This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
I've made an SVG drawing of a T-rex. Ratio and position are originally from the BBC documentary "the truth about killer dinosaurs" (which was broadcasted as having been prepared with scientists). The coat color is inspired from the lion, the striation from the tiger. The skeleton (i.e. position and number of bones) is mainly drag from the reconstruction of Sue the T-Rex, exhibited at the Field Museum (based on numerous photos available on Flickr), and from the T-Rex visible at the "Museum d'histoire naturel" of Paris.
I would be happy to correct the drawing. This could be easy, as it is done in SVG. Do not hesitate to download it and play with layers or to suggest new layers. I think it wuld be interesting to have a layer with bones names, but I unfortunately did not manage to find out this information. Nojhan (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment about the veracity of the pose, et al, but in terms of asthetics, I think it might be less busy and more streamlined by removing the stripes, especially when sized down for an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I manage to find some of the images I used, you could check them on this temporary website. Unfortunately, I didn't note the sources URL...
Concerning the removing of the stripes, it would be easy to just hide the layer and post the drawing on a new common's image. For the moment, I think one should correct the drawing. Could you be more precise concerning the orientation of the skull ? Nojhan (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at where the right eye is on the skin layer as opposed to the left eye of the skull; if you drew a line connecting the two points, the resulting line would not be parallel to base of the skull; it appears that the skull is rotated a couple of degrees clockwise along the z-axis according in comparison to the back flesh portion of the drawing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)14:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I think there's a general problem with the perspective across the whole image, to the point where different areas of the body appear to be shown from different perspectives that contradict the perspective at other points. It's a little M.C. Escher ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really seem balanced for walking bipedally, and the back legs look so thin that it stretches believability that they supported the weight of this dinosaur on their own. Firsfron of Ronchester14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe use Arthur's image instead of Spindler's? Or maybe thicken the legs on this one, and make it stand more vertically?FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Arthur's artist depiction might be better. If you want a skeletal to work from, however, there's a quite nice photo of a prosauropod skeletal reconstruction on Plateosaurus; that image is more in line with current papers on prosauropod locomotion. Firsfron of Ronchester21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The version I see in the link looks pretty decent; like you, I'm still seeing the incorrect thumbnail, though. I hate to have that in a FA. 14:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. You can remove it then, but do you have any idea why it doesn't show up? It's highly annoying, and some other thumbnails haven't been updated yet either, like the Charles Knight image in the sauropod page, the thumbnail is still black and white even though I've uplaoded a colour version weeks ago. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool, and it's especially neat to have it since I think the copyright info of the Sino image we already have is very dubious... As Dinoguy pointed out in the section about Saurornithoides[3], we now have actual troodontid feather impressions, so it would probably be ideal to incorporate them into our drawings of troodontids, so take a look at this Jinfengopteryx fossil: [4][5] It appears to have very long tail feathers, and thicker body covering. Also, here's another skeletal drawing of Sino which might be useful: [6] Looking at that, it seems that the head might be a bit more robust than on your drawing, and the metatarsals should probably be longer. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a kind of lame homage to Dinoguy's photo of a model Shuvuuia which was deleted (or out of laziness), I drew the thing with the same pose. Here's a sketch, anything wrong at this point?[7] You might happen to have the original photo, Dinoguy? Because I can only find tiny versions of it left online as reference. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking Good! A few things, the skull of Shuvuuia is lower at the tip and stays quite low until the eyes. Older reconstructions of Alvarezsaurids have short-ish tails however Shuvuuia shows them as having longer tails. A paper by Phill Senter found that the arms of Mononykus stuck straight out from the side of the body not down as in normal dinosaurs. ('Function in the stunted forelimbs of Mononykus' 2005) I have yet to read it does anyone have a copy? Here is Jamie Headdens reconstruction. [8]Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good start on it Funk! I appreciate the homage, I'm sure the AMNH does too ;) But yeah, I agree with Steve's comments. That model was made almost ten years ago now and is a bit out of date compared to our current understanding of Shuvuuia. I don't have Senter's paper but I'll see if I can pull it from my old uni library site. I have the paper describing the more complete tail and Jaime's looks about right based on that, though to my eye it looks like he might have overestimated the missing portions a bit, but don't take my word for it. It's still a lot longer than originally thought. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got the Mononykus paper! From my quick reading of the conclusion, it basically sounds like mononykine arm movement was limited to basically doing the robot ;) So yeah, the humerus should stick almost straight out laterally. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys! Looking at that skeletal and your descriptions, I think the drawing will change so much that copyright (of the model) won't be an issue... FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah... hold the hpone! Doing a little side research on why everyone uses Mononykinae instead of Parvicursorinae which has priority, turns out Longrich and Currie referred the long-tailed specimen to Parvicursor sp. in the 2008 description of Albertonykus. Better check on this at DinoForum or DML. Though it would probably still be a safe bet to go long-tailed, I wouldn't necessarily use that skeletal, as if it's not Parvicursor, it's probably a juvenile Shuuv. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take that back. Jaime's skeletal is still good as a general guide, as it incorporates several specimens and is based mainly on adult Shuvuuia, the juvi bits are scaled up, and Parvicursor is so similar anyway it makes sense to fill in missing Shuuv bits with bits of Parv. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a very rough edit[10] just to give an idea of how the proportions would be changed, looks strange with that big head, but that's how the skeletal is, isn't it? And are the arms still wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My PC is burned out, so I can't scan and therefore not finish any of the other drawings, but this one is fairly complete already, so if anyone has a comment, I could fix this one up soon on a laptop. Anything? FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the finished version as a formality, since it was already approved on the Dinoforum. I'll go ahead and add it to the article unless something else is wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have drawn a skeleton of the Spinosaurus, and tried posting it on the article Spinosaurus, but J. Spencer has suggested a few problems with it that, for the most part, I don't agree with. It would be nice if I could have a secound opinion. And if you do found problems with it, I would be elated if you can fix them up for me. Thank you, Bugboy52.40 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good attempt, but to start the skull doesn't closely resemble Spinosaurus except for the general outline of the front part. See here for a more precise skeletal: [12] The sail looks a bit too uniform as well--it should be higher in back than in front, not rounded. Here's a full skeletal: [13] As you can see, the general shape of the cervical vertebrae also look too narrow and as a consequence there are way too many of them, should probably be only 6 or 7 based on Baryonyx. The neural spines on the caudals should be angled backward. Out of curiosity, what skeleton did you base this on? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the image under discussion is here: [14] This brings up a problem with AW's illustration in that the skull is too robust, especially the upper jaw. When I made my size chart I replaced the head with SteveOC's which has the correct proportions but never got around to sending a note about it to AW. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mamenchisaurus youngi, based proportionally on a skeletal by Scott Hartman. [15]
Looks great! One thing I'm not sure about is the hand claw. Most sauropods have one, but I can't see it in the skeletal and can't find any references for or against mamenchisaurs having one. Anybody know? Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's definatly in the skeletal it's just small. One thing I have accidentally done wrong is put it too low on the foot. I also probably needs shrinking. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, just a small perspective thing that most people woldn't notice and which is probably irrelevant, shouldn't the individual spikes on the neck be drawn closer together the farther in the distance down the row they are? Now it appears that they have been drawn with an equal length between them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I was unsure about the dermal structures. Does any one know anything about their placement in the diplodocid specemen that shows them?(I haven't herd of any mamenchisaur skin.) Most people show a mid-line ridge thats more densly covered than what I have. I based them on the diplodocid strucures described a Cerkaz paper in ‘Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs’ by Currie and Padian, but there wasn't much detail about their placment. I was reading Scott Hartmans comments here (on the second page) [16] and he seems sceptical of a mid-line like everyone does. I'll be away other the next few days but when I get back I'll look into it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original interpretation was as mid-line dorsal tail spines, over the hips and a bit posterior. According to a post a while back on DinoForum, Tracy Ford indicated that either new study of this specimen or another diplodocid showed that they would actually have covered most of the back, flanks, and sides of the proximal tail, not just run in a single row down the back. But this isn't published yet. :) So, it would be similar to the condition in Triceratops, which had a similar arrangement of modified err, 'nipple'-shaped scales/scutes covering the back that some people have interpreted as the anchor point for psittacosaur-style quills. Edit: Now that I read the link I might have been thinking of Hartman's post on DeviantArt, not Ford's, but I'll poke around and see. Anyway, it's more likely that in Diplodocus at least they made up a prickly full-back covering, not iguana spines. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, nice work. This, I think, is actually the first reconstruction I've ever seen with what's now understood to be the correct arrangement of spines. It would be awesome if you tackled Diplodocus itself next, we could use a current illustration for that one... shame it's the only one we know concretely had these spines, and all the illustrations have the incorrect arrangement! Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably due to the Walking With Dinosaurs episode where the diplodocids, don't remember which kind, had them like that. And I agree, keep them coming, Steve, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orycto sketch[17] based on this[18] and Hypsilophodon. Anyone have a picture of an Oryctodromeus burrow? I thought this page might need some archiving too? Not sure how to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Went a bit overboard wit it too early, how about now? Still rough, and the tail is bendy, but hey, could be becaue it's on it's way up from a burrow or something.[19]FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is a bit late, I'm currently wondering about the tail. Nearly all reconstructions of hypsilophodonts I have seen have fairly stright or stiffish looking tails, even the ones with out the tail rods like Othnielosaurus are shown straightish. (There is a few here) [20] I assume the reason for this is because they arn't very flexible, but I'm not certain. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's an easy fix. Anything else?
