. All three pages (Isasicursor, Nullotitan, and Maip) are low on images, so perhaps a new version of the skeletal diagrams could be made without the human scale for use on the page. This way there could be separate skeletals/size diagrams.
For Isasicursor I depicted multiple specimens since there are fossil remains belonging to a range of individuals and ages. If it is preferred to only have a single specimen, I can remove the smaller ones. The largest specimen matches the paper's skeletal quite well. As a side note, the skeletal diagram seems to have inaccurate hands.
I don't know how I feel about those additional specimens. I skimmed the paper and couldn't find size estimates or additional scaled skeletal diagrams asides from the one above. It's getting a little into OR territory. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Woah...somehow I didn't see your comment until today. I removed the smaller specimens. Is this better? -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Nullotitan has a somewhat unusual humerus : tibia/fibula length ratio, so if the proportions of the limbs look off, that's probably why. The describing authors give a vague length estimate that the holotype "almost probably surpassed 20 meters long". I primarily used Patagotitan to fill in the missing parts.
A somewhat unrelated comment for Maip (and Megaraptora): The Megaraptora taxonomy template nests Megaraptora under Orionides. Basically all recent studies have agreed that the clade is a member of Coelurosauria, and the new Maippaper reinforces this. Is it time for the taxonomy template be updated?
Shouldn't it be Avetheropoda indet. even if we're still being cautious? I don't think anyone takes the idea of them being megalosauroids very seriously these days. My impression of the megaraptoran phylogeny situation is essentially that one dataset finds them to be carnosaurs and the other dataset finds them to be coelurosaurs, and which of the two clades they're recovered in is largely a product of which analysis is used, rather than new data persuasively resolving the issue. Has there actually been any progress? Or is it just that recent papers have used the dataset that finds them to be coelurosaurs more often than the dataset that finds them to be carnosaurs? Ornithopsis (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I dislike how the official Maip skeletal has white contours overlapping the silhouette, which makes it hard to tell them apart from the bones... I thought first some huge hyoid was preserved... FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Somehow I'd missed this until now, but the Isasicursor skeletal has pronated hands; I assume that would be problematic? If so, it should probably be fixed. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Cool artwork by Miner97, but maybe not particularly useful for Maip, since it is not known from any cranial material. Maybe it could be made into a different megaraptorid that does have cranial material, like Murusraptor? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Here is two new unrelated drawings. First is the ontogeny of Bagaceratops rozhdestvenskyi (including it's junior synonyms) based on Czepiński, 2019. Second is the life restoration of Overosaurus paradasorum intended to replace the one currently used in the article that have a broken neck and a strange coloring. Any remarks? HFoxii (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with giving it a longer neck. Note also that Overosaurus is an aeolosaur, and at least some aeolosaurs had strongly downcurved tails (as demonstrated for Arrudatitan maximus by Vidal et al. 2021 [8]). Unfortunately, the caudals of Overosaurus aren't really adequately preserved to get a good sense of how much curvature there would've bene. Perhaps Overosaurus should be depicted as less extreme than Arrudatitan (or my reconstruction of Aeolosaurus), but it probably should be curved downward more than shown here. Additionally, note that the posture of the reconstruction currently in the article is based on the skeletal diagram in the original description, and it appears that the cervicals articulate with somewhat of a downward curvature as a result of the elongated pre- and postzygapophyses. I doubt it formed a semicircular arc as depicted, but it should be taken into account that that depiction isn't baseless. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Steveoc 86 and Ornithopsis: I lengthened the neck and slightly changed the slope of the tail. Is it better now or should I fix something else? It seems that elongated pre- and postzygapophyses only indicate high mobility of the neck, right? As far as I can tell, the pose shown here is also not improbable. HFoxii (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that neck length looks better. Skimming the paper, the downward curvature they show for the neck would probably be less extreme if cartilage were added. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Note that it isn't so much the angle of the tail that's the problem as it is the shape: the tail should bend down somewhat over the first 10 caudals or so, but you've got it more like it's straight but angled downward at the base. Sauropod neck posture is a hairy enough subject that I don't have much more to add on that topic; I just wanted to point out that the authors of the original description probably had a reason for depicting it the way they did. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The Bagaceratops ontogeny looks pretty solid, however, I'd suggest to maintain the snout closed across individuals so differences can be appropriately visualized. Also, I think it's better (even safer considering the different localities) to tweak IVPP V12513 to a slightly more "compact" or "shorter" morphology, given that most specimens from Barun Goyot have this shape. Most notably PIN 3142/5, which seems to represent a relatively large individual, hence giving the idea of what your average Barun Goyot Bagaceratops should look like. IVPP V12513 as far as I'm concerned underwent a notorious compression, and well, overall it is a very unique individual. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have recently been working around Velociraptor and thought that a new diagram including well-known/studied specimens could be nice. The largest known individual is MPC-D 100/25, apparently. I'm personally curious about the estimate given by Molina-Pérez & Larramendi based on AMNH 6518 (2.65 meters), as the pes of this specimen has been illustrated here showing that it is similar or near equivalent in size to MPC-D 100/54 (featured in this diagram). I only represented specimens that preserve decent skull material. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Any estimates for osmolskae? Also, there has been some discussion as to how reliable the Molina-Pérez & Larramendi book is, not sure how much it should be relied on. FunkMonk (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Ye, only Molina-Pérez & Larramendi as far as I know. However, since osmolskae is only a maxilla and lacrimal, I hesitate to include it. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll go ahead and add it to the page. The current size diagram appears as a troll-tainted version on some devices. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I was supposed to post this yesterday but I felt sleepy. So here it is. The fifth round of dinosaurs: the North American ones.
- Alcovasaurus is reconstructed like Stegosaurus, but it may have looked more like Miragaia.
- Anasazisaurus is drawn with a short, Brachylophosaurus-like crest, but as a close relative of Kritosaurus (possibly even a second species of the latter), it should have a bigger crest.
- No comments about the anatomy of the Anodontosaurus, but the line on the right side should be cropped out.
Compared to the holotype, the head armour looks a bit off (D in [9]): asca is too small, nascas are too small and too numerous, loca is too small. Also, the pointedness of the tail club is not obvious, but I don't know how one would fix that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's something off about the wings and tail of Bambiraptor, but I can't put my finger on it.
- Dromiceiomimus needs wings, especially if it is synonymous with Ornithomimus edmontonicus, to which a feathered specimen has been assigned.
- Eotrachodon has five fingers, including claws on the thumb and pinky.
- Fosterovenator has weird proportions. Given that its description is contradictory as to its phylogenetic position, it's uncertain which ones are correct.
- Hesperonychus looks like a eudromaeosaur, even though it is pretty much agreed to be a microraptorian.
- We're not really sure if Labocania is a tyrannosauroid (or even a tyrannosaurid as it seems to be depicted as). It's also shrinkwrapped.
- Leptorhynchos lacks primary feathers.
- Martharaptor is just... weird.
- Monoclonius is depicted as eating a modern-type flower, but I'm not sure if they existed in Campanian North America.
- The wings of Ojoraptorsaurus are rendered weirdly, and its coloration is exactly like a modern cassowary's, down to the blue neck.
- I'm not sure blue-green would be possible for the scales of Parksosaurus.
- Probrachylophosaurus is depicted with feathers, but multiple "mummies" show that hadrosaurs were exclusively scaly.
I'm more concerned about the fact that the skull appears longer than the paper's reconstruction, and also that of Brachylophosaurus (scaled roughly to the same size). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rugocaudia was updated by me before I posted it here.
- I doubt that Spicylepus, and other ceratopsids, had such spiky backs.
I don't think we can really rule out anything for such a large group, even if we have preserved skin in a few genera. Related modern anaimals can have vastly different integument. FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Stellasaurus illustration first appeared in a paper about Rubeosaurus (or Styracosaurus ovatus), and combines the nasal horn of Stellasaurus and the frill spikes of Rubeosaurus. So which genus should this image represent?
Agreed, this is pretty much a chimaera (if we follow the latest interpretstion), and mainly suited for illustrating a historical concept. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Thescelosaurus image comes from a paper, but according to David Attenborough's recent documentary, Thescelosaurus was most likely scaly.
I agree. I can try make a new Troodon illustration for the page. I can start after the Amargasaurus and Suchomimus pieces are finalized. Fred Wierum20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Re Parksosaurus blue-green scales, unless my knowledge is outdated(?), it's only simple monofilaments like hair that cannot create blue or green due to them being structural colours. There are reptiles alive today that have blue and green scales.Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
That's my impression too, unless we have scales that somehow have an indication of pigmentation, as the supposed red of Borealopelta, then I don't see how we could exclude the possibility. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Whilst on the subject of colour, online there are images of a brightly coloured Indian Giant Squirrel with fur that looks like it's getting into the blues... Be interested to know what's going on there.Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've removed NT's old, sailed Amargasaurus with the weird legs, since we have the new one. And moved the unsailed one to the section about interpretations of it, and put the new one in description. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Abydosaurus - Nostril position and snout shape are unconvincing.
Albertonykus is quite rough. The skull doesn't look anything like other alvarezsaurids, the torso is way too shallow, and there's some kind of weird cropping error on the tail feathers.
Arrhinoceratops doesn't match the skull ROM 1439 [13]. The frill is way too tall, as the squamosal should connect at the level of the orbit; I don't know what's going on with the lone episquamosal either. The epossifications are nowhere nearly as spiky. The postorbital horns should be curved. The nasal horn should be curved. The lower jaw should be taller.
Bistahieversor looks like it has dislocated arms and no premaxillary teeth? May have visible fenestrae as well.
Brontomerus has always bothered me a little. I think it's the nostril position, large scales, and tail pose (could it even do that?)
Chasmosaurus should have a slightly more pointed P3, and I'm pretty sure the postorbital horns should be recurved too [14].
Coahuilaceratops looks hunchbacked, is it foreshortening? Also the squamosal and jugal again don't match up to the paper's lateral view reconstruction [15] but given that it's happened twice now I'm starting to think that I'm missing something about ceratopsian anatomy.
Coronosaurus has extra claws... I think?
I think it's just the scale lines on the fourth and fifth fingers that make it look like that. The "claws" appear to be the skin colour? FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Leptoceratops has tiny-head NT basal ceratopsian syndrome again [16].
Mercuriceratops has a weird hole in the squamosal — I'm pretty sure the squamosal fenestra is not supposed to be visible?
Nothronychus is reconstructed differently by the description, the redescription, and Hartman. PaleoNeolitic do you recall your process on this one? Could you expand the image description with some references?
I do, for N. mckinleyi I used Hartman's old skeletal (tail shrinked a little bit) and for N. graffami used the new one. I'm not saying the redescription skeletal is bad or something but some proportions are quite off, especially around the vertebrae. Also, the skeletal used in the original description is similar to Hartman's old and new skeletals, which seem to have fairly more acceptable proportions. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Pachyrhinosaurus has feet that are too elephantine for my taste.
Pentaceratops has some intra-generic variation [17] but the epoccipitals could be tweaked to fit a specific specimen. Right now, it doesn't seem to.