I'll need to look in to the tail thing more. It might make sence to go for a staightish tail for 'safty' reasons. But if this thing is living in burrows I can't imagine that a stiff tail would of that helpfull..... Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks reasonable to me. Interestingly, in hypsils the tendons seem concentrated around the distal end of the tail (Hypsilophodon, Parksosaurus, Thescelosaurus), so there would be more flexibility toward the hips. Dromaeosaurs achieved similar results by bone extensions. J. Spencer (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we missed this: Unlike many other ornithopod dinosaurs, Oryctodromeus lacked bony tendons that stiffened the tail, which would have made moving about inside a small burrow easier. Additionally, it shows adaptations in the jaws, forelimbs, and pelvis that could have helped move and manipulate soil.[1]FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[21] based on this: [22] I'll just cut off the crests if they turn out to have been a mistake, but I was thinking of giving it a body too. Should I just base it on Dilophosaurus? Here's a diagram of the skull with no crests: [23]FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, haven't read the lit but from the sounds of it, better go with the second recon. If the "crest" turned out to be part of the maxilla, the height of the skull would be too much due to the distortion. Also, I think your eye might be too big, doesn't look like a sclerotic ring would fit round it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to delay this until some better info comes up, but couldn't resist doing something, so here's a changed version, just ignore the crest: [24] Anything wrong? Gave it slit eyes for fun, since crocodiles and skimmers have them, so it's plausible. The eye probably shouldn't be looking forward though. I'm thinking of giving it a body in a pose like this: [25]FunkMonk (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Love the pose! I would make the caudofemoralis (the one that runs along the tail and attaches to the femur) more obviosly attach to the thigh. It looks a bit detached at the moment. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elaphro sketch[28] based on this skeletal by Greg Paul[29] Just made some generic theropod head with ceratosaur features, don't know how it'll look on the body. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that head would look good on that body, I'd imagine somthing more slender....but thats mearly an aesthetic comment. Here is Headdens reconstruction, [30], he has restored it as an abelisaur with a Noasaur style head. Whats other peoples opinion of this? Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had my doubts on the head too, but based it on the bulky head restoration on the mounted skeleton in Berlin, which can be seen in the Elaphrosaurus Wikipedia article. I was thinking that it should be more coelophysoid like, because GSP restored it that way, but then read that it had since been classified as a ceratosaur, and assumed the head had to be big. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a general sense, Elaphrosaurus can be considered sort of a transitional form between coelophysoids and ceratosaurs proper (probably noasaurid-grade). Even large coelophysoids have fairly slender skulls, so I'd do something sort of in between Dilophosaurus and... well, the only noasaur that even has a halfway decent skull is Masiakasaurus and it's pretty late/specialized. So imagine a plesiomorphic noasaur and a plesiomorphic dilophosaur, and you're on the right track. The one in your sketch looks a bit boxy, which makes it look bulky by extension. I'd maybe narrow up the anterior part and maybe de-emphasize the lachrymal horn to give it a lighter look. Body looks good though! Edit--just saw the one in the article. Yikes! Not as horrendous as the famously outrageous Deltadromeus skull, but I doubt it would look anything like that. Looks more advanced abelisaur like. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditched the old head, and made a new one where the back part is based on Coelophysis, and the front on the Jamie Headden silhouette and Masiakasaurus:[31]FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, though one proportional issue--based on GSP's skeletal the torso doesn't seem to be long enough. You've got the knee in about the same position, and there's much less space between knee and arm in your drawing than in the skeletal. Any way to lengthen it up to maybe double that? Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Figured with the new discoveries leaving this guy without any appropriate pics, I'd whip up a new reconstruction. Based mainly on Jame Headden's recon [32], feahters after the photos in the paper. Wing feathers after a close-up arm reconstruction based on the holotype, that I can't seem to find online anymore, must have been on Graveyard. Anyway let me know what you think! Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks crazy (and good)! But is there a photo of the entire fossil online it could be compared to? I've only seen close ups of different parts... FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not--the new specimen in only preserved from mid-torso forward. The paper also figures the tail tip from the holotype, which has revealed bristles with further prep. The feathering between the shoulder and hip, and on the legs are speculative, but the head, neck, arms, and tail are based on the fossils. This has pretty much all the relevent pics minus the arms: [33]Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. The only thing I'd check over is the size of the hands, looking at Headdens skeletal they seem a little smaller than what you have (I'd say shrink the hands by about ~20%). But other wise it seems fine. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shrunk the hands, how's that look? Jaime also reckons the quills would be more form-fitting to the body, but I'm wondering if I could get away with saying it's sort of raising its hackles in a threat display... the authors did suggest display function after all. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read on Darren Naish's blog that it didn't have vaned feathers, wouldn't that mean the feathers on the arms would have to go? FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the arm feathers aren't vaned, they're elongated Sinosauropteryx filaments, measured based on the holotype fossil. There are definitely elongated filaments extending up to the wrist. Vaned feathers would look like the ones in Caudipteryx, below. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. This discovery would not necessarily have to affect our other, existing therizinosaurid restorations, as well, they belong to very different genera? Though I'll certainly keep the new fossil in kind when I draw therizinosaurs in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, of course, but I think that (and Naish's blog concurs) at this point it would be a mistake to restore them with obvious remiges or retrices. Especially considering the rumors that there are new specimens/studies coming out that will pull them pretty definitively away from oviraptorosaurs. Any existing drawings with those should probably be modified or removed for now. Adding a few quills during the mod process wouldn't hurt though :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mde me think of how much the perception ofthe shape of a bird can be changed by the feathers, here's a photo I took of a stuffed owl where the pink part shows how muh of it is actual bird: [34]FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and this is a big pet peeve of mine when it comes to people restoring feathered theropods. Everybody tries to sort of preserve the outline of the bones/skin becasue those are familiar to people, but there re lots of reasons to think that wouldn't be the case, and it's demonstrably wrong based on all but the most primitive/shortest feathered coelurosaurs. Look at the neck region of almost any feathered maniraptoran, and you can see they never follow the contour of the classic s-curve. The outward appearance is usually a gradual, almost straight line from the back of the head to the torso, and from about the middle of the lower jaw to the pectoral girdle (or at least, the thick breast feathers covering the pectoral girdle). Here's a pretty typical illustration of Microraptor[35], and here's mine, which I believe has more accurate feathers[36] (though probably less accurate feet ;) ). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle abit with feathers, for the reasons you mention. Part of me wants people to know that the anatomy is correct and those pesky feathers cover it up. ;) For what is worth I took Headdens skeletal into photoshop and (quickly) added 50mm feathers to the outline, [37]. How 'thick it looks is somewhat dependant on the angle the feathers are to the body but generally your looks about right. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, had me worried there for a minute--mine looks a lot thicker than that diagram but the longest quills are reported are 150mm, not 50, so yeah I thin mine looks about within range after all, considering the angle. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went for 50mm because of the feathers on the holotype are mostly 50mm with some 70mm, but these are asosiated with the Arms. Considering it's that thick looking with only 50mm fibers yours is certainly in range. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a restoration of this guy in the article anymore, which is a shame, so I pulled this out of the archives and updated it a bit. Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, I remember it from your website, I like it! But what kind of scales have you given its feet? I'd expect the more "tile" like scales of bird feet? Hey, just noticed you updated your site, nice! It was a shame that several links didn't work before. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great drawing, The only thing I'm not sure about is the buldge one the bottom of the tail. Is that meant to be the Ischium? Looking at Pauls skeletal in DOA an the skeletons of related animals it seems to be jutting out too far back. The 'bulge' of the Ischium would be closer to the hip. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was meant to be a tuft of feathers extending from and back past the ischium... but given that's where the cloaca is I'm not sure if it would make sense for the feathers to be longer there... might save that bit down. As for the foot scales, I based them on emu feet [38] in which the tiling is minimal and a bit tough to see, but maybe I can bring it out a little more. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, you didn't have to change the scales when they were based on something though, but I think it looks good this way, maybe because it's more familiar. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well after your comment I wracked my brain trying to remember where I got the idea for those spotty scales... turned out I was actually thinking of parrots! They're pretty derived and I couldn't find any ground birds with anything similar, which makes me think the tile scales probably have some utility that primarily arboreal parrots might have lost the need for. It was easy enough to replace them anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got Dinosaurso f the Air by Greg Paul, and guess what, he drew the leg scales on Caudipteryx exactly as on your initial version... So eh, I kind of retract my comment. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By request, here's E. regalis and E. annectens. I've included a few details from um... unpublished sources (i.e. rumors from pretty reliable sources). If that's not kosher for an FA I can remove the dewlap and whip-tail stuff. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the dewlap. I'm not sure you should include the wiplash tails, (is anyone actually going to publish on those?) If you keep them, I'd say make a note about them in the description. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What-was-it? Maiasaura - I think - has skin impressions with a dewlap (JVP abstract, IIRC), and Leo the brachylophosaur has a nice full goitery neck (mentioned in both the Horns&Beaks article and the Leo documentary), so the neck is within our mandate, I think. If your sources are going to be publishing soon, could you upload the whiptail version and then upload a non-whip over it? That way, we can have a whipless version until publication, and then go back to the whiptail as soon as it's published. J. Spencer (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. Whiplash covered up for now. For what it's worth, I think Tracy Ford did include this in one of his skeletals, possibly in Prehistoric Times with some discussion, but I doubt that's published enough for our purposes. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of a conservified version of my Avimimus drawing here[39]. Basically color-adjusted and pasted on my Caudipteryx tail, which is a bit of a cheat ;) Just want to avoid using 'unique' feather styles not seen on relatives (mainly used Caudipteryx as a reference). The large body feathers may be the bit that's pushing it, but there shouldn't be any indication they're true vaned feathers and not large plumaceous ones with proto barbs and vanes. Unless you guys reckon otherwise, in which case I can try to make them look fuzzier. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are all already in their respective articles, but I don't believe that they ever passed an image review here. I'm not too good at the details, so have at them if you have any quivers. --Spotty1122220:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them all before, and the only problem I have with the hadrosaurs, and practically all other hadrosaur illustrations on Wiki, is that they have visible nails. But even much recent professional paleoart shows that too, so maybe it isn't definitive that they shouldn't be visible? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Diplodocus image is based on a museum mount, it may be ok. Paralititan is hypothetical, is only known from a few peaces. Greg Paul has done a Astrodon reconstruction in a Carpenter paper. If Gregs is correct DiBgd’s image should be a similarly proportioned just a ‘’little’’ more brachiosaur like. Regarding hadrosaur hands: I haven't read the evidence for ‘no nails‘. Looking at hadrosaur hands in skeletals they seem to have less obvious finger tips than iguanodonts, is the idea that they lost the claws? On a side note, one thing that I wonder about is the number of nails in iguanodonts and maybe hadrosaurs if claws are present. No Archosaur has more than 3 claws, right? so in iguanodonts digit 1 is the thumb spike 2,3 and 4 are the weight bearing toes and digit 5 is the opposable finger (hadrosaurs then lost the thumb spike) so that would mean that only two of the 3 weight bearing digits should ever have nails. On Gregs Iguanodon, Dollodon and Mantellisaurus reconstructions the finger tips on digits 2 and 3 are much larger and the finger tip of digit 4, suggesting claws? The close up hand in the iguanodon article shows the same thing. Now on a lot of iguanodont restorations (there’s even one Greg Pauls web site, Maybe it's just an older image?) , have 3 nails on the weight bearing section. I assume that this is wong and is something to be on the look out for. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that hadrosaurs (at least some of them) may have re-evolved a claw on digit 4, but don't quote me on that. In some forms all 3 digits incorporated into the 'hoof' may have had visible nails (think early horses for the general idea).