Saurornitholestes could have less of an antorbital fenestra.
Styracosaurus also doesn't match any existing specimen particularly well, I think UALVP 55900 is the only specimen with four relatively large epiparietals [18] but it doesn't look like that. The tail length is a bit awkward too.
Tanycolagreus has the feathers extending right down to the hand claws. How plausible is that?
Tawa here has four digits as opposed to three in the skeletal of Maurissauro. I don't know which one is more likely.
Utahceratops should have a bigger S1: [19] It's also missing the inward curl of P1.
Vagaceratops is missing an epiparietal at the top corner of the frill: [20]
Xenoceratops could use longer postorbital horns like Diabloceratops. The episquamosals don't match Hartman's reconstruction [21] but I'm not sure we know what's going on in that region anyway. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
My Tawa's skeleton actually has four digits. It's just that digit IV is super tiny, as you can see here, which I used as reference. Maurissauro (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider a .5 m difference to be "much smaller". The diagram is scaled off of the fossil skull, primarily using Scelidosaurus as the base, resulting in the ~2 m length. It isn't directly scaled using GSP's estimate. Also, Holtz estimates Emausaurus at 2 m. Jakapil's tail should be an easy fix. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Added in pages without review by @Repti2410:. Actually for Wannanosaurus, that was once added and removed by them because broke layout, and other user replaced reconstruction. Since skull image on below not shows these taxa, maybe that is confusing. Other than that are there any problems? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
These are very nicely-made images. The formatting and watermarks are not ideal, but I believe they don't compromise the art even if I personally would prefer just a blank white background and maybe a bit more cropping. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello!
First of all I am glad to read that you liked my illustrations about Wannanosaurus and Colepiocephale.
Now on the format I will modify it and apply a white background and watermarks to make the illustration more enjoyable.
Second, about the pads, I consulted several connoisseurs and they told me that these little animals did not have much pad or almost none, that is why they are represented like this. They have been commenting on the nails a lot and I am going to correct them to upload them as soon as possible.
On the skull of Colepiocephale I increased the keratin based on the skull of Stegoceras.
Thank you very much for your corrections that help me a lot in representing these dinosaurs and that people have another vision of them. I will apply your advice to the other Pachycephalosaurids.
Hi, that sounds odd, since small birds and reptiles have very noticeable footpads? Also, all dinosaur tracks regardless of size have them. FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
They look mostly good, but they need toe and foot pads, and the foot claws look unnaturally long. Like a cagebird which never uses its feet or get their nailscut. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Anatomically they look good asides from a few nitpicks.
Per Butler & Zhao 2009, Wannanosaurus is missing a row of tubercles extending from the postorbital to the squamosal, unless it is meant to be hidden under the dome; the anterior mandible could be deeper; and allegedly there are no phalanges on the fourth pedal digit, although this cannot be confirmed.
Quadrupedal reconstruction that is treated as inaccurate
Reconstruction by NT
New paper for newly described sauropodomorph Tuebingosaurus is released.[22] This paper clearly shows that Riojasaurus is quadrupedal animal, while Wikipedia page prioritized biped reconstruction. Description of Ledumahadi[23] also shows that Riojasaurus is quadrupedal. I am not sure that which recent paper about limb osteology of early sauropodomorph[24] supports, doesn't seem to draw any solid conclusions for its posture. The reference that is used for biped Riojasaurus is this DeviantArt post by Scott Hartman.[25] I can totally agree that he is an excellent paleontologist, but I honestly don't think DeviantArt is a good reference. However, this quadrupedal reconstruction may also have some obsolete parts. I feel that both theories should be treated as equally as possible, rather than giving priority to one theory. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that the new paper really adds anything new to the Riojasaurus posture issue. Note that the reasons given for the quadrupedal Riojasaurus illustration being inaccurate have nothing to do with it being quadrupedal, it's just all-around not very good. That said, I agree with the general principle that Hartman's non-peer-reviewed remarks do not outweigh the published conclusions of Bonaparte and McPhee et al. There are, however, some issues with the idea of Riojasaurus being a quadruped: it may be a chimera of two distantly-related taxa, one much closer to sauropods than the other, and McPhee et al.'s results find quadrupedalism to be more widespread than generally supposed, including the rather peculiar result of Mussaurus being secondarily bipedal. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. I have no objection to either a bipedal or quadrupedal Riojasaurus being portrayed, but the current quadrupedal Riojasaurus illustration just isn't very good. Per WP:RSSELF, Scott Hartman's remarks on DeviantART can be considered a reliable source because he is an established expert, but per WP:DUE, we shouldn't let his assessment entirely outweigh the various published sources that have concluded it was a quadruped. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I reidentified a picture[26] of the holotype we've had since 2013 and took the liberty to add it to the taxobox. Diagrams look good, but I wonder if the lifted hindfoot looks too "planted", shouldn't the toes curve more down when lifted? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The Bisticeratops page is getting a little image-heavy, but here's a size chart for it anyway. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Not a knock on the diagram, but I think it'll be confusing to have an image with a Triceratops-like postcranium (the current skeletal) and one with an "Anchiceratops"-like postcranium. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
In fairness, the Anchiceratops body is more phylogenetically reasonable, so the skeletal would be the one to question on this point. Ultimately I think it's minor, though; the uncertainty of unknown parts of the body should not be obscured but made clear. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I used a combination of Triceratops and CMN 8547, which is the nearly complete skeleton that is probably Anchiceratops for the postcrania. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
It is mostly non-dinosaur paleoart review, however I noticed selections of species looks similar to Flamenguista403 a bit, including "skeleton" of Megapiranha (maybe just because both are Brazilian users though) so I introduce these on here. Also this user uploaded some fossil images as "Own work", I think these are non-credited, or even can be copyvio? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Also - I think it goes without saying that the Tupandactylus and Tyrannosaurus are completely wrong proportionally. Tupandactylus appears to be begging for the sweet release of death. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This user has also uploaded this "Gorgosaurus" and this Asian Miocene Piece. The juvenile tyrannosaur was clearly drawn over the skeletal; not sure where the skeletal is from. Skye McDavid (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Jakapil has an extra manual claw, and I'm not sure why there are extra osteoderms on the head. The body of Giganotosaurus has about the right width but I think the head looks too small. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I should note that the Giganotosaurus here is supposed to be a younger individual, and the extra osteoderms on the head for Jakapil was for a bit of speculative fun. However, I did not know that it shouldn't have an extra manual claw. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
These two images were updated last year. Supersaurus' length was changed, making it 39 m long. What could be the reason? It doesn't match published size estimates. Kiwi Rex (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
If memory serves me right, an upsizing of Supersaurus has been teased in a recently released abstract. So I'd guess it is meant as a preliminary change TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I have made a multiview skeletal reconstruction for Euhelopus zdanksyi, which will be used as a base for other euhelopodids soon. Comments & critiques welcome. Gunnar Bivens (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend making "exemplar B" slightly lighter and the unknown elements slightly darker, to increase the contrast between them. What exactly is going on with the pectoral girdle in anterior view? The tail looks like a mix of Tambatitanis (neural spines) and a mamenchisaur (tail club). Pick either the mamenchisaur hypothesis or the somphospondyl hypothesis, don't try and do both at the same time. On that note, reconstructing other taxa based on Euhelopus is kind of dicey in the current state of things, given the uncertainty over its phylogenetic position. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The pectoral girdle is a result of the scap curving inward to more properly wrap around the ribcage (though I look at it & yeah the glenoid's projecting too far outward in this view). The caudals are all Tambatitanis & Huabeisaurus, the tail club I added as a bit of fun spec, though yes I should remove it at least for the version posted here as you would note (I'm still firmly on the somphospondylian side of things atm, though I understand work by you & others is on the opposite side). Primarily this would be heavily used as a base for taxa which seem to be firmly anchored with Euhelopus regardless of where it ends up (so Daxiatitan, Dongbeititan, Xianshanosaurus, Yongjinglong, etc), whereas others like Huabeisaurus, Erketu, & Tambatitanis would be more based on those overall, with Euhelopus supplementing where missing).
I've never had an issue with the color contrast I've used here for the last several years (& lifted from others who have used similar colors), though I could make it more striking here (even if I'd be slightly annoyed having this skeletal specifically using a different color style to all my other ones). Bricksmashtv4 (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
If you don't want to change the colors, that's fine. It's just that at first glance I thought you had only depicted "Exemplar A" (+C), so I figured it would be a good thing for "Exemplar B" to contrast with the reconstructed parts more. With the pectoral girdle, I'm referring to the sterna, not the scapulocoracoids. Why are there three of them? That said, the coracoids do seem too far apart compared to reconstructions of sauropod pectoral girdles in e.g. Schwarz et al. 2007 and Tschopp & Mateus 2013. The phylogeny from Moore et al.'s redescription of Klamelisaurus is why I bring up the Euhelopus issue here; I'm trying not to let my own findings shape my commentary here too much, although I admit that I am probably biased towards taking Moore et al.'s findings seriously. Note that Daxiatitan, Dongbeititan, and Xianshanosaurus often do not clade close to Euhelopus when it's considered a somphospondyl, and I do not believe there is evidence that Yongjinglong might join Euhelopus if it turns out to be a mamenchisaur. The one taxon I am confident will join Euhelopus no matter where it falls is Silutitan, but that's based more on my own judgment than on published results. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The third sternal would be the presternum which has been occasionally discussed in sauropods (Bakker, 1987; Filla & Redman, 1994; Wilhite, 2003) & I usually include it on my skeletals.
Euhelopodid phylogeny is certainly extremely interesting, & there's plenty to look forward to there in terms of hopefully elucidating both their interrelationships as well as where in the overall tree they sit. Bricksmashtv4 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This image was added to the Abditosaurus page without review. Not a fan of the giant soft-tissue wattle personally, not sure if that's considered too speculative for Wikipedia. Proportions seem to generally follow the skeletal diagram in the description paper. Skye McDavid (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I thought I'd let you know that I didn't add this artwork myself. I've noticed that a certain user by the name of Fossiladder13 has been adding my artwork without review. But putting that aside, I still apologize either way. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ta-tea-two-te-to Just removed it. Gonna wait until it is properly reviewed. My take here is that yeah it is too dark, we could maybe downsize the watermark so it is not as visible and maybe get rid of some of the osteoderms. Fossiladder13 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Now I see Safegyarding is blocked. Reminds me account added Argentoconodon image without seeing it inaccurate, they are done somewhat same, added image without seeing description and blocked because of sockpuppet. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll take note of these things in the future, especially the osteoderms. I usually add more osteoderms to give more attention to detail putting aside coloration. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
An user Bricksmashtv4 uploaded a series of skeletal reconstructions to Commons and added some of them to articles without review. I think that their accuracy should be assessed here. HFoxii (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
At a first glance, issues I notice: Oceanotitan, Paluxysaurus, Sauroposeidon, and Europatitan are all depicted with 15 cervical vertebrae here, but sauropods typically have 12–14, with diplodocids, mamenchisaurids, and the somphospondyls Dongbeititan, Euhelopus and Rapetosaurus showing more. As these four somphospondyls are not considered especially closely related to any of the long-necked somphospondyls (two of which might be mamenchisaurs anyway), it's probably more appropriate to give them ~13 cervicals. The humeri and metatarsal of Camarasaurus supremus from Cope's Nipple were reinterpreted as apatosaurine by McIntosh, and so should not be included in the skeletal. The Brachiosaurus skeleton here has a rather unusual posture of the axial column that's at odds with pretty much every other depiction of it. Several caudal neural spines of Oceanotitan are known that are not depicted here, and the preserved portion of the ilium is the postacetabular process, not the preacetabular process. The downturned posture of the skulls of Bonitasaura and the two species of Antarctosaurus is exaggerated to a somewhat ridiculous degree; they probably shouldn't be vertical. Cranial elements of Xinjiangtitan are known but undescribed (just like the caudal elements...). Ornithopsis (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
One of the synapomorphies mentioned by Mannion, et al. (2013) for Somphospondyli was the presence of at least 15 cervical vertebrae, & since there's not a complete & well described enough cervical column from either of the four mentioned above I went with this (Paluxysaurus might but we can't tell for sure until the rumored redescription comes along with clearer images).
I was unaware of the interpretations of the C. supremus material by McIntosh so I will edit it accordingly.
The Brachiosaurus follows the sacral & dorsal column incline outlined by Vidal, et al. (2020) & Vidal (2019), hence the significantly upturned axial posture.
I did go check & you are correct about the Oceanotitan ilium so that will also be adjusted.
The downturned skulls of the "antarctosaurids" was done following the posture of an unnamed specimen from the Bajo de la Carpa formation that possesses a similar skull morphology to that of Antarctosaurus, Bonitasaura, & Brasilotitan (MAU-Pv-LI-595), where the described position of the neurocranial elements & their articulation with the atlas suggested a near-perpendicular position of the tooth row in relation to the cervicals.
Yes I forgot about the undescribed crania for Xinjiangtitan (though I think I had chosen to ignore it as I wasn't sure how much of the skull to speculate was preserved, whereas at least there's a count available for the caudals). Bricksmashtv4 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Mannion et al. 2013 did not include Futalognkosaurus (14 cervicals) or DGM Series A (13 cervicals). Phuwiangosaurus probably had 13 cervicals, though this isn't certain. The recently-described Abditosaurus seems to have had 14. Two of the three macronarian taxa coded as having 15+ cervicals by Mannion et al. 2013 may be mamenchisaurs (Euhelopus and Dongbeititan). When dealing with taxa that already have highly elongate cervicals such as Sauroposeidon, it's probably better to err on the side of caution with cervical count, otherwise we get animals with extraordinarily long necks—and you know what they say about extraordinary claims. 13 cervicals, as is probably the case in Giraffatitan and Phuwiangosaurus, and intermediate between the 12 of Camarasaurus and 14 of Futalognkosaurus, seems most appropriate to me.
The back of Brachiosaurus seems even more upright than depicted by Vidal et al., and nobody's depicted it with that aeolosaur-like curve of the tail, in any case. I also note that the neck appears somewhat longer than is usually reconstructed.
I'm aware of the undescribed "antarctosaur" skull, but your depiction still strikes me as extreme. Moreover, it is probably best not to include on Wikipedia extreme anatomy based on unpublished claims. A less-vertical snout would surely still be within the plausible range of poses allowed by the new cranial material, while not being as extraordinary of a claim.
That all said, it's good to finally have proper skeletals of some of these taxa on Wikipedia! Especially Rapetosaurus; it was a shame that the page on one of the best-known titanosaurs was so poorly illustrated for so long. Agreed with Skye McDavid that the gastralia should be removed, though. Probably also the clavicle, interclavicle, and sternal ribs (see Tschopp and Mateus 2013). Ornithopsis (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The dorsals on the Camarasaurus look a bit strange, as if they were interpretive drawings of taphonomically distorted incomplete elements rather than a reconstruction. Same goes for the dorsals and gastralia of Rapetosaurus. Also, the neck posture of several of these is surprising to me; I would expect them to be somewhat upright but I would not expect any of the vertebrae to be totally vertical. Admittedly, I am uncertain about this so take this as more of a question than a criticism. It would also be useful to know what the gastralia in Rapetosaurus are based on. Sauropod gastralia are rare and somewhat controversial, and the posterior gastralia of this reconstruction look particularly weird. Skye McDavid (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The Camarasaurus dorsals are mostly drawn after Osborn & Mook's descriptions/illustrations (I did undistort them a decent amount but I'm generally not a fan of aggressively over-smoothing the material over personally).
I'm not entirely sure what part of the Rapetosaurus dorsals look off besides maybe the neural spine angles looking at it. Similar story as above in regards to the reconstruction process for them. As for the gastralia they were generalized sauropod gastralia I had been using for a while on my skeletals before deciding it was better to just remove them, I somehow totally missed they were still on Rapetosaurus, but that can be updated quickly.
Neck posture is of course still heavily debated for sauropods, so I certainly don't want to make any statements about how they "definitely would've been posed). Generally I try to keep them somewhat close to the alert posture described by Taylor, Wedel, & Naish (2009) & Vidal, et al. (2020) since I do prefer more vertical postures, but that's more interpretive than anything (I will say I put a lot of effort in insuring that the cervical vertebrae never break the articulations suggested by both the prezygapophyses/postzygapophyses & any estimated intervertebral cartilage following Taylor, Wedel, & others). Bricksmashtv4 (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
My apologies btw for forgetting this page existed, I haven't properly used Wikipedia in years so I forgot to go through here first, I'll try to remember to post here first for the future. Bricksmashtv4 (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bother, but can someone create some artwork of Zephyrosaurus? There isn't any decent artwork of the creature, beyond it being disemboweled by a Deinonychus. A simple image of it walking will do. Monsieur X (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the ear is in the wrong location, and the overall shape of the skull looks nothing like the close relation Orodromeus[28]. The back of the skull being drawn as a solid line gives the appearance of shrinkwrapping, such that the animal looks way too thin. Also, the prompt was to create a full-body restoration in a walking pose, not a bust. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
While I'd still like some artwork of it walking for general use, you could rework your artwork & have it emerge from a borrow. Monsieur X (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think so; between the short limbs, lack of preserved pennaceous feathers, and large size of Daurlong I don't think it had any need for gliding adapations. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The eye is too large compared to the reconstructed inner diameter of the sclerotic ring.[29] Also should be more oval, since it is a bit forward facing, like in the skeletal. The body feathering looks unnatural, as it doesn't follow the body backwards, but looks like a random brush, poking in all directions. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
To reconstruct the animal, I followed the directions given to me by Andrea Cau PhD (one of the authors) during the review of the paper, and the skeletal I used is the first version of Auditore that was sent to me. I spent several times reconstructing the eye just as the authors intended. The pennaceous feathers on the legs were a Cau request. Iofry (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you compare the eyes, in the skeletal the sclerotic ring is oval to indicate it is turned slightly forwards, whereas in the restoration it is round, as it was turned completely to the sides. So there is a disrepancy either way, and I'm pretty sure the skeletal is right on that point, as dromaeosaurs had slight binocular vision. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I've uploaded the new versions of the three files, I don't know if you can see it yet, I'm not really an expert of Wikipedia. Anyway thanks for the tips Iofry (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
It was a request by Andrea Cau PhD. I don't know if you are familiar with his research on theropod lips. He basically asked me not to put covering lips on Daurlong because they didn't seem plausible to him. Even so, no papers have yet come out for or against lips in nonavian theropods, and there was probably a wide diversity in the integument of each group; so not putting lips on nonavian theropods is not exactly a mistake, it's an author's choice. Iofry (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Size comparison diagrams of Daspletosaurini and members of that clade. I uploaded a chart with all of them in addition to individual charts, in case that could ever be useful. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
It's probably just the perspective. In the past year or so I've gotten very used to drawing dinosaurs in different angles like this, and I'll admit that these angles can sometimes make the animal I'm drawing look a little off in terms of anatomy. I hope this isn't too much of a problem. If it is then I'll find a way to fix it. SpinoDragon145 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've made this skull, but I want critiques (talk) 7:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The actual skull is pretty smashed up so it's difficult to reconstruct. See figure 2 of this paper. I do have several comments, though. First, the jaws should not close as far as they do in this reconstruction. In life, the maxillary teeth would overlap somewhat with the dentary teeth, but not with the dentary itself. Second, the indentation on the maxilla where the second and third teeth are is not present in the fossil. I'm also not sure if all the skull bones are articulated correctly or even the correct shape. I would generally use Sinornithosaurus (reconstruction A, not B) as a basis. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I see that it has been updated to fix the shape of the maxilla partially. The maxillary teeth still overlap with the dentary. The shape of the maxilla and postorbital are still wrong. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on these models? The Harfa models look more like coelophysoids to me. Perhaps the models were actually depicting Procompsognathus? The Senckenberg museum model looks somewhat decent to me (frizzy feathers notwithstanding), although I'm not sure if the pose is possible. Monsieur X (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps easier to make this and the above into galleries? The below model seems to have hands folded in an avian way, was that possible? FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I've been requested by Aventadoros to update the image to update this image to show the new skin sail hypothesis. As the neck diagram from the description paper already shows the "keratinous spine" version, I don't think that modifying this image should be a problem? To be clear, am I correct in thinking that the "skin sail" is a continuous block of flesh around the neural spines, rather than two separate ridges? Also pinging Jens Lallensack, the principle author of the article. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Published research (e.g. Cerda et al. 2022) has taken the view that there were paired 'sails'. Some paleoartists have speculated on social media that that the metapophyses were both embedded in a single midline structure, but as far as I am aware, such a hypothesis has never been advanced in the published literature. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I've added in the sails, as well as making some minor anatomical and stylistic corrections. I also toned down the rather neon colors, as that seems fairly doubtful for a large animal. How do these changes look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 17:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure. I must say that these spines do seem kind of similar to those of Dimetrodon, so perhaps more (albeit less extreme) demarcation of their apices wouldn't be a bad idea. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
FWIW this is clearly based on Bricksmash's skeletal in the taxobox, which was reviewed here (see archive 6). Ornithopsis had concerns about cervical count in that skeletal but I don't know if they were resolved. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not a reason to replace the existing image, which is perfectly serviceable. The new image also depicts a different sail arrangement that, to my knowledge, remains unpublished. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's actually depicted in the latest Sereno paper:[30] Oh, it's a preprint? Anyway, to be fair, the rounded sail was the standard until 2014, so I think it's safe to say it's published, just not in combination with the new tail and limb proportions. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Any conclusion about the shape of the sail will be very preliminary due to the lack and incompleteness of the material. The rounded sail is supported by evidence as much as the model that has proliferated since 2014 (see, for example, Mark Witton's discussion, which depicted a Spinosaurus with a rounded sail). Given the availability of a preprint, the combination of a rounded sail with new proportions of the tail and limbs will most likely be published soon. Therefore, I am not sure that this remark is critical, although it is quite reasonable. HFoxii (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lythronaxargestes: That's one of the more... unusual behaviors about that editor; he believes high artistic quality is just as important, if not more, than scientific accuracy. I remember he removed my Draconyx sketch from every wiki it was placed - including Wikidata - simply because he didn't like the simple art style. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I removed your Draconyx illustration due to the odd proportions that you later corrected. Artistic quality cannot be a direct reason for removal if the illustration is scientifically accurate. I really respect the contributions of Miracusaurs and PaleoGeek to illustrating Wikipedia. However, it should be remembered that Wikipedia is not an art gallery, and more detailed illustrations should take precedence over less detailed ones (as long as they are also scientifically accurate, of course). In addition to lower detail, PaleoGeek's Spinosaurus has an unlikely red coloration. HFoxii (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you think more detailed paleoart should take precedence over less detailed ones. Since paleontology isn't an exact science, I honestly believe it doesn't matter if a life reconstruction is a flat sketch or a photorealistic render, as long as it depicts its subject in a scientifically plausible manner. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no mandate for artistic quality on Wikipedia. Both images clearly illustrate the subject of Spinosaurus, and that is enough. Simply adding more skin texture or making a 3D instead of 2D artwork does not make for a better image. Furthermore, if we really wanted to get nitpicky, I could just as easily remark that the new artwork (1) features a non-peer-reviewed combination of features in the new anatomy plus the sail arrangement; (2) has a shrinkwrapped skull; and (3) shows an inaccurate tapering in the distal tail. All of these are more concrete issues than colour, which is entirely unknown and uninferrable when even the ecology of Spinosaurus is a matter of ongoing discussion in the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