However, the issue with these isn't the claws, but the separation of the fingers. They should be continuous 'mitten' structures with separate claws poking out at the bottom. The Astrodon does seem odd but I haven't seen any skeletals, could be correct. Is the "more brachiosaur-like" comment in regards to the werid dip at the base of the neck? The cervicals should probably continue in a straight line from the dorsals? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Carpenter paper with the skeletal: [40] The 'brachiosaur' comment was a bit vague, Pauls skeletal has the high shoulder, strightish back brachosaur look. You might see what I mean when you see the skeletal. One thing I would chnage about the image is the base of the tail, most dinosaurs tails have a slight upturn which causes the tail to be more elevated. You see it in most skeletals of sauropods. The tail in DiBgd's image is a bit classical looking, like in the old days of draging tails. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Barsboldia one of the ornithopods that could be passed off as if moving fast or running, or does it have to be corrected? FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sketch of Patagosaurus[41] primarily based on the reconstruction found here (scroll to bottom of page) [42]. In this reconstruction the tail is depicted as being quite long despite it being incompletely known from the genus. The reconstruction found here [43] seems to imply that the tail is much shorter, however. Therefore I did not sketch the tail as long as the first reconstruction. Does anyone have any input on the tail length that I should be aware of? Please point out any other inaccuracies that can be seen in the current sketch before I proceed to digitally color it. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, looks good, nice that you're back doing dinosaurs! I don't know about the tail, but I believe you should put the nostrils further down the snout, since recent research apparently indicates sauropods had it this way, here's an example:[44] Also, I think you could maybe make the thigh muscles a bit bigger. FunkMonk (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Stuff. I'd say go for the first Greg Paul reconstrcution, his are usually resonably good. If you do go with the first one then the tail could be long with a slightly shorter body. Also the bottom half of the forelimbs could be a tiny bit longer and slightly more robust. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here I've extended the tail and touched up the forelimbs as you have recommended to better match Greg Paul's reconstruction[46]. In my sketch, the Patagosaurus seems to be leaning foreward as it walks, causing the forelimbs to be positioned farther back and making them appear slightly shorter than the ones in the reconstruction that are held directly below the shoulders. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only other thing~I ca think of, maybe the tail should become gradually more thinner towards the tip than it is now, like on the skeletal. As is, the tail seems a bit too heavy towards the tip. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, the only thing I'd question is the definitive line of the skull margin being visible. I'd maybe tone it down or erase it dorsal to the ear. Especially since the fenestrae aren't as obvious (as they shouldn't be). The ear should also be anterior to the jaw muscle, but it's hard to tell how far that extends so probably not a problem. Oh, and are you sure about the four claws on the hind foot? Not sure what the condition is in "cetiosaurs" but slightly more advanced sauropods only have the three. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine the jaw muscle being that far back, so I placed the ear more anteriorly in this one[48]. The skull margin is also less apparent. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Smokey, hate to bring this up at such a late stage, but see my post in discussion: looks like this has the footfall formula incorrect. The hind left foot is forward, so it should be stepping with the left forefoot, not the right. Could this be switched or corrected to eliminate the step? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has recently been flooded with images of dinosaurs with questionable anatomical accuracy, and many of these images are ending up in Wikipedia articles. I've asked some of the uploader's to put their images up for review here, but they haven't replied, so I'd like to see if any of these images can actually be used. Images by Conty: [50] Images by Dinosauria-Freak: [51] Images by Ryanz720: [52]. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many to look problematic. Pronated hands on Conty's nesting ovi for example. Best deal with them case by case--remove from the article if there's a hint of inaccuracy, and bring it up here if controversy happens over it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are loads more, but putting them all in that category would be a never ending task. What do you mean by cleaning up? Images by Conty and Ryanz72 have been placed in the posture and arm section of the Tyrannosaurus article[53], are these images correct? On the 3d model, the arms seem too skinny, the pads under the feet look odd, and there's a sort of bend at the start of the tail. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be useful to segregate inaccurate images rather than delete them completely (for example, remove all other cat tags). Some might be salvageable with a little photoshop work, so keeping them around in their own bin might be added incentive for people with a bit of time on their hands to take a stab at fixing the errors. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I added a link to the dino image review on the category page, with the hope that some of the uploaders might get over here. But some of the images are beyond salvageable, and look like kid's drawings. Images on Commons have to be "educational". I think it's a good idea to remove all other categories from the images in the inaccurate image category so they don't float around everywhere. And Dinoguy, you should enable Hotcat on Commons, it's fantastic for mass categorisation. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/DocumentationFunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dinoguy that there are some (maybe even half) which are salvageable, but I also agree with Funk that some look beyond salvageable. There are quite a few which have no educational value whatsoever, and actually reduce the educational value of the project by confusing anyone who looks at them. We'd have to tread carefully, and only delete the ones that are really of no use. Firsfron of Ronchester18:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On another image uploaded by Conty: File:Tyrannosaurus specimens arm diagram 01.JPG, which I'm rather fond of, but there's one notable anatomical mistake. [gives everyone a minute to figure it out]
The scapula should get part of the "plate" currently occupied entirely by the coracoid. I've left a message on Conty's talk page, but in the event that no connection is made, would it be best for one of us to modify it or to remove it altogether? J. Spencer (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That image is nice enough that it's worth the effort to modify. It's been released into the public domain according to the tag, so there can be no legal objections to modifying the file. I'd say give the original author a chance first, though, out of respect, if the author is Conty. Firsfron of Ronchester08:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we could change it. However, it could be nice to have a source for the info on that image, it seems pretty specific, and if it's a trace copy of a published image, it would be a copyright violation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user Karkemish (gallery[54]) has also uploaded a lot of paleoart and added it to articles without review. I was thinking whether this restoration of Albertosaurus is accurate?[55] The article for it currently doesn't have a drawn life restoration, so it could be nice to add this one. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of their stuff is better than others, I removed some a month or so ago. It's also all watermarked with a signature/logo which is technically against wiki guidelines. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The snout looks too long and narrow based on the bulldog-like skull in the skeletal I have. It looks like he based the skull on Gorgosaurus, but in that case the legs are too stout. If the tibia and mets were elongated by a third, it would be fine for Gorgosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this isn't anything new, I was playing around with vector graphics and decided to make a scale diagram. I noticed that Dinoguy's diagram had a large body. The body is unknown in sauroposeidon, but Matt Wedal's published reconstructions have given it a smaller body, (based on the centrum diamiter of sauroposeidon which is about 15% larger than that of Brachio). This version is based proportionally on Wedal's reconstrution but modified to have the straigher back of Pauls recent update to his skeletal and Hartmans recent skeletal. The image description has links to Wedal's, Hartmans and Pauls reconstructions. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't comment on the accuracy, but I don't think there's any need to include the species name in the image itself (and if it is to be included it should be italicised). mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the full sized image, it is italicised but for some reason the thumbnail version it isn't and the writing has expanded?? Vector graphics are a pain sometimes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain that the generic name is unnecessary. It doesn't appear in italics for me, even at full size. I'm using FF3, btw. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats odd, I'm new to vector graphics I'll have to see what's causing that. It might be something to do with the font not being supported. Can I ask why you don't think the genus name should be included? Other scale charts contain the genus and species names? That said if people feel strongly it's extremely easy to remove. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the font to Arial which is probably a more common font. It still doesn't show italics in the thumbnail version. Can you tell me if italics shows up in firefox. I'll probably remove the name anyway, it's just nice to know which fonts work or not. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The genus name is no longer in a box, but it still doesn't appear italicised for me. The reason I think the name is unnecessary is because it conveys no additional information to the reader. The fact that the image shows Sauroposeidon would either be obvious from the context (appearing in the Sauroposeidon article) or explained in the image caption. In scale charts that show several species (such as File:Largesttheropods.svg), the colour-coded key provides a quicker means of identifying which is which than a text caption such as "l-r: Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, ..." (although it would probably be even better if the species key was included in the caption, as it is at Mollusca for example). With only one animal pictured, I don't think it's necessary to repeat the genus name, especially since it places restrictions on the minimum display size at which the name is legible. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those make sense in the context of wikipedia but I have noticed that wiki dino images make their way across the net and get posted on other websites. Sadly the descriptions and names don't always go with them. Anyway, I remove it later today. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a rough sketch of Australovenator, which was recently described in an article published in PLoS ONE[57]. The article can be found here. I have based this sketch on the skeletal reconstruction shown in fig. 2. Any corrections I need to make before I start getting into greater detail? Smokeybjb (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice sketch, I think the far side leg is looking a little straight. Most dinos can't straighten there knees much. The near side leg is about as stright as the knee can go. Also the near side hand looks a little smaller than the far side hand. The study thinks Australovenator is close-ish to neovenator, maybe make the snoat look a little more like neovenator, which has a curves down toward the tip, [58] (There is a skeletal here [59]) but that's just a suggestion, obviously the skull isn't known.Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the new version[60]. I based the head in the original sketch on the artistic reconstruction seen in fig. 40 of the PLoS ONE article, which seems to be more slender and less curved than what is seen in Neovenator. I agree with you that having a Neovenator-like skull seems more probable in Australovenator if it is somewhat closely related. The article also seems to suggest a close-ish relation to the more plesiomorphic Fukuiraptor, which also has a snout that is curved, although less so than in Neovenator. Anything else? Smokeybjb (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's accurate (!), we can also directly use the reconstruction from the PLoS ONE article (figure 40) as it is licensed under CC-BY, as indeed are all the images in that article. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the PLoS ONE reconstruction should be uploaded soon for use on the main page (the Winton dinosaurs are now in the "In the news" section!). Smokeybjb (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already uploaded the reconstruction from the paper. But I think the article is big enough for two reconstructions, so unless you want to modify it into another genus, I think it should be added there too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather redundant to have two similar life restorations of the same animal, especially on a small article like this one. I'm thinking of finishing up the restoration by digitally coloring it and more importantly, giving the image a background to show the type of environment Australovenator would have inhabited, and then adding the image to the article. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, cool, maybe you could make it feed on the carcass of one of those new Australian sauropods too, to show some behaviour. It's mouth is open already. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me!I was thinking that it should maybe have broader and heavier "pads" under the toes, as shown in the diagram here[61], but that's about it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten into a bit of trouble with this one, I started out using a probably outdated skeletal by John Sibbick from the mid 80s, from a book called The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, as I couldn't find newer skeletals. I could find new life reconstructions though, but they all seem to have the spikes and plates arranged differently from each other. Anyone got something which could be used as reference? Similar species? Anything looks wrong as it is? Here's the sketch so far: [62]Funkynusayri (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now made an almost completely new version[64], the older one was based on a very old skeletal, but this one is based more on[65], and some of the spike length is based on:[66].It is currently also posted for review at the Dinoforum[67]. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, looks like a Pokemon or something! Looks good, but on the feather outline of the skeletal, it seems like it has a bit more of a mullet thing going on with the crest, rather than just a half circle/triangle. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that's due to poor preservation of the neck feathers posterior to that point. The first 'hump' on the skeletal is the actual crest, the second is the start of regular neck feather length, which is about the same as in Microraptor. The body feathers in general seem lightly or poorly preserved... maybe due to lighter color or something. I've signified this in my drawing by making the "mullet" area a darker band :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArthurWeasley just updated his illustration of Anchiornis to comply with the new specimen, so I put it back into the article. I didn't yet realize that you were making your own restoration, which is probably going to be more accurate than AW's unreviewed restoration. I don't know if there are any more inaccuracies in his, and I'm not sure if he will fix them now that he is relatively inactive, but it might be a good idea to have the image approved here if it is to stay in the article. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw AW's updated Anchiornis on deviantArt and already made this suggestion to him, but right now his version is lacking the finger and toe feathers present in the fossil, and the snout feathers don't extend far enough anterior. I think he's working on another update. (weirdly, the current update to the image isn't showing up for me in the thumbnail, only when I click to full size... browser bug?) Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really nice image. Regarding the head feathers: The ones you have given it 'seem' to be shaped like vained feathers. From looking at the images in the paper I'm under the impression that they were just extra long fuzz. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double checking the paper, it doesn't go into detail on the head feathers but does seem to point out pennaceous ones where they're present, so you're probably right. Fuzzed it up a bit, here's the new version.