My words were misunderstood (probably because I phrased them wrong, so this is my fault). I am not suggesting that a more accurate reconstruction be replaced by a less accurate but more detailed one. I just wanted to say that if you choose from two equally accurate illustrations, then the more detailed is preferable. Since some inaccuracies were found in this reconstruction, they will be corrected, and then it will make sense to use it instead of the PaleoGeek illustration. By the way, there is no narrowing of the tail. This is due to the angle, because the tip of the tail is slightly turned. HFoxii (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the 3D render also seems to have hints of reddish coloration, so I don't think that's a very compelling argument. Is the more upright posture displayed in this one more plausible than the forward facing posture of the current illustration? I don't know how much is published on the posture of Spinosaurus, but it seems there is some contention on the matter. Could both images be used for the sake of showing the two proposed postures? Gasmasque (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Note that since the new Sereno paper has been published, that goes for the rounded sail combined with the new body proportions too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
And so, I uploaded a reconstruction version with a standardized sail. Given that both versions of the sail are published, any ideas how this can be used? I'm not sure if there will be a place (and a need) for walking animation in the article, but it has been included in the gallery as well. HFoxii (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
What could be fun, which is kind of outside the scope of this section, is to have an image that showed all different historical variations of its look... FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the ear hole/tympanum not being visible might actually be fine at this angle, myself. It looks to be based directly on this[31] skeletal render by Francisco Hueichaleo, and from comparing how he reconstructed the skull at various angles and to the skull of Kunburrasaurus[32], I reckon any ear hole tucked in behind the quadrate could be obscured by the broadest width of the jugal and postorbital at this 3/4-ish angle. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 21:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The ear is present in my stegouros, what happens is that the perspective covers it and the shadows. And I don't know what's weird about Xiongguanlong's anatomy, I see it well Repti2410 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I think my main quibble with the Xiongguanlong is that the shoulder girdle seems to be too low on the body relative to other tyrannosaurs. It could, again, be perspective, so if that is the case then I'm fine with it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll go with Archaeornithoides unless anyone objects, because the sketch is kind of ambiguous and doesn't really show much anatomy, which fits with a genus only known from part of the jaws (one part that is shown clearly in the sketch) and is of uncertain classification. Also, there's little chance that genus will ever get illustrated otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't rate that skull drawing of mine too highly, but overall I think the anatomy lines up with an older or less-specialized troodontid. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know, I guess lengthening the metatarsals would work? The foot could be mainly hid under the body and wing then. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I illustrated these fossil heron tarsometatarsi for a project which I have now abandoned, so I figured I could upload them here. As above, basically no original interpretation. I have a few others that I'll upload and put up for review when I have time. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi everybody! I thought the Giganhinga page could use a reconstruction and made this. I know it’s not known from much but I based the body off of modern day darters and the anhinga, and the wings off of flightless cormorants. The Tabuqi was known from a formation that produced a possible Giganhinga fossil, and survived to the modern day so it seemed like a safe bet to include. I wasn’t sure if I should put this on dinosaurs or palaeontology so let me know if I need to move it. TerribleReptiles77 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks fitting enough. One criticism I have tho is regarding the tailfeathers. They look a bit excessive and seeing as anhingas lack the oils that make them waterproof it seems to me that this would probably just create drag with no real benefit. Probably best to cut them down to at least the length seen in modern species if not shorter, possibly also reduce the number of them to make it seem less "bushy". Regardless, thanks for the contribution, its appreciated. Armin Reindl (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Life reconstructions of Koreanosaurus and Koreaceratops, the only 2 dinosaurs officially named. Are they suitable for their article pages? I especially found Nobu Tamura's reconstruction of latter lacks of elongated neural spines. If there are problems about perspective issues in both, I could make another new artwork.
Looking nice, would the teeth have been visible in the Koreaceratops with the mouth that open? And the hands of the Koreanosaurus perhaps look a bit chunky compared to the skeletal? FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of the latter, Koreanosaurus might dug burrows based on its robust shoulder bone. So I restored the hand quite robust, but the hand of this dinosaur is unknown in current fossil record. Palaeotaku (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I noticed there only a few reconstructions of these two genera, so I decided to upload Nobu's artwork. Any thoughts or criticisms? Monsieur X (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The feet of NT's dinosaurs always look a bit clubby. In this case, I'm not sure I'll bother to fix them, because they seem to be from the interval of his website where the specific files say they have NC licences, which Commons admins see as reason enough to pull the deletion trigger. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see now it's only the case for the first one. I'll try to fix the feet on the Teratophoneus, remove the obvious fenestrae, and make the background white. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
And speaking of Teratophoneus, the head of DB's here[34] (added above) was modified long ago, based on the original skull reconstruction[35] that was based on limited material, but later, more complete skulls seem to look much more conventional:[36] Am I right in saying the original head was actually more accurate than the droopy faced one? FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Not sure, but it's listed at List of dinosaur specimens with nicknames too, but without source. I've seen it mentioned in various news articles. In any case, the holotype is very limited, a bit of a stretch that the entire snout should be so convex compared to most other tyrannosaurs just based on the maxilla, which could itself be distorted? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's a couple of new art pieces I've made recently. Any thoughts on the artwork and what I could potentially fix? The Pterosaur in the Cratonavis piece is a "Nemicolopterus".
Updated again! Although I had to shade and edit the forelimbs and hindlimbs all over again since I never made an alternate version where the dust isn't there. I'm still trying to figure out how to use layers while using Gimp to digitally enhance my works. Hopefully it looks better anyway. Let me know if there's anymore fixing I need to do! SpinoDragon145 (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Given the recent description of new material, a few edits to the restoration on the Ichthyornis page might be in order. It doesn't look too off, but proportionally the head seems too large and the feet seem too small (the paper suggests a morphology suited to foot-propelled diving). The skeletal reconstruction [37] might also be a nice complement to the existing Marsh diagrams. I could also see either [38] or [39] in the taxobox. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Better, but I think the toes could be a tiny bit longer. Also, not sure how you envision the position of the neck inside the soft tissue contour - depending on that, it may be a little short. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
You were right about the feet, now the toes are longer (around half the length of the head). The neck would be a bit stretched (not very different from an integral symbol), and it would end near the brown wing feathers. I've pulled the head slightly upwards. El fosilmaníaco (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I found this illustration of Brachiosaurus while looking through Wikimedia commons, and think it is one of the best reconstructions we have. As it has (to my knowledge) never been through review, I thought I'd post it here before including it in any articles. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It was actually reviewed[40] (you can see if an image has been reviewed by looking at where it is linked from), and some issues were pointed out that the artist said they would fix, but never returned to it. Perhaps a long shot, but will ping ThePaintPaddock to see if they're around. If not, someone else can perhaps try to fix it up. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the skeletal reconstruction is fit to be included due to the excessive amount of text in the image. Perhaps that could be removed? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
What I think is size is doubled for W. ordosensis? At least currently page have 5 m estimation, (GSP tho) and also became around 5 m according to chart by @Bricksmashtv4. (though what I remember is that was reconstructed as dacentrurine) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel that Wuerhosaurus is terrible in several ways:
The color scheme is confusing, as it makes it look like all the bones are known except for every other plate.
The proportions and silhouette look too cartoony to me.
I dislike the sudden contrast between the relatively generic torso with the more detailed neck and tail. It's like the latter two were copy-pasted from other sources.
Why are the caudal neural spines higher than the dorsal spines?
As far as I'm aware, it has not been suggested in the literature that the plates of Wuerhosaurus plates looked exactly like those of Stegosaurus, so that might be WP:OR. They also look too big to me. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a lot wrong with the anatomy of the Wuerhosaurus as well, so much so that I would deem it unsalvageable. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}18:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Austrosaurus has a weirdly front-heavy torso. Its incomplete nature precludes any finer placement beyond Titanosauriformes and I feel that a more conservative bauplan might be better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
While we're getting a lot of restorations of already restored taxa lately, a bunch of well-known genera are still left without any restorations at all, though they should really be our focus. One example is Mymoorapelta, a current GAN worked on by TimTheDragonRider. Any takers? FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, will probably be my next one, it is apparently a well known dinosaur and deserves a Wikipedia illustration. But it will take some time, painting osteoderms is no joke. Juandertal (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Nice, yeah, I see at least one online skeletal for reference:[41] And osteoderms is exactly the reason why I've only restored one ankylosaur myself, but your Akainacephalus looks nice, so I thought you might like it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the refference, he is a very reliable artist. The missing tail can be easily refferenced from other nodosaurids. Juandertal (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
These reconstructions of Unenlagia have yet to be reviewed.
There's also the one by Tamura with the blue background that has been reviewed, but is still on various pages.
As usual, kind of pointless to have a restoration that only shows an unknown part of the animal (the head and neck, and the insert head is also unnecessary), and shouldn't have borders either. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I've been pretty busy so apologies for my inactivity on Wikipedia. Had a bit of time tonight so I made a quick interpretive diagram of the Afrocygnus holotype. (the page currently has no images) I was hoping to make a bunch of similar diagrams for fragmentary dinosaurs and have them reviewed as a batch but, then, I didn't have much time... There's basically no original interpretation here since it's just an illustration of the fossil, but still wanted to submit it for review just in case. Skye McDavid (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a clear presentation. And as you say, it's just the bones, so not much to be inaccurate, but always good to see if it makes visual sense for most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus based on possibly outdated aquatic model.
I have made a picture of a Spinosaurus specimen in the water based on the possibly outdated reconstruction of a more aquatic creature proposed by Nizar Ibrahim .
I think the image obscures enough of the animal to be agnostic to the specific interpretation. But I'm unaware of any reconstruction with such a squared sail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Most dinosaurs could probably swim, I'm more concerned with the very short neck and novel sail design. It also seems to have no nostril? And watermarks are discouraged. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, but let me explain some design choices, the spine is of speculate keratin and is based on the debated m-shape. Neck looks short but it is mainly hidden under water and bended around. Perhaps it is hard to see some features due to the quality? As per watermarks, by discouraged do you mean not allowed at all or you want me to refrain from doing it again?
To illustrate the point, I've taken the most recent M-shaped sail reconstruction and superimposed it onto your image, scaling to the same skull length: [42] As you can see, even with a fairly extreme (and, in my opinion, unrealistic) level of neck flexion, the sail still rises out of the water too early. The top corner of the rectangular sail corresponds to the first two tall neural spines, but is not supported directly by either one of them. Among living and extinct animals keratin forms fairly predictable patterns - it grows following the contour of the underlying bone - which I think is not being reflected here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding watermarks, yes, they should not be included. As for speculative features, we only include such if they have been suggested in the literature, we can't just invent them ourselves. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Improving the reconstruction of Pachyrhinosaurus perotorum
A study by Tykoski et al. was published in 2019, indicating that it had similar ornamentation of the epiparietals pinks as the other Pachyrhinosaurus species. Would it be possible to improve these reconstructions in line with the work of Tykoski et al.?
What is the full citation for the 2019 paper for reference? If it it can be based on a specific image, it will be easier to do. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Integuement, including coloration, scale pattern, and protofeathers is speculated.
Please let me know what I can correct for biological accuracy, as well as artistic stylization to make this more acceptable. Thank you. TimBollinger (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The outlines on this image are pretty rough. The hand anatomy feels misinterpreted, and the rest of the animal is posed similarly enough to the skeletal that I'm not particularly comfortable with it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
We cold try to see what else recent stuff we have lying around. Added Commons stuff below, and here's one more from ABelov.[43] I can modify if some are close but need some tweaks. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm preparing the Diodorus article for GAN and FAC, but it could need a size comparison. A length estimate (2.3 m (7.5 ft)) is given in the article based on Holtz, and there's a femur estimate (92 mm (3.6 in)) as well. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's a size comparison diagram for Diodorus. Scaling using the holotype dentary results in the largest length, which is a little smaller than Holtz's estimate. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's a skeletal diagram of Diodorus. Since it is known from associated remains of (likely) different individuals, I scaled the remains to the largest bones (dentary/metatarsal) and used color-coded scale bars to indicate the size discrepancy. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Added to the page without review. Although known from jaw and skull fragments, it is bit weird that have massive skull size difference between different size estimations? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The layering of the biggest individual's right leg and the middle individual's left leg makes for a confusing and hard-to-read silhouette. Maybe this can be fixed, too? (pinging the artist, Megaraptor-The-Allo, in case they are still active). -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
hello, actually quoting the name of the articles is better than "lower estimate" for example, I will be working to update my charts based on this discussion Megaraptor-The-Allo (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
two more bird bones
Proapteryx micromeros
Kurrartapu johnnguyeni
Oh look it's me again. When I have a little bit of time but not a lot of time I draw bird bones. Same as usual, not much to go wrong here but putting them up for review just in case. I will probably not check this page often so please do contact me if there is a problem. Skye McDavid (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Look fine without having checked the sources, but I wonder if the signatures are necessary, they're generally discouraged here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Also it it me or is it really difficult to see anything with how dark the image is? Took me a moment to even see the shoulder spike after zooming in. Armin Reindl (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I suppose there's not much to go on for Kulceratops, but I have to wonder what the facial integument was based on. Are those supposed to be scales? Keratin?
Yeah, I saw that Kuru before and thought the same about the hindmost leg, looks twisted. As for hornlets, I don't think there's any evidence dromaeosaurids had that, see this earlier discussion.[44]FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but here it doesn't look natural or like it would be part of the walk cycle, it looks twisted as in broken. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
PaleoNeolitic's art always looks great, but as a formality still needs to be sent to review before use. As mentioned elsewhere, one of the reasons we are even allowed to have usermade restorations is that we make sure there is some sort of review process. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
My absolute bad I guess, always forget to put them here. I've added other of my oviraptorids for review. In the mean time, I'll be working on additional oviraptorosaurs (Nemegtomaia, Beibeilong, etc.). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
One thing I'm wondering about the oviraptorosaurs, PaleoNeolitic - how are you determining the extent of the casque? Taking Corythoraptor as an example, in the PR artwork the ventral margin extends basically right above the orbit, whereas in yours it's a fair margin above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Kind of complex to explain with bare words, so I'll link this in order to explain. I deciced to limit the casque around the "elevated" parietal bone. Also, the casque in Zhao Chuang's restoration appears to be developed all over the sumpratemporal fenestra. Not an expert in anatomy but I'm not sure if that is entirely correct. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The hand claws of the oviraptorids also look unusually long, sharp, and curved. In most living, wild animals such would be worn at the tips and never reach such length, unless they were caged animals with little activity. Any reason why they need to be so long, PaleoNeolitic? FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Mmh, I was thinking of Citipati[45] and other paravians [46][47] when drawing the claws. As for heyuannines (such as Conchoraptor), the thumb claw is as large and robust as it should be. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks fine in most of them looking again, but the Oviraptor and Corythoraptor have claws that far exceed what I'd expect the keratin covering to reach? Like they almost curve all the way back to the body again, whereas most of the others seem to end in more natural, blunter tips. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wonder if that's a good reference, though, considering ratite wing claws are deeply covered by feathers for the most part and rarely used for anything? Not that we know what oviraptor hand claws were used for, but they were more exposed and who knows, possibly used for digging nests? Also, it seems at least the claws of the kiwi are almost that long and curved even in the bony ungual, not just the keratin covering:[51] Hard to see on the ostrich photo because the keratin still covers the claw, but I could imagine it also closely follows the shape of the ungual. You can also see that the thumb claw of the ostrich is very straight. In that case, the keratin of the oviraptors should also follow the shape of their own unguals more? FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of this, the Oviraptor article uses two other unreviewed restorations, added them above. Conty~enwiki's has an inaccuracy tag, so it should either be removed or tweaked. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Conty's was marked inaccurate on the basis of skull shape, so probably an easy tweak. PaleoNeolitic's works quite nicely for where it is in the article, but I wonder if the foliage is known from or plausible for the Djadokhta? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Cacti might be a little too specialized for the time and I'm not sure they have a fossil record in Asia. The literature suggests that Reaumuria is a common modern-day member of the lineage in the Gobi desert - I wonder if something comparable would do. Rest looks plausible though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Added for review, I've just finished a brand new restoration for Halszkaraptor. I'm also planning to do Natovenator, which has some interesting proportions. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess I'm mostly wondering about the texture? I think the ratite-like look works for the oviraptorosaurs but I'm not sure about an aquatic taxon like Halszkaraptor. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh it wasn't mean to look ratite-like, maybe a little bit more fancy, plus, I don't think any feathers past this "level" are a good choice in non-avian dinosaurs (think of derived Aves-type feathers). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree it seems like the fourth and fifth fingers have claws. The new ones look nice, PaleoNeolitic, I wonder what the rationale is for giving the oviraptorids ratite like downy wing and tail feathers instead of what's known from for example Caudipteryx, which is more developed feathers? FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Are people fine with me removing the extra claws of Yuxi? ~~
I think is more safe to depict them this way considering how weird/exceptional they are compared to other oviraptorosaur families. I don't see why oviraptorids should be depicted with aerodynamic feathering given their "brute" or "raw" lifestyle, even their nesting behavior is somewhat shared with ratites. Protarchaeopteryx is reported with plumulaceous feathers though. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Didn't notice the comment! It follows the overall proportions of Gigantoraptor and also the described ones for Baby Louie. The last sentence may sound weird, throwing an embryo into the mix, but both taxa are reported, for instance, with relatively unequal metatarsus length relative to the femur-tibia complex. Lü et al. 2013 based on Yulong argues that some oviraptorosaurs retained their hindlimb proportions when growing-up, so given that we don't have an adult Beibeilong I think it makes sense to follow the proportions of a more mature giant oviraptorosaur. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Very short primaries, considering they have been suggested to have taken part in incubation and were ancestrally probably display structures judged on Caudipteryx? It's not like downy feathers can't be used for display either, as in otriches. This also applies to other images above, perhaps other editors have opinions on this. FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I had this issue in mind when making heyuannines, but I didn't want to make it too Caudipteryx-like, and I also feel a little bit unsure in mixing those specific traits with basal and derived taxa. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I'd at least make them longer, if used for any kind of nest insulation, finger length doesn't really play into feather length. And it makes me think whether we should add longer primaries to this image[53] as well. Anyway, considering how many oviraptorosaurs that now have restorations, I wonder if we should try to complete them, so that all have restorations, PaleoNeolitic? I'm not sure any major dinosaur clades have usable restorations for all genera, but Therizinosauria is also pretty close. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't notice until your comment. It seems that oviraptorosaurs have quite the gallery, so yeah. I was thinking in making other oviraptorids like Huanansaurus or Banji, and additional caenagnathids, though those are difficult since most don't preserve complete skulls. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Looking again, it seems there's actually a looot of oviraptorosaurs missing restorations, so I kind of take that back, haha. But I guess with those genera that don't preserve skulls, best guess is just to base the heads on their closest inferred relatives that preserve skulls? FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
My biggest issue with caenagnathids is that most of them are Anzu based, so I guess the biggest goal in this task is not to make them look like head clones with different body proportions. I'll see what I can do 🍂. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I should note that I've updated the flipped version of that Pinacosaurus to remove the very speculativ huge dewlap:[54] I've also modified this older Pinacisaurus to fix the feet and armor issues:[55] I wonder if the tongue should be removed, since the hyoid bones have been reinterpreted as larynx elements. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
For the older image... I would remove the tongue, it's virtually impossible to tell what it is. I think the gait looks a little strange as well, feels way more sprawling than what's reasonable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed the tongue and made the front limbs less splayed. They're still quite splayed, but I think it's ok, if we assume it's displaying its tail or something, and crouching a bit in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Galve(o)saurus should probably be depicted as a bit more brachiosaurid-like than camarsaurid-like; it's generally recovered as the sister taxon of Titanosauriformes and may be a brachiosaurid. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Edmontosaurus is also a PR artwork by an established palaeoartist. I don't see anything wrong with it. Meanwhile, I think the bases of the osteoderms of Glyptodontopelta should be a little closer to the colour of the body and/or pelvic shield, and I find the structural colouration on Gorgosaurus dubious (unless that's supposed to be sparse feathering - it's not coming across that way). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The Gorgosaurus has since been added to the genus article without discussion, I wonder if we should make a version with the odd colour changed, white background, and remove the unnecessary human? FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Added the two Utahraptor restorations by Emily Willoughby for discussion. One thing I don't understand is that the 2013 version is regarded as more accurate than the 2014 one, despite being consulted with Scott Hartman (notably skull, tail, and legs proportions). Regarding anatomical points: the highly aerodynamic and developed Aves-like plumage is probably implausible in a taxon as gigantic as Utahraptor; crests in dromaeosaurids is something that has never been demonstrated and sort of paleomeme; the tail feathers are too localized, in contrast to Zhenyuanlong; lastly, I don't see why such a large ambush predator should be brightly colored, especially the "wing" and tail sections. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like I added that tag, probably just a mistake because I had both files open, feel free to swap the tag. Honestly, one should just be deleted as a duplicate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The author has not been able to find their login, but has provided this image to hopefully clear things up as to why the teeth are not visible. If more clarifications is needed, please let me know. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Gnathovorax seems to have pathologies on the snout? I would think that depicting a more typical individual would be better. Toe claws also seem quite blunted for a carnivorous taxon. Some possible perspective issues: the thigh musculature looks quite thin, and the left foot seems rotated outwards.