Yes, another work in progress for the pile. I wanted to remake the Deinonychus head I drew once so it could be used as another dromaeosaur, Dromaeosauroides, which is based on a single tooth. I've added a body to the head, based on Deinonychus too.[69] How about it? I didn't add long feathers on the fingers, but maybe I should? FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I dunno adding a body to a tooth taxon seems iffy. At least the head can be said to display the known material in limited context. But yeah, if you go with that I'd give it some significant wings ala Velociraptor. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'd least make sure that a few of the teeth look lke this: [70] And again, I gotta do it, it's a Danish dinosaur! I'll add wings and finish it up if nothing else is wrong with the anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! I'd personally go really all out with the wing, but given its size and lack of bracketing with large-winged ground dromies, it's definitely within reason to have them so reduced. The green coloration is an interesting choice--do we know what the paleoenvironment was? In modern birds green seems to be a rare color restricted to tropical canopy birds and their descendants (like NZ parrots). Unless I'm forgetting something. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Weasley is still uploading images once in a while, and his latest batch[73] was uploaded today, so they should probably be reviewed here before being added to articles. Other older images of his copuld be reviewed here too. As a start, some of the arms of the new dromaeosaurs look a bit thin and weak, or are they within what's plausible? The new Deinonychus also seems a bit oddly proportioned elsewhere on the body: [74]FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some of them I'd say it's within known constraints (Unenlagia, Deinonychus). The issue I see with some is wing size, especially in Rahonavis, where the wings should be larger than Microraptor at the very least, given the ridiculous arm length and large quill knobs. That's the only one I'd say is demonstrably inaccurate based on evidence though, but I'd have to spend more time looking at them in detail with skeletals out. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The arms are out laterally with the elbows slightly elevated dorsally, which I believe is within anatomical range. See quick diagram here: [75]Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok I can see where you're coming from. The lighter anterior line of the wing is meant to represent the propatagium, not the outline of the radius, which would have been well buried in flesh and feathers on both sides. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a life restoration of Fruitadens haagarorum[77] based on the skeletal reconstruction in the recently published Proceedings of the Royal Society B paper. Anything incorrect? Smokeybjb (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing jumps out at me, except I'd go wild and add some Tianyulong style feathers! No reason to think it lacked them, and they're close relatives as shown in the paper. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the feather/quills (a ref here[78]), the official life restoration has them too[79], but also, you should give it more of an eagle eye, since heterodontosaurs have a low palpebral bone going over the top of the eye socket[80], giving them an evil look. May not be overlapping on your image, if the eyes are positioned too far down in the socket. Should be moved up then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. How's this[81]? The body is more sparsely covered with filaments in my restoration than that of Tianyulong just to be a bit conservative since there is no evidence yet known of such integument in Fruitadens. I've added a keratinous beak like those thought to be present on other heterodontosaurids. Also, how are the new eyes? Smokeybjb (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good to me! One other thing, the thighs look a bit narrow, have you drawn the muscles attaching to the edges of the hips, or somewhere within? Should be like this, on the extreme edges:[82] Bigger calves too probably (think chicken drumsticks), made an outline here: [83] Take a look at these ostrich thighs, how they bulge extremely: [84]FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those are huge! The muscles in my illustration were quite restricted below the anchorage points at the edges of the hip, giving their outline a more concave shape. Here's the new version[85]. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better overall, but the legs still look a bit skinny and almost human in shape. The drumstick is way too flat anterior and the 'kneecap' area shouldn't protrude. The front of the thigh should round gently into the front curve of the drumstick. Dinosaur knees weren't really visible as such. Also the foot posture is very odd, it's standing on the distal digits on both feet, as if both feet are in running position. At least one should be firmly planted.Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, though both of the functional 'heels' are still up in the air, as if it's walking on tip-toes, or beginning to take a step both both feet at the same time. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the Alxasaurus in 2 versions, just in case it would be showed that it not had feathers ( this is based on evidence of feathers in the Beipiaosaurus ). If there are any inaccurates in the restorations, i want to know that.
A few issues with them. First, Alxasaurus certainly did have feathers, but not those like birds. It should not have any broad feathers like you have on its arms and tail. It had an undercoat of soft, simple down feathers (longer on the arm, making little "wings") as well as long, porcupine-like quills streamlining the head, neck body and tail.
Microraptor is a bit better but still has anatomical issues. Mainly, the tail feathers should occupy the last 1/3 of the tail, not only the very tip. They should also blend better towards the tail itself with covert feathers (like the darker red ones of the wing). The wing feathers should stem form the fingers, not just the arm, and be about twice as long. Also, there were no feathers on the upper arm (humerus), but the arm wouldn't stick all the way out anyway--the upper arm is held flat against the body. The feathers should go all the way onto the head, possibly right to the tip of the snout as in Anchiornis. Adults had a crest like a blue jay, but you can say this is a sub-adult.
Avimimus is known from direct evidence to have feathers (quill knobs) so any versions with no feathers are 100% wrong, sorry.
The wings of Caudipteryx are backwards. The feathers came entirely off its hand, and had no long feathers on its arms at all. The third finger was a tiny splint of bone and would not have been external (but this was invisible under thick feathers anyway). The short feathers should also go all the way down the leg, to the ankle.
Also, all of your dinosaurs seem to have a bulge in the knee or 'knee cap', which dinosaurs did not have. The upper legs should generally be held more horizontal and the muscles of the femus curve smoothly with no break into the drumstick. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you posting on the review page, Conty! I have one other thing to add, and it is that the eyes on your dinosaurs seem to be at least two times too big on most drawings. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that bit. I wonder if you're misinterpreting the sclerotic ring? The eyeball fits inside the hole in the bony ring. I've seen people mistakenly restore animals with the eyeball encompassing the whole ring, making the eyes consistently two times too big. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the skull of the type specimen is badly crushed pretty much beyond recognition, and early skeletals like that are likely wrong. Prptarchaeopteryx and Incisivosaurus are almost certainly the same genus so they should have the same skull. The wings are inaccurate because they should be formed out of the entire hand. The fingers should not be visible much beneath the feathers in top view. Here is a good diagram showing how wings are constructed: [88] Notice that the main feathers ("primaries") come off of the fingers, not the arm bones. Moern birds and dromaeosaurs also have large wing feathers on the arm bones (called "secondaries") but Caudipteryx does not, so it's uncertain if Protarchaeopteryx had secondaries. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Microraptor: Same make, same dinosaur, new version
Illustration of Microraptor in updated version of my earlier Microraptor 575 AL.JPG.
Conty is back, and should want to hear if his new restoration of Microraptor is accurate.
Improved, but a few details are still off. First, the head is still naked--very unlikely that it had only a feather 'mohawk' rather than feathers covering the whole face. Note that a lot of paleoartists still draw feathered dinosaurs with naked faces. This is wrong for most species, the feathers covered the whole head. Feathers should also cover the fingers, especially digit 2, which should not be visible at its base at all. Digit one also was covered in feathers almost like an alula. The only visible part of the fingers should be the claws and maybe the distal portion of digit 2. The wing is a bit too 'rounded'. If you look at the fossil, the distal primary feathers are nearly twice as long as the secondary feathers. Here, the wing feathers all appear nearly the same length in the main body of the wing. When fully extended, the wing should have more of a kink corresponding with the wrist. Generally, it should look like the wing of a swallow: [89]. You can probably fix this by lengthening the primaries even further: note on the fossil they measure a bit longer than the torso, though your secondaries look the right length.
Finally, in this view it appears that the hind wing feathers end at the ankle? (This wasn't apparent in the last version as the forewings covered the legs). The long wing feathers on the legs and feet should extend all the way to the toes. If you like, you can see my illustration of Microraptor here for reference to the hind wings and head, finger and facial feathers [90]Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pelecanimimus ( the snout can be a bit to short ).
Rugops.
Raptorex.
I have drawed some head restorations. Are they good?
There's still the problem with way too large eyes. They would barely fit in the sockets, and need to be at least twice as small. Remember, much of the eyeball diameter itself is buried behind flesh, so your Pelecanimimus eye for example would be huge. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the eyes are far, far too large on all of them. I played around with the T. rex in photoshop, and superimposed the skull on top of the life restoration. The eyeball doesn't come close to fitting in the socket and that's just the externally visible part! It needs to be at least three times smaller, probably more. Also the lachrymal bosses seem to be absent in the life restoration--the 'bone' of the superimposed skull in this region pokes above the flesh ;) I'd heap some keratin on there, and down the midline ridge of the skull as well, like you have in Rugops. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On to Pelecanimimus, the skull overall is far too broad dorsoventrally, the jaws should be much more gracile. See this skeletal: [91]. Also the crest is not made of bone, it's entirely a soft tissue/keratin structure. Note that the teeth should not extend more posterior than the front margin of the antorbital fenestra. The naris should be a bit more anterior too. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conty: The Pelecanimimus skull at scienceblogs is the one i based my restoration on from the beginning! I think i noted the error back then, but I wanted to take to Wikimedia. At least, it's far more better thsn my earlier version ( see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pelecanimimus_skull_sketch.JPG ). I know the crest are not made of bone, but since they found it, it most have been found ( or is it only impressions in the bone that gives evidence for a crest? ). The fact that the possible crest likely was made of keratin is noted here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pelecanimimus_0473.JPG.
I have made several illustrations of ceratopsids. Are they good?
Two issues here that goes for all dinosaurs, the eyes are still too big on all your drawings, and also, no dinosaurs had more than three claws on their hands, like on crocodiles, take a look here: [92] In spite of this, I see people drawing five front claws on crocodiles all the time, extinct as well as extant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conty: hi FunkMonk! Excuse me, but what have crocodiles to do with my illustrations? Do you compare the feet of crocodiles with the feet of ceratopsians and sauropods?
Crocodiles are archosaurs just as ceratopsians are. The point is that no archosaurs, even crocodiles, have more than 3 claws on the front feet. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 2 versions of the troodontid Sinovenator. I know the eyes ar a bit to large, and the snout may is to short for a troodontid. Also, it should have more teeth. I gave the feathered version the wrong title, sorry. What do you think?
Well, to begin with, this is among the most primitive troodonts, and so very, very close to the origin of birds. It should probably be even more birdlike than Annchiornis, with very large wings on both the fore and hind legs, and much thicker feather covering. Also note that Sinovenator and Jinfengopteryx are very similar, so that's another thing to look to when doing a life restoration. At the moment, this doesn't really resemble a troodontid in external appearance.Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During the summer, I made these 2 versions of Sinosauropteryx ( of course, this was before began to be criticized for the huge eyes of my dinosaurs... ). I edited the article about Sinosauropteryx with the feathered version, but it was deleted. Was it because it's coloring was wrong ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx#Coloration )? Or was it the size of the eyes? Scientists discovered that the "feathers" in Sinosauropteyx likely was fossilized collagen, but was that the reason my illustration was deleted?
The coloration is probably wrong, yeah, and as you said the eyes are too big. It also has bald head syndrome--we don't know how far down the skull the feathers covered but it was definitely past the eyes, maybe even to the tip of the snout and jaw. It also appears to have a knee cap, which dinosaurs don't have. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image of Unaysaurus has been updated. See the older version (once presented here), go to [4000].
Eotyrannus.
Camarasaurus.
Conty: I have made several images which has been called inaccurate ( see the category "Anatomically incorrect dinosaur restorations" att Wikimedia commons ). I want to hear what is wrong with some of them. What's wrong with Unaysaurus ( is it that I gave the body the wrong shape ( see http://www.dinosaurier-interesse-2.de/web/Bilder/Hille/Malbuch/unaysaurus.html ) )? And what is the problem with Eotyrannus or Camarasaurus? And, What is wrong with Protoavis? I know paleontologists belive Protoavis is a paleontological chimera, but what is wrong?
Also, how shall I do if I want to updatde my images like the user "Steveoc 86" do? And how shall I do if I want to delete images from commons?
To update an image, go to near the bottom of the image page, where "upload a new version of this file" is written with blue letters. Click these words, find the file, and write a summary of what has been changed, upload, and then it is updated. If you want an image deleted, go to the left side of the image page under tool box, click on "nominate for deletion", and give your reason why it should be deleted. In the case of an inacurate image, your reason should be that it is out of the scope of Wikimedia, since there is no educational value in an inaccurate, user made image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Camarasaurus: The feet are wrong. The front feet should be completely vertical columns, no sloping forward, and no fleshy pad on the back (the back is concave, horse shoe shaped). The hind feet should only have 3 claws. No kneecaps! Dino legs are nothing like humans ;) Neurap spinees should be higher, so either a ridge down the back or a much higher spine. Angle at the base of the neck is way too sharp, it can be elevated but more of a curve off the spine. Nostrils should be closer to the tip of the snout, about halfway between the tip and where they are now. Smaller eye ;)
Unaysaurus: Should be much more similar to Plateosaurus. Off the top of my head, it couldn't be quadrupedal, needs smaller eyes, the leg musculature is wrong and doesn't seem attached to the hip, too many claws on the hands, pronated hands.
Eotyrannus: Lower arms too long and skinny, middle finger too short. Same leg and eye issues as the others.
I have made illustrations of the Troodontid Saurornithoides. What do you think?
The femur pose is awkward, it would only extend straight down like that in the middle of a full run, which it's not really posing in. Normally the upper leg is nearly horizontal. The snout looks too wide--hard to tell from all the side-view drawings out there, but the theropod snouts are usually very, very narrow, almost flat, then flare out at the eye sockets. This is especially true of troodonts with their binocular vision... Check out a front-view here: [93] Overall the arms should be more like bird wings, and the hands covered in feathers. Probably needs a propatagium too. The tail is way too long compared to other troodontids.
Hm, it does look like your tail is much longer than the one in that Troodon mount, especially accounting for the foreshortening from the oblique angle you're using. The other material you used is good but I'd recommend finding skeletals showing the skull from different angles (top, front) especially if you're drawing it at an angle. Greg Paul has many such drawings in his books. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The feathered version of Avimimus ( see the unfeathered version in Feathered ( ? ) dinosaurs ). The feet are too small, but is something else wrong?
Are these illustrations good enough? I know the Spinosaurus horn are to small, and maybe the forelimbs to, but what aboout the others? can they be accepted att Wikipedia?
Well, the eyes on your drawings are consistently more than twice too large, you really need to change this if any images are to be usable. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my initial critique for these...
Gorgosaurus: The head looks too small compared to the body. At the moment, it looks like it's the same length as the arms. Kneecap, leg is too straight, hip muscles attach wrong.
Again, head way too small. Tyrannosaurus had gigantic heads compared to their body! The head also looks too much like Gorgosaurus. Gorgosaurus had a longer, more gracile snout, while Albertosaurus had a shorter, taller skull [94].
Diplodocus: Too many claws on the forefeet (should only have 1), too many on the back feet (should only have 3), forefeet too wide and stumpy (should be vertical cylinders), doesn't appear to have any neural spines? Needs a nice tall ridge down the back, or have the 'hump' of the back protrude far above the hips and shoulders. The back spikes should also be present on the sides of the back, not just down the middle. Eye is about 5 times too big unless this is a baby.
Spinosaurus: The skull is wrong. In Spinosaurus, the upper jaw it thinner than the lower. It also has a massive, circular protrusion on the tip of the bottom jaw and a narrow, downward-pointing protrusion that fits over it on the top jaw. It should also have a crest down the middle of the skull, and the jaws should be very thin when seen from above. Basically, if the skull looks anything different from this [95], it's wrong. Also the "spines" of the sail look way too thin, almost like Dimetrodon or something. The sail of Spino was nothing like Dimetrodon and was covered in muscle, not skin. More of a fleshy ridge than a 'sail" (but not a hump :) ). And it almost looks like the right eye is visible through the head or something...?
Avimimus: It had big eyes, but not that big :) It also needs feathers on the hands, stemming from digit 2 as in all other maniraptors. Watch those kneecaps...
Also, you say Diplodocus just had 1 claw on the front feet. I based it´s feet on these on the specimen at Natural History Museum in London, which have 3 claws on the front feet. The toes 4 and 5 on the front feet have rounded bones, similar to claws (they was likely covered with skin in life, but not in my illustration).
Conty: no Dinoguy2, I don't know if someone do that. Nevertheless, I had the idea that Frame shift may be challenged because of the possibility of 4 digits in Archaeornithomimus ( number 4 is not very impressive...). Frame shift suggest tetanurae had the digits II, III and IIII, but I think Archaeornithomimusmay can give evidence for the classic "lose finger - hypothesis" ( that tetanurae had digits I, II and III ). Did you read my referensces in the image text? I have many.
Hi Conty, Wikipedia is a place for reporting studies that have been published by scientists, not making our own studies. So the "lost finger hypothesis", which is your own idea, is not allowed in articles on Wiki. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding Archaeornithomimus, your own source refutes the idea that this is a 4th digit: "Also, there is no data on whether any specimen of Ornithomimosauria has a fourth (or even fifth) metacarpal. No coelurosaurian, or avetheropod, has, to my knowledge, a fourth (much less a fifth) metacarpal." Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conty: Oh dear, I don't saw that, sorry! But if that is true, how did the idea of 4 metacarpals in Ornithomimosaurs came to existence? But look at Gallimimus at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Gallimimus_bullatus.001_-_Natural_History_Museum_of_London.JPG. Is it or is it not a small snick in the metacarpal III on the right hand? And how about the Allosaurus with a IIII metacarpal? Or is all of my research a huge out of order? I hoped it would be award for "Fantastic Paleontological Theory Challenge"... but I want to say, the "lose finger hypothesis" is not my own: It came from the traditional idea that theropod dinosaurs tend to lose fingers (5 and 4 in Herrerasaurus), so coelurosaurs had 1, 2 and 3. It was this belive that helped Alan Feduccia to get so excited when he discovered that birds have the digits 2, 3 and 4. But now, the Frame shift hypothesis may save the idea that birds are descendants of the dinosaurs... Do you want I delete or update the diagram?
That looks like a simple lateral expansion of met I on Gallimimus, or maybe a slightly protruding carpal bone. Never heard of an Alloaurus wth 4 metacarpals! Are you thinking of the T. rex preserved with 3? No coelurosaurs of any kind had more than 3, I'm not sure where the info came from saying that Archaeornithomimus had one but it's certainly not in the osteology paper (just double checked). Doesn't exist. You should remove the bottom part as discussed below. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will fix the diagram if I get time to it. I found the Allosaurus with 4 metacarpals at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AllosaurusAMNH5753.jpg, and I did Not (!!!) based anything on the hand of "Peck rex" (MOR 980), I have studied tyrannosauridae and their fantastic forelimbs very much appart from everthing else about dinosaurs, and since I was a very little fellow, I know the difference between Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex. I have also wondered why Scott Hartman draw tetanurae's (like spinosaurids) with 4 fingers (see http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/gallery.htm), and english wikipedia suggest that Megalosaurus may had 4 fi ngers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalosaurus#Modern_reconstructions), while fossils of his close relatives like Torvosaurus had 3. Conty 08:53, 11 November 2009
I tried to update a new version of Unaysaurus. Do you like him?
That looks much better Conty, though maybe somebody who knows more about prosauropods can say more. Maybe you can ask HMallison. The eyes still look a little too big though. Most dinosaur eyes were very, very tiny compared to the size of the head! Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, from the skeletal I've seen, it's reconstructed almost exactly like Plateosaurus, so a Plateosaurus skull should be used as reference for the head. The eye is still way too large. I'd say the tail is raised way too high too, and the way the limbs connect to the body looks questionable. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes about the limbs--Conty, all of your reconstructions seem to have the leg muscles form a rounded top beneath the hip. In actuality, the muscles attach directly to the entire hip bone and come down around the femur in an inverted triangular shape. See the leg muscles on this T. rex: It's essentially the same for all dinosaurs. [96] The feet also don't look like they're firmly planted on the ground, almost like it's hovering with the toes lightly brushing the soil. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skulls of Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex.
During my study the last years, I have spent a lot of time with reserach of Tyrannosauridae and their common characteristics, like horns above the eyes, attachments for jaw muscles in the fenestrae, and the binocular vision, all common between several genera. I have many referenses in the text to the image, and I hope you will found it interesting. I have especially noted that the forwardfacing of the eyes can variate not ony between genra, but also between different specimens of the same genus ( see the Daspletosaurus and Tarbosaurus ), but i have never seen a Tyrannosaurus rex with eyes facing towards the sides as much as in the Tarbosaurus. What do you think?
"Look quite of"? What do you mean? I tou want to know what I based them on: have you seen the references in the image text? And the skulls themselves: i have seen so many Tyrannosaurid skulls in my days (many!), and made these after my mind, and partly based them on pictures of real specimens. You have to remind, that when it comes to the big Tyrannosaurids, the individual variation is huge. Conty, 21:20 12/11 2009.
Then you need to base them off specific specimens and say which specimen you used. What if some of the varied individuals get re-classified? We have an unusable chimera image. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making skulls up is original research, they have to be based exactly on something existing, otherwise they can't be used. Not even an expert would draw it from memory if it was going into a scientific paper. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me just time to fix it... Conty 08:32, 29 november 2009.