Ibirania is a PR artwork credited to Matheus Gadelha, but uploaded as own work. Missing evidence of permission, may be a copyvio. But of course anatomically reasonable otherwise (except for nostril position?)
Ligabuesaurus has the same potential nostril position issue. I also don't think somphospondylans had osteoderms? I lack access to the redescription so can't verify further details.
Patagopelta is another PR artwork credited to Gabriel Díaz Yalten and I don't see any evidence of the original being CC either.
Sanjuansaurus has an underbite, the torso looks stocky for a herrerasaurid, and the thigh looks too long for a taxon with a tibia longer than its femur. Can't see the hands clearly.
Trigonosaurus might be a junior synonym of Baurutitan, so shouldn't they be more similar? Also just generally wondering what the titanosaurs were based on.
Ypupiara is missing teeth too, and now I'm thinking that this is a stylistic choice not suitable for articles. Tooth morphology is an important part of its differential diagnosis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the osteoderms on Ligabuesaurus aren't too much of a problem since it's been recovered as a basal titanosaur in some analyses. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Whether Ligabuesaurus is a titanosaur or not depends more on how you define Titanosauria, and the positions of the unstable Euhelopus and Andesaurus, than anything to do with Ligabuesaurus itself. Ligabuesaurus is almost certainly more basal than the basal-most titanosaurs known to have had osteoderms. Furthermore, even if it had osteoderms, it surely wouldn't have dozens of them—even saltasaurines seem to have only had a few large osteoderms. However, bear in mind that a large scale is not necessarily the same thing as an osteoderm. We don't really know very much about the evolution of skull morphology in titanosauriforms, so I don't think there's an issue with the head shape given to Ligabuesaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
If Trigonosaurus is a junior synonym of Baurutitan, we will only need one of them anyway. As for the teeth of Ypupiara, conceivably these wouldn't be visible even with an open mouth in side view, as in most modern lipped reptiles? Same for the sauropods. See for example Komodo dragons. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I've added the rest of @LancianIdolatry's dinosaurs below since most of them were already reviewed in this section. Note that these are unusual in that many of them are yet to be named or indeterminate. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Richardoestesia was ever assigned to Microraptoria in the literature (iirc, it was only proposed on Mickey Mortimer's The Theropod Database), so it might be too WP:OR for Wikipedia. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Not familiar with the literature either, but at least it's unlikely that all Richardoestesia teeth pertain to the same animal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The ornithischians and "Alamotyrannus" look fine.
The "Lopasaurus" is more questionable: what appears to be skin on the tail has the exact same colour as the body's contour feathers (also an issue on the troodontid) and overall the feathering is reduced to an excessively speculative extent.
The titanosaur's osteoderm arrangement seems different to the one inferred for other titanosaurs? Doesn't seem to extend caudally far enough.
The ornithomimid's feathers look too derived unless an ostrich-like texture is intended.
Looks to me like the Lopasaurus tail is supposed to be fully feathered, if you zoom in you can see it has the same kind of textures as the rest of the body feathers. It seems the long feathers behind the legs just make it seem like there is a border (same style in the troodont). FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if some of these indeterminate taxa could be reused to illustrate known genera (as new, modified uploads) that lack illustrations... Otherwise they're a bit wasted. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
From what I can see, they are obviously based on the skeletals, but their outlines and external features are just different enough that I think they can pass. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that there as aren't any decent modern reconstruction of Phorusrhacos. The ones currently uploaded have wonky anatomy & lack "sickle claws" on their feet. Mesembriornis on the other hand is only depicted through blurry b&w photos. Other phorusrhacids need only minor edits.
Monsieur X (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
What do the others need apart from sickle claws? And do we even know that phorusrhacids would have had them, has it ever been suggested in the literature? FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
There was a 2010 study done on the fossil feet & toe claws of phorusrhacids that showed similarities to their seriema relatives & dromaeosaurs to a lesser extent. Though in Spanish, it does come with images of the fossils & reconstructions in 2D & 3D. As for the images themselves, the first two just need to show their sickle claws. As for NT's Paraphysornis, it seems a bit too robust? The legs are definitely quite wonky though. Monsieur X (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't really think the Procariama needs adjustment, because in all photos I can find, it looks like seriemas don't raise the sickle claw when they lift a leg, and it is therefore hidden behind the other toes in that view:[64][65][66]FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
In my tradition of reusing old drawings I have lying around instead of pulling myself together to make new ones, here's a sketch[68] based on a pretty generic dromaeosaur with Anchiornis-like feathering, which I thought could be used as a displaying Pedopenna, the only anchiornithid we don't have a restoration of yet. I figured the legs were too short, and am trying to make the mouth tissue fit more recent standards, but anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should go with something more basal and undetermined, then. Perhaps Pneumatoraptor? Could remove the more specific anchiornithid-like features if too improbable. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It was mainly based on the feet of capercaillies, which often have quite long lower leg plumage that doesn't grow from the toes themselves[70][71][72][73], but it seems to vary a lot between individuals, maybe seasonally. And then combined/justified with the leg feathers and leg "wings" of anchiornithids and other maniraptorans. Perhaps it's too odd, but similar feet[74][75] also appear in other grouse species. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, Pneumatoraptor is known from so little material I'm not sure a life restoration has much value. Thought the restoration itself is well drawn. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, well, I think there's an idea in giving the reader some idea of how an animal could have looked like, however vague. In this case, the sources seem to indicate something dromaeosaur or Balaur-like, so I think it could be passed off as both, being this generic. Also, there are other elements (teeth, claws, a leg bone) which may belong to it, so it it's possibly not that unrestorable. But looking again, the grounded toe claws should probably be bigger in relation to the hand claws... FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The "trend" these days is to cover the entire face of Triceratops in keratin, so I don't think large scales would be visible. What Witton wrote: "A more illuminating insight may be that the correlates for Triceratops horn keratin are continuous with the epidermal correlates of the face (above). Horner and Marshall (2002) noted that the horn correlates for keratin sheathing extend over virtually the entire face - including the back of the frill (this is why so many Triceratops reconstructions have smooth 'face shields' nowadays). However, what's not seen on Triceratops horns is a boundary dividing the face sheath and a hypothetical temporary horn sheath, as might be expected where two keratinous sheaths meet (I'm assuming that the entire face shield wasn't shed annually either (palaeoartists: exfoliating/shedding Triceratops face - go!) - that's not a discussion I want to get into here)."[77]FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The little ridge I've put above the eye is a bit of spec on my part - I've noticed Triceratops skulls (and other ceratopsians) tend to have a little ridge above the orbit in front of the horns, and I typically choose to put a little keratin "shield" here, just as a way to maybe block an opponents' horns from grazing too close to the eyes. Isn't really based on anything, but I personally don't think it's too obtrusive either.
In terms of the scales on the frill - I typically depict Triceratops' frill with smooth and large scales to stay arbitrary in the keratin shield vs. scaly frill debate, so here (though it might be difficult to see) I've included a less distinct jugal scale and frill hornlets (since those don't really appear in the specific specimens frill). Ddinodan (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Looks nice, I'm no expert on this group, but other restorations seem to show it with a shorter, more lifted hallux? FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Seems you've linked directly to the files instead of the file pages, which may cause problems. While they look nice overall, they all seem to have very underdeveloped calf muscles (the "drum stick"), and the leg postures seem off balance, like they would trip forwards. The back leg would only be posed like that if the front leg was more forwards during a stride. The thigh muscles also seem to be weirdly cut off at the back, whereas I believe they would flow onwards into the tail (and the front also seems like it would not connect with the hip). They also appear to have no discernible ear openings or nostrils. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I see. So how major/minor are these problems.
Also maybe it is the quality of the image/viewport but I definitely put earholes and nostrils.
Looks like this reconstruction does not show color that is estimated from melanosome.[78][79][80] First and third papers are under creative commons licence, but even through first paper (which contains own reconstruction) is CC-BY 4.0, it mentions "permits non-commercial reuse" so only third paper figure (which contains fossil figure) is usable in Wikipedia. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
After This review, @Leoomas: uploaded these two images to page again without review, although reverted for Protoceratops, it is still in use on Protathlitis. Are there any issues on these, since some of their previous uploads had inaccuracies? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh sorry, how do I put it up for review before uploading? (for future reference). Also, what previous inaccuracies were there? The Proto is certainly not innacurate, just a little speculative :)
Simply post on this page like this and wait for someone comments that is fine, though someone may point inaccurate point to fix as well. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned on Discord, while the Protathlitis is in an odd posture, I think it's ok since it then doesn't highlight unknown parts of the animal, as some of our other restorations of it do. It's mainly known from tail vertebrae anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
ABelov2014 images
ABelov's art[81] has improved, and he's uploading a lot of potentially useful, free images to deviantart. But he has a habit of not writing what taxa are shown, mixing taxa from different formations, and using the same forest environment for most images. So I thought it would be best to post his images here so they could be evaluated before they are uploaded, as well as get some images reviewed that have been uploaded but never been approved. Here are some links to images I think could be useful but could need to be looked over before upload (taxa shown usually listed in comments):
I agree in that the repetitive environments and anachronistic taxa are the biggest issues with these illustrations. For the Saurolophus group I had to remove the entire Sinoceratops. I'm wondering if the Udanoceratops piece really needs rework since it depicts a bunch of vegetation and forests, clearly not the settings of Djadokhta. I'll try to fix the primaries on the dromies later, should be easy. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Cool, another general issues is sunken fenestrae, and less serious, a green tint to most of the images, which I assume is an artifact of photography, though maybe it's intentional, but I usually try to tone it down (and turn the contrast a bit up). FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And so I am not sure how they are familiar with non-dinosaur anatomy, since these two are already tagged as inaccurate paleoart because of non-dinosaurs. That Pterygotus actually have character of Acutiramus, and tergite numbers are wrong. That art of Spinosaurus have completely inaccurately reconstructed Onchopristis (although it is understandable as it was before the study that classified it as skate), and so Mawsonia or Axelrodichthys looks also inaccurate. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I've actually been trying to fix the Pterygotus, I've removed the tail spikes, but it's a bit harder to remove one body segment. Are there other issues with it? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the segments can be fix by making the last two segments (just before the telson) fused to a single plate, since the final segment (pretelson) is naturally longer. Other issue may include appendage II, base on Selden 1986 it was most likely shortened in pterygotids. Junnn11 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Nice, I'm certainly no expert, so let's see what others say. Looks better than my attempt so far, so I'll give it up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Nice modifications on the prosoma (even the shield and chelicerae)! Perhaps a neglectable detail, I think the opisthosoma will be better if widest at tergite 4 (like the previous version). Junnn11 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Not to be pushy, but since you did such a good job on this one, I wonder if you could take a look at DBodanov's restoration[82] of the same? It's also used in a lot of places, and I simply don't know enough about them to do it properly. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Below are some images from the list above I've modified and added to articles, since no one seems to have objected to them. Will add further images here if I upload more. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I remember that some time ago I tried to modify the Pterygotus image, so I will upload the modification and let me know how it is. Qohelet12 (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
the page for the basal hadrosauroid Bolong is of current missing an image, it had one until about yesterday, when User:SlvrHwk removed it, stating it may be problematic and should be submitted for accuracy review. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
In the source, you list "Sent directly by the creator for uploading to Wikimedia Commons" which means you released it under a CC license without the proper authority since you're not the copyright holder. If this was an email correspondence you should forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Dunkleosteus77(talk)21:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Since your image is licensed under a CC license, it should not have a copyright symbol on it (and preferably no signature at all).