Made a body for the head I made previously, based it mostly on this skeletal[97], but over on the dinoforum I was informed that a long humerus is known, though it is not mentioned in the original description, so I made the arm a lot longer than on the skeletal. How does it look? [98]FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recent discovery that Archaeopteryx growth curve suggest it was a dinosaur, and not a bird, is illustrated in this diagram (based on the original). From Conty.
Sorry mate, it looks like you didn't follow the source you used. In the source, at 300 days the body mass is 200g. In yours, it's 150g. At 600 days the mass should be 800g, you have it at 600g. When you're dealing with raw data like this, it should look exactly the same as the published data. Yours shows it too slow. Also, the description is wrong--classification as 'bird' or 'dinosaur' has nothing to do with growth rates or anything other than classification. Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur by phylogeny and a bird by phylogeny. All birds are dinosaurs, something can't be a bird and not a dinosaur too. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Dinoguy2. I thougt I followed the diagram carefully and good... but about the classification: I have read many newsarticles about the new discovery, and they cried out things like "Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, not a bird!". Since they claim fast growth to be one of the foremost caractheristics for birds, it must be a dinosaur. As you claim that all birds are dinosaurs, You must know that some scientists don't think so (yes, I know very well how much evidence there is for the dinosaur - bird connection). But what i meaned with Archaeopteryx growth curve suggest it was a dinosaur, and not a bird is this: even if birds likely are dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx most have been a non-avian dinosaur, wsince the discovery now indicate that it was not a bird, right? Moreover, can we call Sapeornis and Jeholornis birds anymore, since we now know they to grew very slowly? They discovered that Confuciusornis grew fast, indicating evidence for an "avian dinosaur". Conty, 08:30 14 November 2009
Here are the graphs superimposed--I tried to line the numbers up as best I could but the scaling seems a bit off. [99] You can see they're not the same. Also yours starts at 100 days rather than 0 and ends at 1000 days rather than 900, data which was not in the study and so is false.
"I have read many newsarticles about the new discovery, and they cried out things like "Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, not a bird!""
Never trust news articles about dinosaurs... ever. Period. They're wrong about 80% of the time and simplify the issue so much to make it basically wrong 100% of the time. Original papers only.
"if birds likely are dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx most have been a non-avian dinosaur, wsince the discovery now indicate that it was not a bird, right?"
Wrong. The definition of Aves is "Archaeopteryx, Passer, their most recent common ancestor and all descendants. Archaeopteryx is an avian dinosaur by definition and, unless the definition changes, can never not be one no matter what discoveries are made, forever. Birds vs not bird has nothing to do with growth rate, it has to do with whether it's more or less advanced than Archaeoptetyx. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought theoriginal diagram was a bit difficult to read, so I added with lines, to make it more easy to see the growth curve and days. That was the reason I made my own version (but the incorrect curve was not intentional) Conty 08:31, 29 november 2009.
Conty is back! You had my word on that I should update this. Do tou like it? NOTE: the hypothesis with "losing fingers" is not mine, but it is an older theory, which has been challenged by Frame shift in the recent years. I hope I got it accurate enough...
Can you provide a cite for the lost finger hypothesis? My understanding is that nobody even thought there was a problem until in the 1990s Feduccia showed that birds have fingers 2 3 4. Before that, people assumed they were 1 2 or didn't think about it. Coelurosaur fingers were always thought to be 1 2 3, never a question mark. You seem to be trying to fill in a 'prior hypothesis' that didn't exist. The only alternate hypothesis to frame shift is either that birds are not dinosaurs, or bird fingers are in fact 1 2 3 after all. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Dinoguy2, but I can´t give a source... but if you think through logically: Feduccia´s discovery (that birds had the fingers II, III and IV) challenged the idea that birds was descendants of dinosaurs. And Feduccia said something like: "how could they [birds] be descended from something that had the fingers I, II and III? That is almost impossible". And when you look at the hand of Herrerasaurus for example (see diagram at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Different_theropod_hands.JPG) , it's easy to understand how we could think so. And in most descriptions of Tyrannosaurids, ther describe the forelimbs with "Metacarpal III reduced in size, with the manual digit lost", and sometimes, I think you can read things where they seems to suggest that theropods had I, II and III. You also said: The only alternate hypothesis to frame shift is either that birds are not dinosaurs, or bird fingers are in fact 1 2 3 after all. The snag is, as showed in the upper part of my new diagram, that birds may not are dinosaurs (I try to illustrate the dilemma just after Feduccia´s deiscovery). I also saw an older comparison of a wing and a human arm, where they suggested birds had the digit I, II and III fact. But then, Feduccia made his discovery. I have heard that he accused the paleontologists to ignore his discovery, but when Frame shift was discovered, it gave new hope to the wiew that birds are dinosaurs. Conty, 08:36, 15 November 2009
"I can´t give a source..."
Then it can't be here. There's nothing wrong with producing your own research but it belongs on a personal web site, not an encyclopedia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made this during the summer. Is it good enough (yes, i know he have to many toes and the leg muscles may are wrong...)?
Other than the toes, eye size, knee and hips, another thing is that, in evidence from articulated stegosaurs, it seems the tail spikes stuck out to the sides, not diagonally up as usually shown. The plates on the back also look to far apart (too much space in the middle). Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conty here. All these images was made some months ago, when I planned to write a book. But I stopped the project, and fixed some of the inaccurates (like knee caps and to many claws on the toes). Are they good enough for Wikipedia?
Several other issues: The ceratopsians skulls are far too small. Compare your Pentaceratops with this skeleton: [100] The Struthiomimus should almost certainly have simple protofeathers on at least some of its body. The abelisaurs arms are too long, especially Majungasaurus (though others should be based on this one anyway). The lower arm of Majunga is practically non-existent. The hand should come directly from the elbow. It did not have any visible fingers. Rugops could conceivable still have had fingers, but they should be very short little bumps with no claws, except the 4th "finger", which is more of a spike like Iguanodon. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Conty, the complete arms of Majungasaurus were recently found and they indeed have no fingers. Same for Aucasaurus, as you show. Those are the only abelisaurs with complete hands and none have fingers, so there's no reason to think the others re-evolved them. All those photos you posted of skeletons are from species where the complete arm is not known, and are probably now wrong, like early mounts showing T. rex with three fingers (before the two-fingered arms of relatives were found) or Apatosaurus with a brachiosaur-like head (before the skull of relatives were found). The fingered, clawed hands seen in these abelisaur reconstructions were the best guess at the time but are now probably wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thougth the forelimbs of Carnotaurus was complete? And as far as I know, Majungasaurus forelimb are only known from a humerus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majungasaurus#Description), what I know. Conty 08:17 18 November 2009
The forelimbs of Carnotaurus are fairly complete based on what we know now. Previously they were missing most of the fingers... which probably weren't ever there to begin with. But people previously assumed it had fingers and claws which were missing from the fossil. The hand of Majungasaurus has been discovered, which is where we learned all this, and was presented at SVP a few years ago. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the critique I have got from other users about my debate with the hands of Tetanurae theropods and birds, where I had a "lose finger-hypothesis" (see the original diagram at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Bird_and_dino_hand_difference_debate.JPG) which I couldn't give a source to. Now, I have made a new version, and have deleted the "losing finger-hypothesis". What do you think? Conty 12:26 23 November 2009
I don't feel the medium you use is adequate for skeletal drawings, the lines are very thick and uneven, and they never seem to match the actual bones. What do you use to draw with? FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I think I have got the bones right, and the look of the hands to. All my theropod "hands" are handpainted, based on the real. Conty 18:35 26 November 2009
Just to take one example, your Archaeopteryx hand is wrong on several levels. The length of the fingers in relation to each other is wrong, the bones are too thick, and the shapes just don't match. Look at this skeletal for cpmparison: [101]FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe the bones are to thick in Archaeopteryx, but I did as good as I could. The Basal Neotheropod is inspired by Coelophysis, and the tetanurae hand is a based on Allosaurus ( see http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/casts/allosaurus_hand1_large.jpg). The coelurosaur hand is based on the average look in hands typical for coelurosaurs. The bird hand is based on a skelton from a type of seabird I found during the summer Conty 14:14 27 November 2009
It would be better to base them all exactly on known hands, rather than inventing generalized ones. As Funk said, it's not just the bone thickness in Archaeopteryx, but relative length of the bones that's wrong as well. In skeletals, there's no room for error. Either they're right or they're wrong, with no room for even slight error. If it's too thick, it's factually wrong. If one bone is a little too short, the whole thing is wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Funkmonk had deleted my illustration of Altirhinus in the english article, so I tock away the knee cap. Can my Iguanodont be accepted to Wikipedia now? Conty.
You need to act on our plea for smaller eyes and fewer hand claws. Before any of your images can be used, these two things need to be done for your drawings in general. In this specific case, the eyes need to be many times smaller, and there should be no claws on the outer fingers. To give you an idea of eye size, look at this skeletal drawing of Maiasaura (closest relative I could find such a skeletal for): [102] The eye should fit within the sclerotic ring in the eye socket. As you can see, this is much much saller than the eye you have drawn. Should really be the size of the iris in your drawing, in fact. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Conty, Another problem with many of your dinosaur pictures is that they have the legs too straight. Most dinosaurs couldn't strighten their knees much beyond 120 degrees, just like birds and crocodiles. The only dinosaurs that could are sauropods and stegosaurs. See the skeletals here [103]. Notice how, (with the execption of Supersaurus), all of them have bent knees. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that almost all of those are running with knees stretched as far as they physically could go without snapping apart! In walking or standing, the knees would always be even more bent. In your Altirhinus, the leg is so straight to to get that pose in life all the ligaments attaching the upper and lower leg would snap. Think of pulling apart a turkey leg :) Also, I believe that hadrosaurs had all of their hand claws encased in a soft-tissue mitten or hoof, as here: [104] (though if that's the case pretty much all our current hadrosaur illustrations are wrong...), but they definitely did not have a claw on the outer finger. No dinosaur that ever lived had such a thing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To straight legs? I don't know if we can compare the legs of turkeys to dinosaurs. In birds, the femur is bended up against the chest and is unmoving, while dinosaurs moved it (this is one of the few arguments agaist the theory of dionsaurs to bird-evolution). I had even read articles about Tyrannosaurus for example, which says it didn't walk with bended legs as much as a bird. Evidently, my knowlgde about dinosaurs may not be so great... By the way, about the sclerotic ring: You says the eye would fit into the hole, do you then mean the hole eyeball, or just the part visible between the eyelids? Conty 14:23 27 November 2009
Yes, they did move the leg more than birds but not as much as humans. Look at the skeletals--like I said, that represents the maximum possible straightening. Even though it's bent, that's still way more extended than a bird can do--birds can't move their femurs beyond horizontal at all in most cases. When standing still, like yours seems to be, it would be more bent in a natural posture. And the entire eyeball fits inside the sclerotic ring hole, so the part visible through the eyelids would be much, much smaller even than that, unless it was bizarrely bug-eyed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to compete with "ArthurWeasley" and "Dinoguy2" about the right to have his own illustration on the article... (or something). But I think you will find something wrong with it. But I have been meticulous so the eyes not shall become to large, and to got the legs bended. If you think the strange pose of my Anchiornis, you should know I first wanted to make in a position it could have if it was going to land on a tree (I have rotated it a bit rightward). Conty 20:44, 28 november 2009.
A few issues. First, the femora are too straight. As we've said many times above, no dinosaur could extend the leg that straight. It's not just a matter of the knee being bent, but it needs to be bent at the hip as well (especially if landing on something, the femora would be totally horizontal with feet out front). Second, the fingers are much too short, and the head seems too small. Third, the feathers should go all the way to the tip of the snout, to the tip of the toes, and cover the pelvic area. There should be no skin visible anywhere on this dino other than the very tip of the nose! The feathers on the head and neck should be much longer, and the crest should be larger. Note that the feathers are especially long on the back of the neck and underside of the jaw--this would hide the neck and give it a "no-neck" profile like a pigeon. There should be no pennacous feathers on the humerus, but they should be present on the metatarsals (which are also much too short). The leg feathers should probably stick out laterally, not posterior, to the metatarsals, in a biplane configuration like Microraptor. The upper leg should be more wedge-shaped, rather than round in cross section with random flat feathers hanging off the back--the whole structure is more wing than leg and this would be visible in life. The wing feathers should get shorter distally, with three or four progressively shorter feathers on the distal edge of the wing, making it 'rounded' and unsuitable for flight. The teeth look too large and spaced too far apart, and the skull in general looks too robust. The eye size does look ok! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... what a flop! But at least I got the eyes right! I looked at the fossil when i made the head. The snout seemed to be short and rounded, but it was crushed? The head feathers didn't looked much lonnger than what I made them. But I know, the fingers is likely to short. The problem with no feathers on the feet was discovered by me to, just minutes after uploading... But are the metatarsals to short? Note that a bit of them are covered in feathers. Conty 08:25, 29 november 2009.
Ah ok, I missed the feather-covered part, it's ok in length including that. The skull is slightly rounded in profile but remember that the snouts of theropods, especially small ones, were virtually flat in front view. Since we're seeing yours from slightly below, the jaws should look much more narrow. As for he feather lengths, the photos aren't the best to go by in this case since the impressions get fainter t the tips--best to look at the skeletal restoration which illustrates feather length and coverage in a diagrammatic way. Although, in my opinion they misinterpreted the neck feathers--the length of the feathers just behind the crest and below the jaw should continue over the whole body as in Microraptor, the body feathers being hidden by the wings in the fossil. The way they have it, it has a freakishly fluffy head on a skinny body! :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Conty here! I have made a response to the critique I got for my older illustrations of Sinosauropteryx (see one of them at [HTBV 48500]). The color pattern is based on new research, se the text to the image for more information. Note that the legs are bended, the eyes are not supersized, and the head have feathers. Conty 20:18 3 december 2009
Regarding the featherless version, if Lingham-Soliar were correct (he's not), the 'feathers' would be a basilisk-like fin down the back and tail. On the feathered version, why do the feathers not cover more of the snout? Also the legs of both are still too straight, they need to be bent at the hip. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I based the feathercoat on the head by looking at birds and how their head are covered. I suppose a coat of head fetahers would be a hinder for the animal. By the way, how do you know Lingham-soliar are wrong? Is it that the collagen/protofeathers can be found at bird fossil to (see [AJV 60010]), or something else? The legs was not as straight as in the sketch... Conty 10:09 7 december 2009
Hi Conty, the feathers of birds stop at that point because they have a beak. Sinosauropteryx didn't have a beak, so there's no reason it's jaws would lack feathers. Some birds have less feathers on the head if they eat large animals and have to stick their heads into carcasses (storks, vultures, etc.). But, Sinosauropteryx ate lizards and insects, plus dinosaurs could groom their head feathers with their fore-claws, unlike modern birds which lack wing claws for grooming.
Lingham-soliar is likely wrong because other scientists have looked at these structures in detail and found that they do not look like the collagen present in ichthyosaurs, etc. Also, it is only feathered dinosaurs that have such a structure. If it's frayed skin favored by the taphonomy of the lakebed sediment, why don't we find "feathered" frogs, turtles, lizards, etc.? 99% of scientists believe he's wrong as well, in many papers.
But that's besides the point. My point is even if he is right, he believes the collagen doesn't come from skin per se, but from a fin running along its back, like this (but smaller),[106] which you haven't given it. Even if it had no feathers, it would have had a fin instead. So nobody, not even Lingham-soliar, would think that drawing is correct. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to made a more colorful illustration of Troodon formosus than of Frederik Spindler (His illustration is gallant, but at the same time a bit grey and unamusing). I guess you have been weart of my illustrations of "feathered dinosaur" without feathers, but as always, I make 2 versions. I hope you will not find as many inaccurates as usual (I know the left leg looks straight, but the femur is bended, like in the right leg of Tyrannosaurus rex "Sue" at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Tyrannosaurus_Sue.jpg, and the tibia/fibula is pointing almost right down. Can you find sonmething wrong? Conty 08:35, 9 December 2009
This looks better than some of your earlier drawings Conty, good job! A few issues--the wings should almost certainly be bigger and need to cover the fingers as well. There should be no scales on the pubis, and the feathers should go to the tip of the snout like in Anchiornis. Also, all troodontids seem to have Archaeopteryx-like tails, with wide feathers going almost all the way to the base of the tail. Of course, I probably don't have to tell you that the idea of a featherless troodon is totally ridiculous. There are two groups of people--the majority think it was a feathered dinosaur, the rest think it was a bird not related to dinosaurs at all (Lingam-solier, Martin, Feduccia, etc.). No scientist living today would say it had no feathers. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother to draw a featherless version? It's like drawing a featherless verson of Archaeopteryx. You might want to base the feathers on the troodontid Jinfengopteryx[107] or on Anchiornis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Christian Slater, we can't be sure whether all deinonychosaurians was feathered (but likely all were). Feathers in Troodon is not known, but based on it's relatives. My delirium in making feathered/unfeathered versions of dinosaurs began when i saw nomingia att [108], but this habit is obviously not good. I know the wings looks weird (especially the right one, because i med the feathers in the computer). The reason I don't draught feathers around the cloaca and under the tail is because i think they should get maculated by egestion (Although birds have feathers around the opening). I did already knew that vultures head are bare, and the reason I make the dinosaurs heads pretty feathersless is the same: they may should be a hinder. Also, I guess Troodon should be more "thinly dressed" than Anchiornis (the larger the dinosaur, the less the feathercoat?), also a reason the head is pretty featherless. By the way, I plan to soon limn an illustration of Troodon's cousin Sinusonasus[109], and it will be made with feathers, based on Anchiornis and Jinfengopteryx. Conty 20:35, 9 December 2009
"the larger the dinosaur, the less the feathercoat?" No way! Look at ostirches, emus, etc. vs sparrows, hummingbirds. Same general feather coat density. If the concern is that it would get carrion stuck in head feathers from scavenging (which is why vultures lack them), why not a totally bald head and neck like vultures? There's no evidence from any animal alive or dead that shows no feathers around the cloaca, and in fact given the way feathers form in the embryo it might be impossible. You say you based the feathers on relatives, but like I said they don't look like troodontids, actually this is feathered like a dromaeosaur! And why is Christian Slater giving advice about dinosaurs? ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was the narrator of the Dinosaur Planet (series) documentary, so well... If you haven't seen it, check it out, it has the most extensively feathered theropods I've seen in such a doc, with wings on the Velociraptor and everything. Seems like you can watch it all here: [110]FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Still, the statements "we can't be sure whether all deinonychosaurians were feathered" and "we can't be sure whether all terror birds were feathered" are equally true, and frankly, equally silly. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was Scott Sampson I meaned, not Christian Slater, sorry! I have watched the hole Dinosaur plabet series, it's beutaiouful animation from Meteor studios. Sampson talks about feathered dinosaur reconstruction at http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/dinosaur-planet-reconstruction.html, and about 1:20, he says that we can't bee shore whether all deinonychosaurs had feathers. I know you think I'm an idiotic, but all this about feathered dinosaurs has become so exaggerated. If it was beyond all doubt that all maniraptorans was feathered, shouldn't it be better if Sampson said "We cant be 100 % sure, but it's almost certain that Pyroraptor had feathers". I have read very much material from Feduccia, and he is, as we know, very skeptic about "dinofuss". But I will make my Sinusonasus with feathers, be sure! Conty 10:15 10 december 2009
Here's Sampson's blog,[111] why not ask him what he really thinks? Plenty of other paleontologists will tell you that "we're almost certain" they had feathers. Like I said, I don't know how old the stuff by Feduccia is, but today, he believes maniraptorans are not dinosaurs at all and never were. He's skeptical about dinofuzz, but maniraptors clearly have true feathers. He believes these are birds, not dinosaurs. To repeat: Feduccia thinks deinonychosaurs are true birds with feathers. No scientists living today think they had scales except on the feet. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. If you don't believe me fine, but then realize no image you make based on the idea that I'm lying to you will ever be accepted for an encyclopedia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conty:I dont think you lie. You have persuaded me to not make any more "feathers/no feathers". I will send a Sinusonasus and a skeletal diagram of Unenlagia, but after that, I think it's time to take a break from dino-drawing. Conty 19:11 10 december 2009
Sinusonasus reconstruction and skeletal diagram of Unenlagia
Here is the Sinusonasus illustration I have talked about. It's based on a fossil you can see here: http://site.sinodino.com/Museum/images/Sinusonasus.JPG. Notice the long tail and the shape of the snout. I hope you will find it accurate. The Unenlagia skeletal diagram is not much to talk about, but it's the purpose which is important. Since Dinoguy2 criticized me for my old restoration of Protarchaeopteryx, i decided to make a new. One thing with the old one was the wing feathers, which looked like feather-dusters (that was because i thought that "Symmetrical feathers" meaned like those of ostriches, but now I got it right... Dinoguy2 also said that we don't know whether Protarchaeopteryx had secondary feathers, so this restoration lacks such appendages. What do you think? Conty 21:20, 11 december 2009
Hi Conty, the new Protarchaeopteryx looks very good! A few minor things about it: The nostrils should be closer to the tip of the snout, and the dewclaws should be further down the foot, not close to the ankle. Also, the lower arms should be a bit thicker, since the ulna was more bowed. Other than that it look good. The Sinusonasus looks good overall but something is weird about the head, it almost looks slightly dick-billed or flattened laterally. I think it might be because the mouth is open, but open the same width from front to back, as if the jaw is unhinged or something. The Unenlagia skel looks good, except the dorsal neural spine should be angled more forward, and the teeth look way too large. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protarchaeopteryx, updated version. Thanks for that comment Dinoguy2! I have now updated the image and corrected the smaller inaccurates. Conty 20:05, 15 december 2009
Majungatholus/Majungasaurus, with shorter fingers than previously.