The soft tissue outline is problematic—the leg musculature is strange, the foot definition looks vague, the flesh along the back is lumpy and possibly excessive, and the body outline along the bottom of the tail is rough.
yeah, the copyright bit was added a bit carelessly, and most of it was based on the scott hartman camptosaur skeletal, i'm not sure what you mean by upside down hand, but ill look into it. Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, as you can see on the rest of this page, images are readily reinstated as soon as serious issues are fixed. The hand being upside down is a pretty serious issue, but should be easy to fix. But the copyright issue kind of trumps that. It looks pretty close to Scott Hartman's skeletal, but if he is ok with that, it should not be an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I would like to add a few other comments: Bolong is hypothesized to have been a quadruped or facultative biped, and is closer to hadrosaurs than Iguanodon, so it probably be depicted in a quadrupedal stance, and not reconstructed as a Camptosaurus-like animal. The skull is much too small; based on the scale bar the dentary appears to be about 170 mm long and based on the fibula it appears to be about 200 mm long, but the actual length of the dentary in the fossil is 275 mm! The revised manus appear to show the wrong number of phalanges, and there should not be an ungual on digit IV. I count nine cervical vertebrae in this depiction, but Bolong had 11. Bolong is noted as having a particularly short and robust pes, which is not shown here: Metatarsal III of Bolong is 18% of the length of the tibia in the actual fossil, but this depiction shows it as 38% the length of the tibia. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and also, the metacarpals are much too short--in the actual fossil, McII-III are a bit over 40% the length of the radius, but in this, they're depicted as only 32% the length of the radius. Something like Mantellisaurus would be a much better starting point for a reconstruction than Camptosaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Nice, when all these tweaks are done, I think it will be far enough removed from Hartman's Camptosaurus that there won't be a copyright issue anymore. And you'll end up having made probably the most accurate skeletal of this genus. Win-win? Note you can upload directly over the image if you press "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of its page. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Paul's restoration is ancient and I think Ornithopsis critique that the bodyform is not what would be expected for a hadrosauriform more derived than iguanodon is also applicable to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Where did the idea that the holotype is a skull come from? It's a nearly complete skeleton, as stated in both the original description and 2012 redescription. There's an illustration of it in the 2012 redescription, which Jfstudiospaleoart said they used as a reference on the talk page. But the article states that the holotype is only an incomplete skull for some reason. Overall, the new skeletal appears much better in outline, but it is extremely misleading about what material is preserved. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll let Ornithopsis weigh in but a cursory glance suggests that it's much closer. I would rotate the hands to face fully laterally (see the hands in Scott Hartman's skeletals [84]). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
First, I would like to thank you for continuing to put in the effort to revise this skeletal. I know how hard making a good skeletal can be, and I appreciate that you're taking the time to respond to my critique. It is certainly much more appropriate as a representation of Bolong than the first, Camptosaurus-inspired version. However, I still have several concerns and I don't think it's ready for the page.
In general, it seems like your approach has been to make adjustments to a skeletal of another taxon (in this case, Gobihadros), rather than starting from data on Bolong itself. As such, I am not convinced that the parts of the skeletal that I have not checked yet in detail are reliable.
Some of the posterior end of the skull appears to be missing, compared to the reconstruction in Wu and Godefroit 2012
The space between the jugal, quadrate, and surangular is not bone and should not be colored white.
There appear to be 13 cervical vertebrae (including the atlas, which is not visible here), but there should be 11 (i.e. ten other than the atlas).
The shapes of the caudal neural spines are rather peculiar and don't seem to closely match the actual fossil.
The thumb spike looks a bit too slender, and there should only be two "hooves", not three, on the manus.
You have depicted the distal end of the ischium upside-down.
The femur of Bolong is curved, as in Iguanodon-grade taxa, not straight.
The fibula appears too thin.
The metatarsals still look a bit too long.
Because you are depicting a fully restored skeletal, with all bones depicted whether or not they are preserved, you should remove the legend indicating that the holotype is depicted in white. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the thoughts on posture, the description paper of Bayannurosaurus did an analysis of likely moving posture across ornithopods and found Bolong to fall along a line identified as "falculatively quadrupedal", as opposed to the description of hadrosaurs and other derived iguanodonts as falculatively bipedal; it shares this line with Tenontosaurus, a falculative yet primarily bipedal animal. The implication is that Bolong probably was walking on two legs most of the time, in contrast to its relatives. So neither posture is inaccurate, but if you wanted what is technically the most habitual posture and what highlights its uniqueness as a taxon I'd go with a bipedal stance. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, that's useful information to have. Whether we favor a bipedal or quadrupedal stance, using Camptosaurus as a model is inappropriate, which was the most significant issue at hand when I pointed out my concern. That said, Wu and Godefroit (2012) suggested that Bolong showed a conflicting combination of characteristics like facultative and obligate quadrupeds. As such, I think it is preferable to show it in a quadrupedal stance, as nobody has disputed that it could walk quadrupedally, but there seems to be some doubt over whether it was capable of a bipedal gait. Also, Xu et al.'s results find Tethyshadros and at least one other hadrosauriform (not labeled in their figure) to plot closer to obligate bipeds, which makes me question whether their conclusions should be considered decisive. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I only have the time for some quick comments at the moment, but it seems you have not done anything about several of the issues I pointed out (e.g. the shapes of the fibula, femur, and ischium), and there are a few new issues, such as the oddly straight scapula and awkward posture of the forelimbs. Also, why is the tail gone? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Migmanychion
Migmanychion
Newly described Maniraptoran known from a well-articulated left hand. Overall shape speculated based on Fukuivenator.
Same as before, the eye is too big. I believe the cheek tissue is also too extensive. Lastly, there are some smudges around the contour of the animal that could be removed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Good day everyone, here's a life restoration for Jainosaurus septentrionalis by me. The current page has great artwork for it but this particular animal itself is not the central subject of the artwork, so I think a life restoration like this can also be added, along with improving the entire page because currently it's just not in a very good state, but I intend to do it soon!
Until then, I want some accuracy review on this restoration. All the references used have been listed in the description.
Thank you for your consideration, have a great day!
I have the same comment on the elephantine skin texture as before (it's not ideal). Also it looks a little light in the torso, especially the pelvic region Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The proportions don’t look much like a titanosaur to me (too short torso, too shallow thorax etc.) I suggest you base this off of Bonitasaura (which appears to be similar in body proportions to Antarctosaurus, a close relative of Jainosaurus) Miracusaurs (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The texture should be easy to fix. The elephantine texture is only majorly visible in the limbs, so I'll replace it with scales and upload an updated image in a few hours. As for the proportions, I don't understand the comments on the torso being too "shallow", I have compared it to both Gunnar Bivens' Jainosaurus skeletal (which was one of the references I used) and (as suggested) Bonitasaura and it doesn't differ much (as SlvrHwk mentioned) As for the neck, we don't really have any vertebra from the neck and the length of the neck is not really known and I've followed the aforementioned Gunnar Bivens' skeletal for it (it's not on wiki but should show up when searched), but if necessary I'd reduce the length. How short should it be though? Perhaps something close to this Antarctosaurus skeletal? <https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctosaurus_wichmannianus_Skeletal.png#mw-jump-to-licenseAnsh Saxena 7163 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I have uploaded an updated version of the file with the following changes:(1) Replaced and/or overlain the elephantine textures with scales wherever they were most visible. (2) Shortened the neck similar to the length of the Antarctosaurus skeletal's. Please check whether it's right now, thanks. Ansh Saxena 7163 (talk) 6:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Vectipelta
Vectipelta
Newly described ankylosaur from Early Cretaceous Wessex Formation.
It looks like you traced quite precisely from the silhouette of Pond et al., including posture, shape, precise leg positions, and tiny details too. To be save with potential copyright issues, it is best to have a fully original drawing.
How did you calculate scale size? I don't know much about ankylosaurs, but according to the figures in Arbour et al., basement scales usually seem to be less than a centimeter, and often less than a millimeter in size? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Saturnalia skeletal
Last year some of you were concerned about neck length in Saturnalia reconstructions. I'm happy to report that my new skeletal reconstruction is practically done. I leave a preview for you to evaluate and if everything is ok I'll replace the old one with this new version. In white are the preserved bones, but I haven't done the rigorous painting of the elements yet. This is a composite of the type-specimens, but whenever possible I chose to illustrate the holotype and scale the elements to it. Missing elements were based on more complete taxa such as Buriolestes and Eoraptor. Yes, I gave the same treatment to other sauropodomorphs, so soon I will also be showing here Buriolestes, Eoraptor, Chromogisaurus, Nhandumirim, Panphagia, Pampadromaeus, Bagualosaurus, Macrocollum, Unaysaurus, and Guaibasaurus. Any questions you may just ask. Maurissauro (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's that old discussion[85] for the record, looks better to me now, but I'm no expert, so pinging Ornithopsis who mostly commented back then. Speaking of Saturnalia (dinosaur), I recently found out that this long unidentified model at the Bazil National Museum is actually Saturnalia, but I wonder if it isn't outdated now anyway. I also wonder whether it was at the museum during the fire, and if it may then be significant because it's lost. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience, but can someone produce a graphic of Menefeeceratops? All representatives of the Ceratopsidae have reconstructions, only Menefeeceratops is not on Wikimedia Commons. Aventadoros (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Nice work. Aside from the potential issue of tracing copyrighted skeletal diagrams, it looks like the horns could benefit from additional keratin sheathing—it looks quite minimal at the moment, if not nonexistent. Is there a particular reason why it does not have distinct epiparietals? While unpreserved in the holotype, it seems a strange choice considering its closest relatives and their presence in the published skeletal and life restoration. And I feel like the edge where the beak meets the face scales should be crisply defined, rather than with a softer gradient. Hope this makes sense. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks, but I think you should correct some issues:
1. add some epiparietals in parieral but are not preserved in sides of this bone
2. squamosal shoud has the characteristic ridges and undulations see fig. 8 in Dalman et al. (2021) [86]
There is already very little left to improve. I will explain to you via private message via discord how it should look like. If you do according to my advice it will be all there. Aventadoros (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Also note, there's a bigger chance of a restoration being used if it depicts a taxon we don't already have good restorations for, which is the case for most of these. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Found this file on Commons. Says that generation one (on left) is 1993-2014 but as for 2014 already unfeathered one is already unacceptable? In contrast simple file name, I don't think this image would work as education? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The wing and tail feathers are very inaccurate, so probably of little use. And what's the point of showing the old scaly version without even pronating its hands? FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
While I agree for the most part, to be fair, I heard hand pronation was not accepted by scientists even then when Utahraptor was found, it was just a common innaccuracy in media. Stegotyranno (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't think that's true, even the dinosaur renaissance pioneers like Bakker and Greg Paul drew pronated hands well into the 90s, if not 2000s. I think that's when the first biomechanical studies on theropod wrists starting coming out. Ironically, one of the few paleoartists of the 90s to draw dromaeosaurs with inwards facing hands was David Peters. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it looks generally good, but that seems like an odd middleway with the teeth of the upper jaw not being covered by the lips of the lower jaw, as is the case when most animals with lips close their mouths? In the second image, also seems like there's a big gap between the thigh and the tail, wouldn't the muscles have connected them more smoothly? FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Calvarius
Newly described Styracosternan known from a single metatarsal.