After Dinogu2 discussed with me about the abelisaurids forelimbs, I decided to change the fingers, and add a shadow. Hopefully, the illustration is better now. Conty 22:40, 17 december 2009.
Yeah, the skull is still too long and narrow and eyes still 5 times too big. But the fingers are still too long! The left hand even looks pronated. The 4th "finger" should be nothing but a small spike, like Iguanodon. The other "fingers" were so stubby they probably were not external. Really, this animal should have no fingers at all. Also, no lower arms--the hands should appear to protrude directly from the elbow. The radius and ulna are so reduced they are basically glorified wrist bones in this species. The chest is also not deep enough. As you can see here[112], if the lower arm is extended straight downward, the humerus would only barely pass the bottom of the scapulocoracoid. So the arms could not reach down past the belly. The upper arms are probably also too long.
As a side note, it would not surprise me to find out the entirety of carnotaurine arms were completely inside the body and not externally visible at all. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a new Caudipteryx. I am not so contented with It, but what do you others think? Conty 21:55, 18 december 2009.
The shape of the skull looks wrong (too long and thing, it should be tall and round with a 'pinched' snout), but other than that I think the anatomy is ok. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merry chrismas and happy new year all dinosaurillustrators and fans! Let's hope 2010 will be filled with new fanytastic discoveries about these reptiles, and new accurate illustrations (have someone tried to reconstruct the new Tawa hallae?)! Conty 22:04, 21 december 2009.
Looks good to me, though the leg muscles look a bit too small. They should attach more strongly to the hips and this will make them appear more massive. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice! As for anatomical issues, take a look at the last comments here[115], the arms appear to have "crocodile shoulder syndrome". I would be inclined to say the thighs should be thicker, but as a prosauropod it would have a very short pelvis though. The eye should be a lot smaller, take a look at the sclerotic ring of this Sellosaurus/Plateosaurus skull:[116] In spite og the huge orbit, it should of course be able to fit within the scletoric ring, and I've just noticed I have to go back and fix this on many of my earlier restorations. On the skeletal, the fingers also seem a lot thicker (look at the bone in the second finger, for example, it's enormous), and there should be just a bit more of a pad underneath the nearest toe of the left leg. I've outlined what I mean exactly here:[117] . FunkMonk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this good[118]? So you're saying that in all dinosaurs, the muscles that attach the humerus to the coracoid (I'm not sure what they're called) should be barely visible? I've noticed that another restoration has already been put in the article. Am I right in assuming that that one is completely accurate given that it was made by Matthew Bonnan? It sort of seems like the restoration has the "crocodile shoulder syndrome" you described, although that's probably because there isn't much detail in the illustration. Smokeybjb (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, seems like my drawing must have been unclear then, what I've tried to outline was supposed to be the deltoid muscle. So what I meant was, instead of the croc shoulder, it should be more mammal like, not muscleless (which would look closer to a croc shoulder anyway)! As for the existing image it's tiny, but it doesn't seem like it a croc shoulder. Also, seems like Arthur Weasly uploaded a version of Aardonyx (right, which needs review too), but there should be room for all. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense. How's this[119]? I didn't really understand what you meant at first; after all, there isn't much of a crease in croc shoulders unless the arms are stretched out in front of the animal or if the jaw muscles overlap them. The existing image of Aardonyx is small, but there's a better version here. I don't know why it isn't in the article. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hah, sorry for the confusion, but looks good now. Added the larger version of the size comparison image. I see the author made the front end of the thigh more vertical, I wanted to propose that you did that too before seeing it, but was afraid it would make the thigh look too thick. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might have become demotivated to finish this one, Smokey, since there are now already two restorations in the article, but after watching this video[120], I thought that you might want to change your drawing so that it shows a quadrupedal stance? That would show the different modes of locomotion, and make the image unique and very helpful, in spite of there being other restorations. I'm thinking of doing more behaviour related restorations in the future myself, it keeps drawings from being redundant, for example, when there are more than one in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A nice find, this video, although I must say that locking pro- and supination in the elbow is NOT per se an indication of use of the hand in locomotion (sorry, Matt!). Plateosaurus locks it, and IIRC there was this paper by a guy called Matthew Bonnan (and Phil Senter) saying P. was a biped, period. I'd like to see and play with(!) casts of A. before I believe it was facultatively quadrupedal. The distal ends of the ulna and radius certainly suggest that, as far as I can tell from the paper!HMallison (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still planning on finishing the illustration. It's quite a large image, so it's taking awhile. Also, since there are already images in the article, I haven't devoted much time and effort into getting it done (which I probably should be doing!). The paper does clearly say that Aardonyx was habitually bipedal with a limited ability to pronate the manus, but I'll revise the restoration to show the animal in a quadrupedal stance, just to make it a bit different. I'm also making a background to depict the paleoenvironment. Perhaps it can be feeding on something. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pronation /= quadrupedality, and quadrupeadilty /= pronation! It is well possible that Aardonyx could use the only semi-pronated hands for locomotion! I was critizising the video, not the paper :) So just draw the animal with non-pronated hands ;)HMallison (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
Microraptor.
Megalosaurus bucklandii.
Pelecanimimus ( the snout can be a bit to short ).
Rugops.
Raptorex.
Pentaceratops.
Avaceratops.
Monoclonius.
![This image of Unaysaurus has been updated. See the older version (once presented here), go to [4000].](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/X_mark.svg/105px-X_mark.svg.png)
This image of Unaysaurus has been updated. See the older version (once presented here), go to [4000].
Eotyrannus.
Camarasaurus.
Albertosaurus.
The feathered version of Avimimus ( see the unfeathered version in Feathered ( ? ) dinosaurs ). The feet are too small, but is something else wrong?
.JPG)
Struthiomimus.
Zuniceratops.
Pentaceratops.
.JPG)
.JPG)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lufengosaurus_sketch2.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jinfengopteryx_elegans_2.JPG){kind=link}
![[5]](http://dinonews.net/images/dinos/jinfengopteryx.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/images/sinovenator.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://img395.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan0076ok1.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb8/ddk_inferno/?action=view¤t=JaimeHeaddenShuvuuia.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8849/shuvuuiaef9.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5597/sgafaddca2.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5641/fdfl.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2993/spinosaurusdinomaniacsc2.gif){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spinosaurus_skeleton.svg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/4096/scan0078dt3.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/spl/pop_ups/07/ciencia_enl_1174494866/img/1.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3516/orycwc6.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5889/scan0080du1.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://oficina.cienciaviva.pt/~pw011/jazidas/VilleSinkkonenZupaysaurus%5B1%5D.coppy.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6550/scan0005za.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dilophosaurus_wetherilli.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6149/zupaycopy.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/204/zupaycofpy.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9314/scan0079zc1.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](http://www.kheper.net/evolution/dinosauria/Elaphrosaurus_bambergi.gif){kind=link}
![[31]](http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7664/scan0073av3.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8308/uglepk9.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](http://prehistoricsillustrated.com/images_jtc/moonlight_hunt_microraptor.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb186/Steveoc_86/Beipiaosaurus_feathers.jpg){kind=link}
![[38]](http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/NAN2329.jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/576/patagosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/576/patagosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/576/patagosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[47]](http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4633/patagosaurusq.jpg){kind=link}
![[48]](http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/576/patagosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[49]](http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/576/patagosaurus.jpg){kind=link}
![[55]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albertosaurus_sarcophagus_copia.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5092/australovenator.jpg){kind=link}
![[58]](http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/Neovenator%20skull%2030-9-2007.jpg){kind=link}
![[60]](http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5092/australovenator.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3277/scan0044fg2.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8620/scan0047no2.jpg){kind=link}
![[64]](http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7648/polacopy.jpg){kind=link}
![[65]](http://www.dinowight.izfree.com/polacanthus-skel.jpg){kind=link}
![[66]](http://www.raul-martin.net/raulmartin/dos/polacanthus.jpg){kind=link}
![[68]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/Art/Paleoart/anchiornis.png){kind=link}
![[69]](http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9713/71971392.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](http://oficina.cienciaviva.pt/~pw011/jazidas/dromaeosauroides.bornholmenis.2003.coppy.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1208/51796332.jpg){kind=link}
![[72]](http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/8619/19995810.jpg){kind=link}
![[74]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Deinonychus_NT.jpg){kind=link}
![[75]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/microraptor_bones.png){kind=link}
![[76]](http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/2825/fff1copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[77]](http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5887/fruitadens.jpg){kind=link}
![[79]](http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-10/49984691.jpg){kind=link}
![[80]](http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/ornithischia/heteroskull2.jpg){kind=link}
![[81]](http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/751/fruitadenswithfilaments.jpg){kind=link}
![[82]](http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6518/deinonychusreconstructi.jpg){kind=link}
![[83]](http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5825/13608204.jpg){kind=link}
![[84]](http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4030/ozbertpelvismusculature.jpg){kind=link}
![[85]](http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/751/fruitadenswithfilaments.jpg){kind=link}
![[86]](http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/751/fruitadenswithfilaments.jpg){kind=link}
![[87]](http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/751/fruitadenswithfilaments.jpg){kind=link}
![[88]](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/publications/feathers-flyway-food/images/figure3.jpg){kind=link}
![[89]](http://www.naturegrid.org.uk/biodiversity/birds/graphics/swallow1.jpg){kind=link}
![[90]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Microraptor_mmartyniuk.png){kind=link}
![[91]](http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/upload/2007/04/VilleSinkkonenPelecanimimus.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[93]](http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/dinosaur-images-118-resize.jpg){kind=link}
![[94]](http://www.moeh.org/main/images/press_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[95]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spinosaurus_skull_steveoc.jpg){kind=link}
![[97]](http://dinonews.net/wiki/images/b/b3/Appalachiosaurus.gif){kind=link}
![[98]](http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/5691/app2copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[99]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/archiegraphcomp.png){kind=link}
![[100]](http://sill-www.army.mil/Pao/Photos/030626/images/Pentaceratops.jpg){kind=link}
![[101]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeo-deinony_hands.svg){kind=link}
![[102]](http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs13/i/2007/076/e/c/Good_Mother_Reptile_by_shartman.jpg){kind=link}
![[104]](http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/184/dinofeet.jpg){kind=link}
![[105]](http://www.azhdarcho.com/sino-leg.jpg){kind=link}
![[106]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Common_basilisk_in_Costa_Rica.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[109]](http://site.sinodino.com/Museum/images/Sinusonasus.JPG){kind=link}
![[112]](http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/Majungasaurus_newspaper_16-6-2009.jpg){kind=link}
![[113]](http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/9366/aardonyx.png){kind=link}
![[114]](http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9366/aardonyx.png){kind=link}
![[116]](http://www3.sympatico.ca/dinoguy/plateoskull.jpg){kind=link}
![[117]](http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4513/81704160.jpg){kind=link}
![[118]](http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4173/aardonyx2.jpg){kind=link}
![[119]](http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3189/aardonyx4.png){kind=link}