Hmm… I would be very hesitant to attempt any kind of reconstruction for a taxon like this, known from a single bone and with entirely uninformative phylogenetic relationships. I’m worried a life restoration would be too speculative for the page, giving viewers a sense that more is understood than truly is. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the others; it's just too poorly known to be able to reliably reconstruct, so I don't think there's much value in us having a life reconstruction of it. Also, note that the one thing we do know about the phylogenetic position of Calvarius, based on their phylogenetic analysis, is that it's more derived than Camptosaurus-grade taxa. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Ornithopsis that it’s too fragmentary to reconstruct, and I also agree with Lythronaxargestes that a Camptosaurus-like form isn’t the most likely either. my reconstruction imagines it as a bipedal Tethyshadros-like form, which I believe is more likely given its age and the cursorial adaptations of the contemporary “telmatosaurs” like Telmatosaurus and Tethyshadros. But then again, my reconstruction is just as speculative as yours, so it’s up to you if you want to update the proportions to be more like Tethyshadros or other Late Cretaceous styracosternans. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this image credited two skull reconstructions by David Peters. Possibly this image took over some of errors from that references? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Also this image looks like proportionally not good, since skull being about 30 cm in this chart while actually scales less than that, at around 20 cm. Probably lower estimate in paper (2.0 m) would be better considering proportion? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The Peters references are in bad taste but they don't seem to have been too problematic (for instance, the taphonomic distortion that Peters treats as a downturn is corrected). However, I compared to images and measurements from the 2022 redescription of the postcrania [88] and the arms are misproportioned: too short with excessively large claws: [89]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Chuanjiesaurus anaensis size compared to 1.85 meter human
Since there is not a picture for this genus, I decided to make one. Here is a transparent version and a size comparison . Proportions based on both skeletals by javifel on Deviantart, reconstructed mounts, and related Mamenchisaurid genera
Stegotyranno (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
NHMUK PV R37412, holotypic remains of Spicomellus afer.
I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I have several illustrations that might be of use, but i'm starting with this because it's the most conservative and Spicomellus doesn't have an image. It's just a drawing of the holotype at two angles. Please review for accuracy. Clumsystiggy (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Batch of dinosaur reconstructions
Hi! I wanted to use these recent dino reconstructions I finished for each of their respective wiki pages since they don't have any life depictions currently, however, I wanted to check their accuracy first (especially since several of them have limited information/material available). Any comments are welcome :)
Many of them seem to "look forward", I'm not sure how mobile dinosaur eyes would have been within the sockets. Anyone know? FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Eyeballing from the quarry map, the limbs of Bayannurosaurus are way too large and the neck too short. It's also missing the characteristically stubby claw on hand digit I. [92]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Assuming the description correctly assigned the dorsal F as an early posterior dorsal, I think the sail shape of Brighstoneus needs to be tweaked to be more back-heavy: [93]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The Dravidosaurus is way too speculative for Wikipedia. Not only has the stegosaurian position been doubted in some publications, but it has never been suggested to be a dacentrurine in the literature. I think it is depicted as one because of a discussion I had with the artist on DeviantArt (I know this because all these works can be found on their page), where I suggested Dravidosaurus could be a dacentrurine due to supposedly elongated vertebrae and a small head.Atlantis536 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Europasaurus modified
New version without human
New version without human
Bagaceratops ontogeny
.png){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Quadrupedal reconstruction that is treated as inaccurate
Reconstruction by NT
Reconstructed skull of Bisticeratops froeseorum
Skeletal diagram of Bisticeratops froeseorum
Llukalkan (already tagged as inaccurate)
Phantera onca semembrina
an acanthodian (looks like traced over Nobu Tamura's Acanthodes)
.png)
"Own work" of Apataelurus
"Own work" of Murusraptor
Asian Miocene
Thalattotitan
Paluxysaurus jonesi (junior synonym of Sauroposeidon proteles)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Prague's Harfa Dinosaur Park models
Senckenberg Naturmuseum model
rounded sail
rounded sail
standardized sail
animation of walking
.png)
.png){kind=small}
). I am not suggesting that a more accurate reconstruction be replaced by a less accurate but more detailed one. I just wanted to say that if you choose from two equally accurate illustrations, then the more detailed is preferable. Since some inaccuracies were found in this reconstruction, they will be corrected, and then it will make sense to use it instead of the PaleoGeek illustration. By the way, there is no narrowing of the tail. This is due to the angle, because the tip of the tail is slightly turned. HFoxii (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Stegouros
Xiongguanlong
Proardea amissa
Proardea deschutteri
Pikaihao
Was the original head more accurate?
Cratonavis & Nemicolopterus (Sinopterus)
Maip macrothorax reconstruction.jpg)
Size chart
Skeletal diagram
Life reconstruction by Charles Nye
Mamenchisaurus youngi
Wuerhosaurus ordosensis
Nobu Tamura's old reconstruction
This file is huge!
Proapteryx micromeros
Kurrartapu johnnguyeni
Utahraptor (2013 ver.)
Utahraptor (2014 ver.)
_2.jpg)
Ojo Alamo Richardoestesia
Rough Run Titanosaur
Ojo Alamo Troodontidae indet.
Ojo Alamo Ornithomimidae indet.
Ojo Alamo Ankylosauridae indet.
Serra da Galga Abelisaur "1" (indet.)
Serra da Galga Abelisaur "2" (indet.)
_profile_reconstruction.jpg){kind=small}
_profile_reconstruction.jpg)
_profile_reconstruction.jpg)
Protoceratops andrewsi
Aventadoros (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
.png)
Transparent picture of C.anaensis by Stegotyranno
Chuanjiesaurus anaensis size compared to 1.85 meter human
Talenkauen
Bayannurosaurus
Uteodon
Brighstoneus
Notohypsilodon
Planicoxa
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bagaceratops_Skeleton_Reconstruction.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/zuniceratops-ontogeny-hone-et-al-2016-fig-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1647230468798-KA609UE5NKUZY0Z7LMI4/Bambiraptor.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1543594176149-BQAE29KLOJTH95U7MWNU/Brachylophosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1565478454677-0QZSCVVSAHCA4QK6JXDV/Chasmosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1453742843270-EWHUE1PXEPRW7QSHNHDG/image-asset.jpeg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vagaceratops.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Mexico_Pentaceratops.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Euhelopus_zdanskyi_Multiview_Skeletal.png){kind=link}
![[28]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1371499453635-8VGAL2M79G8GC5Z7CPRW/Orodromeus.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daurlong_skeletal_reconstruction.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/052/794/397/large/francisco-hueichaleo-stegouros-skeleton-pose-3-b-insta.jpg?1660686065){kind=link}
![[32]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven-Salisbury/publication/286403087/figure/fig3/AS:667670009634822@1536196343466/Reconstruction-of-the-skull-of-Kunbarrasaurus-ieversi-gen-et-sp-nov-QM-F18101-in.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://i.imgur.com/mzEuZjG.jpeg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GorgosaurusDB.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teratophoneus.png){kind=link}
![[36]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%E2%80%9CHollywood%E2%80%9D_Teratophoneus_specimen.jpg){kind=link}
![[42]](https://i.imgur.com/M8f55tR.png){kind=link}
![[45]](https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/7a57ee3405670ffded99715585d8beccebb0f891/500px/10-Figure5-1.png){kind=link}
![[49]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/4e5cb98a66469817963d18d97504e4e2/tumblr_inline_oktw6frnMs1t9eo2x_400.png){kind=link}
![[50]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/e187b3c92b081929eaad3fcecdbed303/tumblr_inline_oktw4nMPm41t9eo2x_1280.png){kind=link}
![[53]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leptorhynchos_by_Nick_Longrich.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pinacosaurus_Jack_Wood_2017_flipped_transparent.png){kind=link}
![[55]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PinacosaurusDB154.jpg){kind=link}
![[56]](https://scontent.fagc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/284453236_797334648340514_6792168256552327738_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=qPaUU6IJILIAX8XuJqu&_nc_ht=scontent.fagc2-1.fna&oh=00_AfBdSLG387kGpwJdf5HfMn9kh05fyybJRPXosm6JzWc8JQ&oe=63C2B1A8){kind=link}
![[57]](https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/benghbrachioreconrough2.jpg){kind=link}
![[58]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sanjuansaurus_skeleton.png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KomodoDragon_Skull.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelenken.jpg){kind=link}
![[68]](https://i.imgur.com/hFxpWzP.jpeg){kind=link}
![[69]](https://i.imgur.com/T5io8hp.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%BC%C3%9Fe_Auerhahn_im_Winter.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tetrao_urogalloides_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[72]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tetrao_urogallus_-Bayerischer_Wald,_Europe_-female-8a_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[75]](http://www.naturenorth.com/winter/grouse/images/image_03.jpg){kind=link}
![[76]](https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/ff7da1d9-2c10-4af6-9f48-d5df7c640cfd/mfig009.jpg){kind=link}
![[82]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pterygotus_anglicus_reconstruction.jpg){kind=link}
![[84]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1468336291628-N817AYZIJMKV5SUC8BRK/Iguanodon.jpg?format=1000w){kind=link}
![[89]](https://i.imgur.com/Bktp9Xk.png){kind=link}
![[90]](https://i.imgur.com/rBLFZFN.png){kind=link}
![[91]](https://i.imgur.com/cKweuha.png){kind=link}
![[92]](https://i.imgur.com/FVNnJc6.png){kind=link}
![[93]](https://i.imgur.com/kiLuODl.png){kind=link}
![[94]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miragaia_longicollum.png){kind=link}